Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 51
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    17

    Default Can You Sue the Government for Requiring Health Insurance

    My question involves civil rights in the State of: U.S. in general.

    What would prohibit a suit against the government itself for forcing Healthcare costs on private citizens?

    We could look at automobile insurance, for example, and say "Well, the government enforces insurance for that, doesn't it?" The problem with that, is we would also have to have the government forcing people...to drive. To make the parallel equal. Right?

    I had a policy that I was paying for out of my own pocket, and when the new law went into effect my insurance was just under doubling my premium for a lesser policy, which I hate to admit angered me based on principle. I am not interested in becoming reliant on the government for a healthcare policy, but I cannot for the life of me understand how the government can force me to buy a policy, or penalize me if I don't.

    I am sure this may have been brought up before, but being new here, I think it better to get responses from people who have been through that discussion and perhaps can answer it more directly based on those conversations.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    16,093

    Default Re: Governmental Strongarming

    Quote Quoting S.T. Ranger
    View Post
    My question involves civil rights in the State of: U.S. in general.

    What would prohibit a suit against the government itself for forcing Healthcare costs on private citizens?

    We could look at automobile insurance, for example, and say "Well, the government enforces insurance for that, doesn't it?" The problem with that, is we would also have to have the government forcing people...to drive. To make the parallel equal. Right?

    I had a policy that I was paying for out of my own pocket, and when the new law went into effect my insurance was just under doubling my premium for a lesser policy, which I hate to admit angered me based on principle. I am not interested in becoming reliant on the government for a healthcare policy, but I cannot for the life of me understand how the government can force me to buy a policy, or penalize me if I don't.

    I am sure this may have been brought up before, but being new here, I think it better to get responses from people who have been through that discussion and perhaps can answer it more directly based on those conversations.
    The US Supreme Court already ruled on the issue...we may none of us like it, but unless the congress undoes it, its a done deal.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: Governmental Strongarming

    Quote Quoting llworking
    View Post
    The US Supreme Court already ruled on the issue...we may none of us like it, but unless the congress undoes it, its a done deal.
    But aren't laws sometimes overturned due to suits brought? I agree that for now it is a done deal, lol, and when it is the government in view, we're pretty much paddling upstream without a paddle, but, the question could be changed to...isn't this over-reaching what our government should be able to make law?

    What's next? They will tell me where I am to buy my groceries?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,846

    Default Re: Governmental Strongarming

    Quote Quoting S.T. Ranger
    View Post
    I am not interested in becoming reliant on the government for a healthcare policy, but I cannot for the life of me understand how the government can force me to buy a policy, or penalize me if I don't.
    The government does not force you to get insurance. Nor could the government impose a requirement that you buy insurance and, for example, impose a criminal penalty for failing to buy that insurance. The Supreme Court made that clear in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012), which I’ll refer to as the NFIB case. The Affordable Care Act (ACA, also known as Obamacare), however, does not say anywhere that citizens must buy insurance. All it does is say that persons who are not covered or do not have their dependents covered by a qualifying healthcare plan must pay a tax (what the ACA refers to as a penalty) on persons who are not covered (or whose dependents are not covered) in any month by a qualifying healthcare plan and who don’t meet one of the exceptions to the requirement. The Supreme Court held in the NFIB case that while Congress could not directly require citizens to buy insurance, imposing a tax on citizens who are not covered by a qualifying healthcare plan is a valid exercise of the Congress’ power to tax under Article I, ß 8 of the U.S. Constitution. While that may not seem like much of a difference, the key difference here is that you don’t have to buy the insurance. You aren’t forced to do it. There is a tax consequence for not having the health insurance, but that’s a choice you get to make. If you don’t want the insurance and would rather pay the tax, you can do that. That’s no different than any of the many other tax decisions that people must make. That particular tax provision is unpopular, but so are some other tax provisions, too. Though unpopular, it is constitutional and will remain until Congress repeals it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    16,093

    Default Re: Governmental Strongarming

    Quote Quoting S.T. Ranger
    View Post
    But aren't laws sometimes overturned due to suits brought? I agree that for now it is a done deal, lol, and when it is the government in view, we're pretty much paddling upstream without a paddle, but, the question could be changed to...isn't this over-reaching what our government should be able to make law?

