Talk:Individual mandate

should this stub even exist?
Today I had to revert two recent changes to this article/stub, but I'm wondering if it should even exist, and so I will explain why here. The stub seems to have been created solely to provide some context for the health insurance mandate article that was being written about the American federal health insurance legislation signed in 2010. The stub seems to have been based on misconceptions related to the first linked source ("George Washington was a Socialist...."). I moved the recent addition of a reference to the Heritage Foundation suggesting a health insurance mandate to the linked "health insurance mandate" article, because the question of who first suggested that particular mandate does not really add anything to the conceptual understanding of an "individual mandate" per se, and it threatens to stir partisan edit warring. Regarding the deletion of the fact that the 1792 mandate was never enforced, the lack of enforcement and litigation means we don't know if it was ever a valid law or not. (See Marbury vs. Madison). Likewise we don't know if the misnamed PPACA is a valid law or not; a majority of the states argue that it isn't. If they prevail in court, then the decision is nunc pro tunc, i.e. it was never a valid law. In any event, none of this adds much to a broader understanding of an "individual mandate," which would primarily involve conscription and jury duty etc. If somebody wants to write a whole article about that, go ahead, but otherwise I suggest deleting this stub because it has only ever been a useless fork of the health insurance mandate article and now it risks setting off yet another edit war over that topic.TVC 15 (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't see why it shouldn't exist. What do you think about this edit that you undid? You think there is content forking going on? Also, I think you imply something that is factually incorrect. The detail about the 1792 act never being enforced remained. FYI I'd like to avoid edit wars too. Jesanj (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right that it was redundant to say twice that the 1792 legislation was never enforced, so I've removed the second occurrence. Respectfully, I do think the first occurrence belongs, and besides it bookends the CBO quote at the end of the same paragraph.  Also, I do think this stub is a content fork, because it was created solely as background/context for the health insurance mandate article and everything in it could be transferred into that article.TVC 15 (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear they are related topics, but not identical. In that case, it's not content forking. Why is it necessary to say "but neither has been federally enforced"? I think that is a bit misleading, as it implies both could have been enforced. The mandate of the PPACA has not yet started. Also, I think two rationales against merging, numbers 2 & 3, apply here. Jesanj (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article on merging says, "There are several good reasons to merge a page" and lists numbers 2 & 3 directly under that heading; both apply here. It also lists further down a different #2&#3, which in my opinion don't apply here because nearly all occurrences of the phrase "individual mandate" are related to the PPACA, which is another reason to merge this stub into the article on that mandate.  If you prefer anyway to keep them separate, it's OK with me; I always thought the stub was a minor distraction but hadn't proposed deleting it until today.  The stub's definition of an individual mandate says it is a requirement that people obtain something, so I think it would be misleading to list PPACA as an example without stating it has never been enforced, because it hasn't happened yet and as CBO said it would be unprecedented.TVC 15 (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're advancing the POV that a requirement can only exist when linked to an enforcement mechanism. Jesanj (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a reason to delete Japan from the list of jurisdictions with a health insurance mandate, but you and I have both worked on the paragraph about Japan in that article, and neither of us deleted it. I think you're overlooking the importance of the ongoing litigation and Marbury vs. Madison, i.e. most states and almost half the federal judges who have addressed the issue are of the opinion that Congress lacks the power to create the purported requirement in the PPACA.  If the Congress passed a law declaring that the earth is flat, it would not change the shape of the earth, regardless of whether they actually try to enforce it.TVC 15 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. Just in case, I was speaking the most general sense possible. Jesanj (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The stub consists currently of two paragraphs. The first defines a mandate as a government requirement that citizens obtain something.  The second paragraph offers two examples, but their constitutionality has not been established, so it isn't clear whether they are valid examples/requirements at all.TVC 15 (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] The very creation of this stub seems to have resulted from a misconception related to the Militia Acts of 1792. Some PPACA supporters cited it as an example of the federal government requiring people to buy something, apparently thinking that would disprove what CBO said in 1994; in fact, because the 1792 Militia Acts were never enforced, nobody was forced to buy anything, and besides the 1792 Militia Acts were based on the federal government's various military powers, not regulation of commerce. The whole stub was only ever a distraction, raising and then refuting a tangential misconception that never persuaded anyone anyway. Personally I would delete it, but if you want to keep it, we could add a sentence about another distraction, the state-level requirements to purchase liability insurance if you buy a car. (BTW, the insurance companies sold that idea using almost exactly the same arguments as PPACA, i.e. free riding and 'your premiums will fall if everyone is required to buy', which is nonsensical and disproved by history but seems to persuade some people.)TVC 15 (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Your first of these two. Now you're contradicting the article. The article starts off by saying "An individual mandate is a requirement". I'll repeat: "I think you're advancing the POV that a requirement can only exist when linked to an enforcement mechanism". Jesanj (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I read that the first time, and I don't get it. Japan has a requirement without enforcement, we still call it a requirement even though they don't punish people for not complying.  If I were advancing the POV that you attribute to me, why did I not delete Japan from the health insurance mandate article?  The USA Congress and President enacted (please look up the word enacted) a "requirement" in 2010, to take effect in 2014, but in fact it has a high likelihood of being invalidated, i.e. not even a requirement at all, regardless of enforcement.  The US federal government has only limited powers, for example they can't require Mongolians living in Mongolia to buy insurance from American companies, if they enacted such a "requirement" it would be a joke not a valid law.  In any event, this whole exchange seems much ado about nothing, but (perhaps for that reason) it seems to have awakened an old acquaintance.  Really, do whatever you want with this pointless stub, life is short, WP isn't worth having to deal with Hauskalainen again.TVC 15 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I wasn't confident I used the word correctly. But I was confident you'd fix it if I hadn't. Thanks. Ah, he shouldn't be much to deal with if he's back... Jesanj (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

