The Constitutionality of Mandatory Healthcare
Sep 19, 2009 Political
I had a call from a friend of mine yesterday- he knows I blog online, and he called me spittin’ mad because he had just heard that the Healthcare plan(s) all have a mandatory aspect to them- it was Hussein’s only way to get the Insurance companies onboard, to mandate millions more people to be required to carry health insurance. The insurance companies like the fact that more people would be required to sign up, because that increases their customer base- they are too stupid to realize when they are being jacked around by Hussein and Co.
And jacked around they will be- because there will be, if ANY of this passes, a single payer option, sooner or later- and because in the end, it will have to play out in the courts as to the Constitutionality of this issue. I have yet to find where it says ANYTHING in the Constitution about government- required healthcare. Did they have it way back then? Or did they have something called- Gasp!- Personal Responsibility?
Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal government’s authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.
An individual mandate has been a hardy perennial of health-care reform proposals since HillaryCare in the early 1990s. President Barack Obama defended its merits before Congress last week, claiming that uninsured people still use medical services and impose the costs on everyone else. But the reality is far different. Certainly some uninsured use emergency rooms in lieu of primary care physicians, but the majority are young people who forgo insurance precisely because they do not expect to need much medical care. When they do, these uninsured pay full freight, often at premium rates, thereby actually subsidizing insured Americans.
online.wsj.com
Even when people do not pay “full freight”, and get a discount, as I do, because I pay cash, I get that discount because the Doctor’s office does not have to go through the time- consuming paperwork necessary to insurance companies. Is anyone ignorant enough to believe that the paperwork would decrease under a government mandate? Of course not- you’d have to be an utter fool to believe that. Still, there are some people who think this “requirement” would be a good thing. Not so at all.
The mandate’s real justifications are far more cynical and political. Making healthy young adults pay billions of dollars in premiums into the national health-care market is the only way to fund universal coverage without raising substantial new taxes. In effect, this mandate would be one more giant, cross-generational subsidy—imposed on generations who are already stuck with the bill for the federal government’s prior spending sprees.
Politically, of course, the mandate is essential to winning insurance industry support for the legislation and acceptance of heavy federal regulations. Millions of new customers will be driven into insurance-company arms. Moreover, without the mandate, the entire thrust of the new regulatory scheme—requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and to accept standardized premiums—would produce dysfunctional consequences. It would make little sense for anyone, young or old, to buy insurance before he actually got sick. Such a socialization of costs also happens to be an essential step toward the single payer, national health system, still stridently supported by large parts of the president’s base.
online.wsj.com
Well said, and should be memorized by all the members of Congress who are going to vote on this (these? those?) bill, whenever it is put into coherent form- God knows that is not the case now. Now, they face the wall of the Constitution, and it is there for a reason such as this.
The elephant in the room is the Constitution. As every civics class once taught, the federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers, with the states retaining broad regulatory authority. As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers: “[I]n the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects.” Congress, in other words, cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution.
These are mostly found in Article I, Section 8, which among other things gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support armies, declare war, establish post offices and regulate commerce. It is the authority to regulate foreign and interstate commerce that—in one way or another—supports most of the elaborate federal regulatory system. If the federal government has any right to reform, revise or remake the American health-care system, it must be found in this all-important provision. This is especially true of any mandate that every American obtain health-care insurance or face a penalty.
But there are important limits. In United States v. Lopez (1995), for example, the Court invalidated the Gun Free School Zones Act because that law made it a crime simply to possess a gun near a school. It did not “regulate any economic activity and did not contain any requirement that the possession of a gun have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity.” Of course, a health-care mandate would not regulate any “activity,” such as employment or growing pot in the bathroom, at all. Simply being an American would trigger it.
Health-care backers understand this and—like Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen insisting that some hills are valleys—have framed the mandate as a “tax” rather than a regulation. Under Sen. Max Baucus’s (D., Mont.) most recent plan, people who do not maintain health insurance for themselves and their families would be forced to pay an “excise tax” of up to $1,500 per year—roughly comparable to the cost of insurance coverage under the new plan.
online.wsj.com
This is how people like these socialists have been subverting the Constitution for years- by semantics. You can’t call it one thing and be legal, well OK then, we’ll just call it something else that skirts the legality. You just have to applaud how hard they work at being dishonest, don’t you?
But Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a “tax” that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress’s authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by “taxing” anyone who doesn’t follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables. [emphasis mine]
This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution’s Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights.
online.wsj.com
One last thing- the Constitution has lasted longer than many documents because our founding fathers took their time and brainpower to get it right- and while I am sure the debate was heated at times, everyone there knew that this was too important to allow partisan, petty politics to rule the day. Now should be another occasion as important a that one- if we, as a people, truly want healthcare reform, we are ALL going to have to forego the power games we have been playing. This plan, whatever comes out of committee, should adhere to the rules and boundaries of the Constitution, because if not, we could see so many court cases that it literally clogs the system.
And that would be bad for everyone, but particularly for reformers, the progressives- for the Supreme Court has not been kind to cases such as this-
Yet if that imperative is insufficient to prompt reconsideration of the mandate (and the approach to reform it supports), then the inevitable judicial challenges should. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate “regulatory” taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress’s constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress’s power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care.
online.wsj.com
We can just stop this debate altogether, or the progressives can try to cram what they will down the throats of America, or we can scrap what we know won’t work, and try for a true compromise- it is really up to the Resident and his band of cronies, because the rest of us are just waiting to see the final form, and if it isn’t what we can see is good for our country, we will reject it- you will not believe how decisively we can reject it, but go ahead-
Make My Day.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: checks and balances, constitution, personal responsibility, supreme court