    What's next? They will tell me where I am to buy my groceries?
    In addition to the other response, I will also add that there WAS a suit filed, and it made its way to the USSC, and was ruled on by the USSC. No more suits can be brought, because the highest court in the land has already ruled on the issue.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: Governmental Strongarming

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post

    The government does not force you to get insurance.
    We have a difference of opinion on that.


    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Nor could the government impose a requirement that you buy insurance and, for example, impose a criminal penalty for failing to buy that insurance. The Supreme Court made that clear in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012), which Iíll refer to as the NFIB case. The Affordable Care Act (ACA, also known as Obamacare), however, does not say anywhere that citizens must buy insurance. All it does is say that persons who are not covered or do not have their dependents covered by a qualifying healthcare plan must pay a tax (what the ACA refers to as a penalty) on persons who are not covered (or whose dependents are not covered) in any month by a qualifying healthcare plan and who donít meet one of the exceptions to the requirement.
    Any time one person (or agency) gives an ultimatum to another...the matter of "imposition" takes on a little more complexity. I do not, as an American citizen, any longer have the right to decide whether I do or do not have insurance. The ultimatum is "Get insurance or we will take your money under a guise of law."


    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    The Supreme Court held in the NFIB case that while Congress could not directly require citizens to buy insurance, imposing a tax on citizens who are not covered by a qualifying healthcare plan is a valid exercise of the Congressí power to tax under Article I, ß 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
    I question this as a valid exercise of Congress' power, hence the question. I do see it as strong-arming because the threat of monetary penalty is the only other option here.

    And again I ask, what's next? This sets a dangerous precedent...in my opinion.


    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    While that may not seem like much of a difference, the key difference here is that you donít have to buy the insurance.
    No, I can pay their fines. And from what I have heard, those fines increase every year that I "freely decide" not to get insurance. Maybe you could debunk that notion?


    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    You arenít forced to do it.
    Saying they "aren't forcing you to get insurance" doesn't change the fact that only two options, by law, are available.

    And what is interesting is that when this law went into effect, my insurance company made it clear the law would not allow them to offer the policy I had before, so we see the law dictating the product offered by private companies (if that term is acceptable for an insurance company).


    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    There is a tax consequence for not having the health insurance, but thatís a choice you get to make.
    Could you give a parallel to something else that is similar?

    What other tax consequences are there for not buying a particular product?


    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    If you donít want the insurance and would rather pay the tax, you can do that.
    And as an American citizen, if I don't want to do either...?

    Now tell me again about my choices?

    I use to have that right. I went for about 7 years without any kind of health insurance at all, and was finally able to afford a policy which was actually a good policy. When the law went into effect they couldn't offer it anymore. The policy they could replace it was just under double the policy, ahich took it out of what I felt I was able to afford.


    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Thatís no different than any of the many other tax decisions that people must make.

    That particular tax provision is unpopular, but so are some other tax provisions, too.
    Again, give me a parallel. What else does the government legally require of me where I do not have a choice.


    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Though unpopular, it is constitutional and will remain until Congress repeals it.

    Because it is law does not equate to "It is Constitutional."

    Out of curiosity, after receiving a letter from the insurance company I had concerning signing up for a policy, I called and the quote for the least expensive policy was half again as expensive as the one I had. Please do not argue "Things go up in cost," that is not the issue. What is in view is the Government making it law that allows them to penalize people because they decide they cannot afford insurance, and refuse to become reliant on Government assistance.

    As far as I am concerned this law was enacted to extort money from others to pay for the healthcare of people that do not mind Government assistance. That is the only way a policy can, in one day, increase in cost with no other factors involved but that law itself.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Quoting llworking
    View Post
    In addition to the other response, I will also add that there WAS a suit filed, and it made its way to the USSC, and was ruled on by the USSC. No more suits can be brought, because the highest court in the land has already ruled on the issue.
    That seems a little premature, lol.

