Due to an ongoing health crisis in the family, blogging will be 'on and off' as time and circumstances permit for the foreseeable future. I also beg your indulgence if I am slow in responding to emails. New posts will appear below this notice.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Is health-care reform constitutional?

With the House set to vote on health-care legislation, the congressional debate on the issue seems to be nearing its conclusion. But if the bill does become law, the battle over federal control of health care will inevitably shift to the courts. Virginia's attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II, has said he will file a legal challenge to the bill, arguing in a column this month that reform legislation "violate[s] the plain text of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments." On Friday, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum announced that they will file a federal lawsuit if health-care reform legislation passes.

Will these cases get anywhere? Here is a guide to the possible legal challenges to a comprehensive health-care bill.
The individual mandate.

Can Congress really require that every person purchase health insurance from a private company or face a penalty? The answer lies in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states." Historically, insurance contracts were not considered commerce, which referred to trade and carriage of merchandise. That's why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states. But the Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of "economic" activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. The key is that those activities substantially affect interstate commerce, and that's how the court would probably view the regulation of health insurance.

But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. Regulating the auto industry or paying "cash for clunkers" is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. Even during World War II, the federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds.

If you choose to drive a car, then maybe you can be made to buy insurance against the possibility of inflicting harm on others. But making you buy insurance merely because you are alive is a claim of power from which many Americans instinctively shrink. Senate Republicans made this objection, and it was defeated on a party-line vote, but it will return.
Read the rest here.

4 comments:

Reactionary said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reactionary said...

This is a silly argument. If 'commerce' only refers to the physical carriage of goods across State lines, then that means Social Security, Title VII, student loans, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and a zillion other federal government programs are constitutional because the interstate commerce clause only refers to the physical asportation of merchandise across State lines. The logical conclusion of such an argument is that, for example, I am perfectly within my rights for deeding a plot of land to the City of Atlanta on the condition that negroes never be allowed upon it.

Thus, I'd expect in an open debate that the author would recoil from the 'constitutional' arguments faster than a vampire from garlic.

David said...

I could see the government saying that if you do not buy health insurance and then get into an accident or become ill that there is no expectation a hospital HAS to treat you.

快樂結局 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.