Is it Constitutional for the government to require me to buy health insurance?

They are using the Commerce clause to claim that the Federal Government has the right regulate commerce across state lines. Opponents are arguing that while Congress does have the authority to regulate commerce this does not include imposing a mandate to "buy something"; because "not having insurance" is not a commercial activity. Congress can restrain or regulate economic activity, but it cannot REQUIRE activity.

The problem with this is that the SCOTUS has not always viewed "economic activity" this way. For example, the Eighth Circuit in U.S. v. Howell, 552 F.3d 709 (2009) upheld a federal provision requiring former sex offenders to register as sex offenders under the Commerce Clause. That court rejected the criminal defendant's argument that Congress lacked authority to regulate non-action under the Commerce Clause.

In the health care context, a choice not to purchase health insurance is every bit an economic activity as a choice to purchase. It's those significant interstate economic costs associated with individuals' choices not to purchase that in some measure sparked the health care debate in the first place. Not purchasing, in this context, IS an economic activity.

I suspect this will battle its way to the SCOTUS at considerable expense and ultimately be decided there...but what about the outcome? Recent decisions suggest the court will uphold the mandate.

If they don't, then Americans are left with costly insurance reforms that will still be in place and an increasingly shrinking population that can afford the insurance.

No, of course not. I think our government is so corrupt now that they are just starting to throw away our constitution---apparently, according to them; nothing written in that constitution now applies to us in today's age. That's why it was time to "change"; time to force everyone to buy healthcare, and take away their freedom of choice in regards to that because the American people don't know what's best for them----but, the government does know. I wonder what George Washington would think of this country now. :(

I work part-time for a company that has over 60+ employees; because I'm only part-time, I can't afford health care which is why I don't have insurance in the first place. I hate it that they are requiring everyone to buy health care (if when they can't afford it) or else pay a fine--that's so wrong. I think if we can't afford it, then we shouldn't get fined!

No.

Anyone who tries to use the "auto insurance" argument should learn the difference between state and federal government.

Anyone who tries to point to the Commerce Clause should explain how a lack of commerce (i.e. I have no health insurance) can in ANY way qualify as interstate commerce....

As I have written before, I consider the Constitution a fundamentally flawed document. It goes against my concept of redistributive change. As I mentioned in a radio interview in 2001,

"What we must affect is redistributive change. We must break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. It says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

So, even though some might consider it a violation of the tenth amendment, we must take actions in opposition to that fundamentally flawed document on behalf of redistributive change.

This is what change looks like. It is MY process.

Obama said you will buy insurance, what you gonna do about it ? I will not give into this one. If we allow this then what's next? I like health care but I like freedom more.

is it constitutional for the government to require me to buy car insurance.....yes....

peace

and

love.

.

.

.

peace

and

love

.

.

.

.

.

.

No it is not ...

ABSOLUTELY NOT

NO.