    I wonder how a case concerning the penalty for not getting insurance would go?

    As far as the law itself goes, from what I understand there are still pending suits addressing the law itself, and it is just my hope that it will be revealed as unlawful action by the government, and that it will be thrown on the garbage heap where it belongs. When the government can decide to force people to buy any type of product and get away with it, and convince the public that this is okay, I have to wonder where that will lead.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: Governmental Strongarming

    If you don't want to purchase health insurance despite the mandate, you pay a modest tax. That truly is the end of the story.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Governmental Strongarming

    Quote Quoting S.T. Ranger
    View Post
    But aren't laws sometimes overturned due to suits brought? I agree that for now it is a done deal, lol, and when it is the government in view, we're pretty much paddling upstream without a paddle, but, the question could be changed to...isn't this over-reaching what our government should be able to make law?

    What's next? They will tell me where I am to buy my groceries?
    there were several suits with one reaching the Supreme Court of the US. It has been litigated and the ruling is final. Unless somebody comes up with a different cause of action and initiates a (very expensive) suit, we have the healthcare act as it is in its present form.

    - - - Updated - - -

    this is from http://forextv.com/politics/obamacare-penalty-fees-who-pays-and-how-much-fact-sheet/

    I have not checked the accuracy of the statement





    *The [penalty]fee in 2014 is 1% of your yearly income [sic]of $95 per person for the year, whichever is higher. the fee increases every year. In 2016 it is 2.5% of income [sic]of $695 per person, whichever is higher.
    In 2014 the payment for uninsured children is$47.50 per child. The most a family would have to pay in 2014 is $285. You make the payment when you file your 2014 taxes, which are due in April 2015.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,846

    Default Re: Governmental Strongarming

    Quote Quoting S.T. Ranger
    View Post
    I question this as a valid exercise of Congress' power, hence the question. I do see it as strong-arming because the threat of monetary penalty is the only other option here.
    The Supreme Court has settled the matter. It has said it is a valid exercise of Congress’ power. You may not agree with that, but like it or not the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional. Since the court has spoken on that, there is no challenge you can bring now on that particular issue that would be successful. The issue has been decided. We don't endlessly litigate the same issue over and over.

    Quote Quoting S.T. Ranger
    View Post
    No, I can pay their fines. And from what I have heard, those fines increase every year that I "freely decide" not to get insurance. Maybe you could debunk that notion?
    The penalty is phased in over a couple of years. When the full penalty takes effect, it will effectively be the same amount as the premiums charged for the lowest level (i.e. bronze level) health insurance policy.

    If you want to get rid of this penalty, urge Congress to repeal it. Repealing the law the only way it will go away.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere near Canada
    Posts
    35,894

    Default Re: Governmental Strongarming

    You want to drive your car? You better make sure you have a license to do so.

    Want to go hunting out of season? Nope, not happening...and we'll fine you if it does happen.

    Want to get completely smashed in that bar down the street? You better be older than the minimum age.

    I realize this is simplifying things to a horrendous degree, but there are few things the government doesn't heavily regulate.

    (Or are we focusing on one issue while ignoring the rest?)
    An intelligent hell would be better than a stupid paradise - Victor Hugo

    Do not microwave grapes

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Health Insurance: Health Care Expenses With Primary and Secondary Health Insurance
    By screa34 in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-03-2014, 10:31 AM
  2. Modification of Support: Judge Orders Government Subsidized Insurance for Multimillionaire's Child
    By yadontsay in forum Child Custody, Support and Visitation
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-25-2012, 09:40 AM
  3. Health Insurance: Requiring Spouse to Use Employer's Insurance
    By jbayer in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-04-2011, 10:59 AM
  4. Health Insurance: Can a Health Insurance Require You to Have Comp Insurance
    By fustrated 4444 in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-25-2011, 07:28 AM
  5. Job Benefits: Health Insurance
    By bellabimba in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-29-2006, 12:32 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources