The Federal mandate, despite the Supreme Court’s tortured reading turning it into a tax, blatantly violates the U.S. Constitution.
However a state mandate, despite being very bad policy, does not violate the U.S. Constitution. Our federal constitution is silent on health care, which makes it a state matter.
A state legislature, unless constrained by that state’s own constitution, can impose whatever degree of socialized medicine it wants, until voted out of office. This includes mandating people purchase health insurance.
States are the laboratories of democracy.
Its not Washington’s business to tell them what rules to set.
I personally think the individual mandate is a bad idea but a state should have the freedom to adopt it if wants.
Whether people living in those states like being forced to buy a health insurance policy is something for them to take up with their own lawmakers.
“This includes mandating people purchase health insurance.”
A government that starts ordering people to buy things doesn’t end well.
Exactly ... well said.
The individual States were to be the (you might say) petri dishes for liberty. If people did not like what their state was doing, they could leave for another state if they could not bring about change in their current state.
Akin to CA’s total disregard for it’s citizen’s Second Amendment rights, they consistently pass laws that are the antithesis of the liberty guaranteed by the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Generally, many of CA’s anti-gun laws that are challenged on a Constitutional basis are over turned. When they aren’t, the cases are customarily appealed and sent to the SCOTUS. And there in lies the problem, for whatever reason the SCOTUS has refused to hear many of those cases which leaves the State’s ant-Constitutional anti-gun laws in effect. In the commerce clause (paraphrasing) the government (state or federal) can not compel a citizen of the US to purchase a service from a private organization nor from a government agency if a citizen
opts to not use the service. You are correct that the state can levy a tax on its citizens but the tax must be upon only those who use the service. The question still remains: For those who opt out, are they being taxed illegally or are they paying a fine for opting out? I surmise if this goes back to the SCOTUS, they will refuse to hear it but if they do, it will be found to be unconditional.