Do u think it's constitutional to put someone in jail for refusing to buy insurance, or pay subsequent fine?

Car insurance is morally consistent with Ideas of "freedom". Most economists agree with this because allowing people to drive uninsured means that others will suffer for their reckless behaviour. So if a car is hit by a dangerous driver either the victim will pay or the taxpayer will become the victim. Insurance makes sure that reckless drivers are punished and adds an incentive to drive safely.

If it is then accepted that no-one should die on a hospital bed then insured care is the most morally consistent. In fact even if you don't accept this the relief to the taxpayer by the dropoff in state spending on healthcare should convince you. People will pay less taxes because of insurance therefore people are given more freedoms in the overall. By insuring people instead of a compulsory tax it is also an incentive to stay healthy and not put pressure on taxpayers. It stops reckless health choices or at least imposes a cost.

When you drive a vehicle on a publicly funded road, you are REQUIRED by law to have insurance and a license. They tell you that it's a privilege to drive on a publicly funded road. So now, "living" in a "free" country is a privilege? What's the alternative? Death? Nice. Way to go Dem.s you've REALLY thought this one through. Haven't you.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and giving to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson.

"Those who would give up a little freedom for security, deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin.

No, sorry. Your Obamacare effective is a tax penalty on your income tax. in case you do no longer pay the effective, then you definately're failing to pay your income tax to the IRS. and you already know what occurs then. The detention center won't assist you in. they do no longer desire NO physique hidin' out from the IRS in there. in case you receive the revenooers after yo in the back of, ain't no person your frend.

Another deliberate misrepresentation of the Bill by the Right Wing (There are so many it's getting hard to keep track.)

Any fine would be for a COMPANY that could provide insurance (they have above a certain number of employees, i.e., no it WON'T affect Ma and Pa businesses) and refuse to!

It's not use having the insurance if nobody uses it.

And we also can't have people taking advantage of and abusing the system - that's why there are portions in the bill for getting people to pay back for care they got when not insured - all fine by me too.

It is Constitutional because it does not violate any of the Constitution's amendments. It would be something passed by law which does not infringe on rights any more than laws requiring car insurance, therefore, it is Constitutional.

Edit: OK, I'm open for information. Please point out to me the article of the Constitution that forbids the Congress to pass a law levying fines or attaching criminal penalties?

Edit 2: OK, Charlie, I changed to "article" in my second comment. Any cite yet for an ARTICLE forbidding it? Or do you just want to nitpick and ignore the law?

For a lot of people nowadays, "unConstitutional" means "something I don't like." I'm still waiting for anyone to point our a provision forbidding this.

No!

But you gotta love mommanuke's rationale. Apparently only the amendment's count. By the way, mandatory car insurance is implemented by STATES, which DO have the power under their own constitutions.

Not only will you be facing that you will also be facing jail time for tax evasion because the people who will not qualify for the public option will be people who don't pay their taxes.

I think that's horrible

No, peace