employer mandate vs individual mandate
A disagreement has arisen regarding whether a particular Act was an employer mandate or an individual mandate. Rather than get into an WP:Edit war, I would appreciate the input of other editors.TVC 15 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the original article does not account for at least one other individual mandate. To leave the article as is without the addition of the material on "An act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen" leaves the incorrect idea that an indiviudal health care mandate was never enacted.  If the entire article (stub) is removed, that is fine.  Otherwise, the article should provide a correct history of the individual mandate. (cdfrtas)


 * Thanks for your explanation. There exists the possibility you are correct. But do you have a secondary source that says what you're saying? That's what we need. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that the search for sources has turned up a couple of quotes that are demonstrably incorrect, just as searching the globe for people saying the earth is flat would do. For example, the source for the statement attributed to T.R. Reid is an opinion piece (i.e. without fact checking), so we don't even know if Reid actually said that, and besides the assertion itself is obviously false, for example see Healthcare in Mexico.  Many (probably most) countries rely on market mechanisms including insurance, but hardly any have insurance mandates; Mexico is the nearest example, but it is enough to disprove the blanket statement attributed (without fact checking and perhaps incorrectly) to Reid.  Likewise, someone on a talk show saying the 1798 Act was a "sort of individual mandate" doesn't change the definition of the terms; "sort of" doesn't even seem notable.  In context, "sort of" means "not really," and this particular Act has already been addressed in detail.  The Reid sourcing here is at best questionable under WP:RS, the notability of a waffle like "sort of" on NPR is likewise dubious, and the quoted statements are incorrect, so I think they should be removed.TVC 15 (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've edited accordingly for the reasons above. Along the way, I deleted the "citation needed" tag for the count of two, because I think it simply introduces the two that are listed in the article.  As of 1994, CBO called it unprecedented, saying the federal government had never required citizens to buy a product or service as a condition of lawful residence.  Since then, a tremendous amount of money and power has gone into the effort to salvage PPACA, probably more than went into searching for WMD in Iraq.  After such a huge search, the absence of evidence starts to become evidence of absence.  If there were a precedent, CBO would probably have found it in 1994, and the entities trying to rescue PPACA would be trumpeting it loudly and clearly.  Trying to rope in "sort of" quotes begins to look desperate.TVC 15 (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The TNR source says that the 1798 Act is "a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen." That is an employer mandate, not an individual mandate, and the difference is clear: no law requires anyone to buy a ship and ply the federally regulated rivers for purposes of trade, but if you do, and you employ people in that commerce, you pay for their insurance. (It was actually a federally collected and administered system, like Medicare.) The Sun Journal editorial is opinion not subject to fact checking (see WP:RS) and mischaracterizes the opinion of T.R. Reid, who said specifically that "mandating for-profit insurance is not the lesson from other countries in the world...."TVC 15 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the TNR piece, which does actually call the 1798 Act an individual mandate, and in the spirit of collaboration, I've summarized the issue in its own paragraph. Nevertheless, that does not change the definition of the term; the 1798 Act is like Medicare and workers' compensation, not an individual mandate.  It certainly didn't require seamen to go out and buy something from a private corporation, for example, and even a requirement to do that would be like a helmet law, i.e. IF you want to engage in this activity on a federally regulated river, you need to do XYZ.TVC 15 (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the CBO's 1994 opinion (which should be reliable for U.S. budgetary matters but not constitutional law, I'd think) factually incorrect as the article states there was an individual mandate in the 18th century? It would be good to get a source for the definition. And for the "at least two", in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * [added later]I see what you mean about the count, and I've removed that sentence. I didn't see it at first, but since then I've observed that somehow this stub has become the #1 result if you Google the phrase "individual mandate."  Then, Einer Elhauge, who is employed by the Obama campaign, started publishing articles calling all sorts of things mandates.  Then, Eliot Spitzer (former NY Governor, disgraced in a prostitution scandal) started praising Elhauge's "spectactular" reporting.  In other words, it's part of a concerted effort to advocate PPACA by mischaracterizing 18th century legislation that didn't require anyone to buy anything.TVC 15 (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The CBO was correct. The 1792 Act required the prospective soldier to "provide himself" a musket etc., not necessarily purchase.  Most prospective soldiers probably already had that stuff, or at least knew someone who did; if the Act had been enforced, they could probably have borrowed or rented, or even made their own.  The count of at least two reflects those in the article.  As for the definition, the phrase seems to be used exclusively in the context of mandatory medical insurance, which is why I've suggested eliminating this stub.  Most states in the U.S.A. (but not the federal government) require automobile insurance on cars that will be driven on public roads; individual persons buying it sometimes call it mandatory insurance, but the requirement attaches only to cars that will be driven on public roads, not to individuals per se, and the insurance only covers injuries related to the car, not everything that might happen to the individual person in the course of life.TVC 15 (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Resolution
Hi guys. It's pretty obvious that a tax paid by employers on the employment of certain individuals is not a mandate on the individual (no penalty comes to the individual if an employer fails to pay, no individual is required to seek out and buy services for himself or for the government, etc.). The solution to the (amazingly civil) disagreement above seems to have been to say inside the article itself that "some say this and some say that". Such debates without secondary sources belong on the talk page and not the article.

