6 ms·

I think that does sound right. I never understood why healthcare was so tied to employers in the first place. Healthcare should be entireley independent of empl

I think that does sound right. I never understood why healthcare was so tied to employers in the first place. Healthcare should be entireley independent of employment status in my opinion... but, and I'm sure given HN demographics I'm likely to be in the minority, I find the ACA to be unconstitutional, specifically the mandate, so I have recently been trying to bone up on the legal discussion surrounding the general welfare and commerce clauses to understand the nuance left there for single payer but without a mandate.

orangecat 10y ago
I never understood why healthcare was so tied to employers in the first place. Wage controls during WW2: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114045132 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1140451...
- arca_vorago 10y ago
  Which if I remember correctly were very highly contested on constitutional grounds as well.
  - pdonis 10y ago
    Yep. Here's the Supreme Court decision that upheld them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakus_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakus_v._United_States
nshepperd 10y ago
Because employers can provide group health insurance plans. Without either the individual mandate (which is itself a half-assed approximation to single payer healthcare) or group health insurance (through employers or some other non-health-related cooperative), people put off getting health insurance until they get sick, the risk pool stops being a pool and the whole concept of "insurance" falls apart.
- icebraining 10y ago
  You can't put off insurance until you get sick, unless the insurance can't deny you for having a precondition.
  - nshepperd 10y ago
    Yes, that's the problem.
pdonis 10y ago
> I have recently been trying to bone up on the legal discussion surrounding the general welfare and commerce clauses You will find that the jurisprudence surrounding those clauses bears no resemblance whatever to what the clauses actually say. For example, look up Wickard v. Filburn and see if you think that Supreme Court decision used a reasonable interpretation of what Congress can regulate under the guise of "interstate commerce". Interestingly, though, the clause under which the individual mandate was found constitutional was actually the Taxing Clause--the Supreme Court said it was not constitutional under either the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, which was how the government had argued the case. In other words, the Supreme Court said that, while it was not constitutional to require everyone to purchase health insurance, it was constitutional to tax people who didn't. Go figure. The full opinion is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
- arca_vorago 10y ago
  Yeah I disagree with the pivotal point they used for that decision, that it wasn't a direct tax, it seems very much like a direct tax to me.
MaysonL 10y ago
It started during World War II when employers were prohibited from offering wage increases to poach employees, and used medical insurance as an incentive to job-switch.

orangecat 10y ago

I never understood why healthcare was so tied to employers in the first place. Wage controls during WW2: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114045132 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1140451...

arca_vorago 10y ago
Which if I remember correctly were very highly contested on constitutional grounds as well.
- pdonis 10y ago
  Yep. Here's the Supreme Court decision that upheld them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakus_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakus_v._United_States

nshepperd 10y ago

Because employers can provide group health insurance plans. Without either the individual mandate (which is itself a half-assed approximation to single payer healthcare) or group health insurance (through employers or some other non-health-related cooperative), people put off getting health insurance until they get sick, the risk pool stops being a pool and the whole concept of "insurance" falls apart.

icebraining 10y ago
You can't put off insurance until you get sick, unless the insurance can't deny you for having a precondition.
- nshepperd 10y ago
  Yes, that's the problem.

pdonis 10y ago

> I have recently been trying to bone up on the legal discussion surrounding the general welfare and commerce clauses You will find that the jurisprudence surrounding those clauses bears no resemblance whatever to what the clauses actually say. For example, look up Wickard v. Filburn and see if you think that Supreme Court decision used a reasonable interpretation of what Congress can regulate under the guise of "interstate commerce". Interestingly, though, the clause under which the individual mandate was found constitutional was actually the Taxing Clause--the Supreme Court said it was not constitutional under either the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, which was how the government had argued the case. In other words, the Supreme Court said that, while it was not constitutional to require everyone to purchase health insurance, it was constitutional to tax people who didn't. Go figure. The full opinion is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

arca_vorago 10y ago
Yeah I disagree with the pivotal point they used for that decision, that it wasn't a direct tax, it seems very much like a direct tax to me.

MaysonL 10y ago

It started during World War II when employers were prohibited from offering wage increases to poach employees, and used medical insurance as an incentive to job-switch.