Obviously there is 'some difference.' These cases are never completely on point and are all a bit unique in some way. I never claimed otherwise. But it pretty clearly illustrates that even some of the Framers themselves thought that requiring private citizens to purchase health insurance was most certainly constitutional.

If you are a government employee, then the government as your employer can have requirements to keep your employment.

They weren't government employees, though. They were privately employed.

But the act does not say buy this or your taxes will be higher it says buy this or pay a penalty. You say it is valid under the Commerce Clause and yet your arguments deal only with the Congresses Tax and Spending powers and how the Court should rewrite the bill to make it constitional.

If the act is valid under the commerce clause then there is no limiting principle as what the government can force individuals to buy. It wwill be a dark day if the Supreme Court does not strike this down.

Much the same as private employees paying medicare tax now. Which has little if nothing to do with the constitional arguemnts concerning Obamacare.

Yeah....topping out at 80-100k is too low for the work/opportunity cost of med school even if it was free. Starting at that range and topping out near 200k makes more sense.

Of course there is a limiting principle: you can only be forced to buy things if your non-purchase has a considerable impact on interstate commerce. Since A) you are covered by emergency medical services everywhere you go in the US regardless of your ability to pay and B) your lack of insurance drives up costs for others, the insurance mandate fits well within this limit.

Is there any other good or service that fits both A & B?

(Please don't say broccoli.)

I was responding to a guy who claimed that healthcare was a "fundamental human right", presumably endorsing a single payer system. In any case my point wasn't about rationing (although it could be), it was that healthcare, as a tradeable commodity, does not need any "right" to it. Anyone can purchase this "right", it's only constrained by money. If you're concerned that poor people can't afford it, simple transfer payments that could (but do not have to) cover insurance would allow them to if they so chose. If they choose not to, I do not see why we should feel obligated to help them if they get sick... unless you're a paternalist (which I suspect many UHC advocates are).

Dont med schools get something ridiculous like 10 good applicants for every 1 place they have?

Seems to me doctors are paid far too much if so.

Still waiting for a response about the kids, feel free to respond at any time.

And this is true

I Won't argue that the Court could say Health Care is so unique we are going to make it the only thing congress can require you to purchase. Which would be more judicial activism then defining the Commerce clause under the constitution.

But all non-purchases have an impact on interstate commerce.

We would not have to bail out the Auto industry if everyone was required to buy a car every year. That the Cost of a Chevy Volt would go down if they sold more then a couple thousand a year. Everyone pollutes and there is a cost associated with pollution. Let's require everyone to buy a Volt.

Or require everyone to buy Solar panels from Solyndra.....

Go out and help them, man. No one is stopping you.

Boom. Head shot.

Lol, it's only considered a "Head Shot" by people that already agree with him. The rest of us just think its silly.

If government can force a unique free individual to purchase health insurance what else can they force a unique individual to purchase? Broccoli? A Chevy Cruze? A house?

You must agree, that the following is consitutional:
Every American, age 18 and older must have the following automobile registered in their name, A Ford, GM or Chrysler model year 2007 or newer or face a fine equal to 5% adjusted gross income.

Tell me, that you think the above is constitutional.

So...maybe this has been addressed but I figured I'd bring it up anyways as I did not see it in the last 100 posts. One of the problems I see with the bill is that the fine for businesses not providing coverage to their employees is less than the cost of the companies insuring their employees in many situations. So the businesses might eat the fine, give a stipend to employees, the employees go to the exchanges, which are subsidized, and the cost to the tax payer goes through the roof. I'm not highly educated on this issues so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

If it helps the poor, minorities, or the children, then it is almost certainly constitutional.

Car insurance for example. If you have children it forces you to buy all sorts of crazy ****: food, clothes, car seats, etc. Building codes force you to buy certain things for your house.

This isn't anything new.

Were you forced to buy a car? Forced to have children? Forced to buy a house?

There is no federal law requiring car insurance. If you don't know, plenary power is granted to the states; the federal government has enumerated powers.

I'm forced to buy military protection, roads, and food inspectors.

If a direct tax was imposed to pay for Obamacare (or UHC) then yes, it would be constitutional. You are referencing direct taxes.

The health care debate is just so idiotic on both sides.

Take that hypothetical 30 year old man that Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul about. I mean the one who chose not to buy health insurance and got sick. Should we just let him die? Lets imagine this guy actually has money to not buy health insurance with. He then pays income tax. 25% of the federal budget is medicare and Medicaid. He’s dumping a ton of money into universal health care we just have a special system that greatly values the old and doesn’t care about the young.

But you hear no complaints about Medicare you only hear complaints about the individual mandate. God forbid you should be forced to buy something for yourself. Its only fair if you’re forced to buy something for others.

And the left acts like this bill is some kind of victory for them. Really this is what you wanted? Rather than extending universal care to all people we not have a system where the government provides universal care for the old unprofitable customers. Young customers who are profitable for the insurance companies are now forced to buy insurance from them in addition to providing universal care to others. Really sticking it to the corporations aren’t you lefties.

I mean Medicare sounds good in principle. Sure the old need it but when you step back its insane. If a 55 year old needs care isnt that just as tragic as if a 65 year old needs care? Imagine if you were to describe a village that apportioned care like this to an outsider. It basically ascribes a lot more value to the old as opposed to the young. Not everyone even reaches that age. Imagine if you're born with a disease that shortens your life.