I’d say the chances of a court challenge overturning health care reform is just slightly less likely than Leia and friends blowing up the Death Star. And remember, folks, that was Hollywood.
There’s been a lot of talk about how the individual mandate (originally a Republican idea) is unconstitutional. Blah blah, Commerce Clause, 10th Amendment, woof woof. If people don’t choose to buy insurance, they’re not part of commerce, therefore, they can’t be forced to be part of the system. This ignores the fact that a) everybody gets sick sometime and 2) they will then access the system, which has real costs, presto, commerce!
This Pioneer Press article is one of many to throw cold water on that idea. Sure, the Supreme Court has been very activist lately, often throwing out decades of precedent to pursue their conservative vision of America, but it seems unlikely they would legislate this openly from the bench. And if they did find the individual mandate unconstitutional, there’s a quick fix: change it so it’s not a mandate—
just make it really hard to refuse.
Here’s part of the PriPress article:
“[The Supreme Court ruled] that staying out of the marijuana market rather than participating in it does affect commerce (even if the market is illegal). Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas and then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist sided with Raich, but the court's liberal wing prevailed, even winning over conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
‘Raich seemed to stem the Rehnquist court's rollback of Congress' Commerce Clause power. And Justice Scalia went along with that, using reasoning that arguably expands Congress' reach,’ said Mehmet Konar-Steenberg, an associate professor at William Mitchell College of the Law. ‘So I don't know how much stomach there is at the Supreme Court right now to try to revive this line of cases.’
Furthermore, the links between health care and commerce are clearer, Konar-Steenberg said, pointing out — as others have — that many already purchase insurance and that those who don't have their emergency room bills picked up by everyone else. ‘These don't strike me as attenuated links to interstate commerce,’ Konar-Steenberg said.”
2 comments:
Here's another way to think about it.
1. There's an across the board tax increase (clearly constitutional).
2. You get a tax break for buying health insurance (also clearly constitutional).
That's the same as what this bill does. It's just the difference between 3+1 or 1+3 (i.e. no difference).
If my formulation is unconstitutional, then so is giving a tax break for energy efficient water heaters and windows. There's a government takeover of my water heater! Where's the outrage!!
http://www.avclub.com/articles/alex-chilton-didnt-seek-medical-attention-because,39979/
Post a Comment