Editors must be decisive and have confidence in their judgements about the validity of what references say. If a reference "says it is", but an analysis by editors shows clearly otherwise, then the ref is unreliable (and possibly POV in this case) and the ref may not be used to support inclusion. BUT THERE'S MORE! Actually, the ref doesn't "say it is". The ref is a primary source and not includable for that reason alone. The ref doesn't even go anywhere near the idea of the act being IM! The assertion that the act is IM is entirely original research. Instead of boldly (and properly) removing the example, the resolution puts our equivocation inside the article itself and that digression is off topic and weasel-wordy.

POVer's beware. On the surface, including such a non-example is POV (supporting the idea that IM is normal and okay). But actually, including it harms that position because the example is so obviously an extreme stretch. Those holding that POV should be wary of using such weak (non) examples because it gives the appearance that they desperately need them. So, there isn't even a good reason to push for inclusion by those wishing to push a POV! :-)

100.0.124.147 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A lot of editing
There has been a lot of editing (reverting?) lately, and I guess it is possible someone went past the WP:3RR, but if things have calmed down then good. I'm posting this as a general notice to help things slow down further hopefully. Jesanj (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it worked out for the best. There was some reverting, then progress. Since TNR did publish a piece calling the 1798 Act an individual mandate, it is notable. I had somehow missed that in my first reading of it, probably because Professor Elhauge usually calls the 1798 Act a purchase mandate. (He also calls the individual mandate "bad policy," though not necessarily unconstitutional.) Others more accurately call it a tax, because it is paid to the Treasury collector and spent by the government. The use of the phrase may have been an editing error at TNR, but I haven't yet seen anyone issue a correction. The collaborative process can be bumpy but it works: having read possibly too much about this topic, I didn't notice that use of the phrase in my first reading of the article; others, perhaps having read little else, saw it.TVC 15 (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The argument here doesnt capture the content of the actual complaint. The actual complaint against afca continues to be 1-involuntary contracting under condition of humanity, which seems unconstitutional due to the 13th amendment, and 2-forced contracting by same condition, which is arguably a violation of free contracting under primary articles of the constitution. As neither seems to gain even a mention in the article it seems to be misleading

economics section -
The "economics" section barely deserves the word economics as a title. It is just summarising ONE argument against the OBAMACARE reform, and hence is both incomplete and not-objective.--MarmotteiNoZ 03:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Repeal of Militia Act in 1795
A section appears to be original research. The article on the act itself explains that it was replaced by the act of 1795, but doesn't go into exact detail. I'm moving it here for further discussion:

The Constitution of the United States Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16, grant Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia"... The militia Acts of 1792 were REPEALED February 28, 1795 ( U.S. Laws, Statutes, Etc. An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes. Philadelphia, 1795. Image. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, . ) Therefore, the historical precedent is that the citizen will be provided arms by the Congress as per the US Constitution, and will not be required to provide their own arms, at their own expense.

It would probably be good to find a WP:Secondary source for this. -- Kendrick7talk 07:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)