The Constitution tells Government what it can do. If it's not enumerated, then it cannot be done. The Constitution does not tell government it can mandate the purchase of goods and services, therefore the government cannot do it. It's quite simple, actually.
Sorry, I haven't been around to discuss or defend my idea. Agree completely on your "more government" issue, and the last thing I would want to advocate is bigger government. I would argue that this is not about creating more government, because the plan ultimately is for the uninsured to pay their own bills. If they can't do it right up front, then the government steps in with what amounts to a loan that is then deducted right from the paycheck. We the People should not have to put up any money for this, other then whatever source the original funding comes from. And since a penalty is levied when a patient has to avail themselves of the program, its conceivable that the fund could grow, and eventually pay back the original source. And you're correct, this doesn't cover the unemployed. But I'm assuming the "individual mandate" refers to people who don't want to be forced to buy into some government program. Individual rights are great, but they don't always jibe with reality. What happens if some 20-something who has a job and is still young enough to think he's invincible gets in a car accident? They won't be kicked out of an ER if they're not insured and can't write a check on the spot. We the People end up paying for it. That's what I'm addressing with my plan.
The constitutionality of an individual mandate has been well tested. You can look at it as a tax, which is constitutional. You can look at it as a regulation forcing private actors to engage in a certain transaction, like minimum wage which is constitutional. Personally, the first example I thought of was auto insurance. Then you have the Americans With Disabilities Act, which shows that the government can order businesses to install ramps despite the fact that the constitution doesn't give the federal government jurisdiction over entryways. There will be a few, scattered courts that will rule the individual mandate portion of Obamacare un-constitutional, but at the end of the day if it ever gets as far as the US Supreme Court, it will be ruled constitutional.
The constitution specifically gives the Congress the right to regulate commerce. It's quite simple, actually. Section 8, Article 3 The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Question for all the Constitutional experts and personal freedom flag wavers. Now please think this through before answering. Understand there is no "free lunch," somebody pays. Are you sure that you really want to pay to repair Jim Bob's broken leg, since Jim Bob has exercised his "freedom," and decided not to pay for his own health insurance? Please remember, Jim Bob is billed at "full rates," a figure that is ludicrous and is adjusted downward, immediately, for those with insurance. Kinda the old bit about your freedom ends, when mine begins.
The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution does and does not allow. It very clearly has stated on numerous cases that individual mandate is constitutional, commerce can be regulated and yet collecting taxes, monies, etc. does fall under the commerce clause. That's pretty much the end of the argument. Set. Point. Match. Just because you're not able to make sense of it using only the gray matter between your ears, doesn't mean it's not constitutional. It just means you're listening to the wrong people.
Or you are. The issue has never been decided by SCOTUS. It will be and neither you nor I know what the outcome will be. If they interpret the constitution literally (as they are supposed to) the mandate will fail.
