Legality of the \"Individual Mandate\" to Purchase

¶ … legality of the "individual mandate" to purchase health insurance

There have always been heated debates about the amount of interference government should have in our lives. Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota perhaps summed it up best when she commented that "If the federal government can tell you, when you are not doing anything, that you must do something, then the federal government can tell you anything," (Mears 2012). This sentiment was echoed by many, politicians and just plain citizens alike, as the fiercely debated issue of mandatory health insurance continued to command the spotlight.

Is health insurance really just a "product," as many suggest? This may be the case, but when we are purchasing a service that affects us, literally, so close to home, there is much more at stake than there is when purchasing a different service, such as automobile insurance. It is difficult to separate the issues from the emotions in cases like this; the very meaning of what it means to be American seems to have come into question.

Question 2: Statute of Frauds

When agreeing to a transaction with another individual, it is important to be absolutely clear about the terms of the agreement. This helps to avoid confusion, conflict, and hostility down the line. This is why it is strongly recommended to put everything, even the friendliest and simplest of business agreements, into writing. Having a written record of the terms allows both parties to have documentation of the terms that the agreement was entered into with, and this can be referred to in any conflicts that may arise.

However, conflicts do arise, and fraudulent behavior may often be the cause. This is as true now as it was in 1677, when the first Statute of Frauds, "An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries," is said to have been enacted in England (British History Online). Most states have versions of the Statute of Frauds. This serves as a warning to those entering into a contract; it also lets potential defrauders know that they will be held accountable for their wrongdoings.

Question 3: John Lennon's Piano

The piano that belonged to John Lennon would be considered unique, as any Beatles fan would know. If Yoko Ono did not hold up her part of the contract, she would be liable for damages. However, putting a price on a piano with such a unique provenance would be difficult. According to the Legal Dictionary Online, "As a general rule, specific performance is applied in breach of contract actions where monetary damages are inadequate, primarily where the contract involves land or a unique chattel."

In November of 2010, Steinway announced its Imagine Series Limited Edition, which "is modeled after the white Steinway grand piano that John Lennon presented to Yoko Ono on her birthday in 1971, which is still at their famous Manhattan residence -- the Dakota." These limited-edition pianos are unique in that they are specifically modeled after the original Lennon Steinway; however, they do not have the uniqueness of the original model.

Question 4: Episode 1: What is the right thing to do?