Thread: Health Care Reform; States suing as unconstitutional

Touchy subject, I know. I am not giving an opinion for or against healthcare reform.

This post is purely intended as a discussion on the first state level reactions to the reform. Apparently both the state of Virginia and the state of Idaho are going to sue the federal gov arguing that mandated/forced purchase of healthcare violates the constitution's commerce clause. Apparently 30+ other states have said they would prepare some similar type of suit.

Also, apparently, never in the history of the U.S. until now has the U.S. government forced citizens to buy a product or a service.

It looks like it may get more interesting than it already has.

Any thoughts?

Chris L

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Also, apparently, never in the history of the U.S. until now has the U.S. government forced citizens to buy a product or a service.


Chris L

Someone always claims (and probably will here) "auto insurance", but auto insurance is not comparable. Only car owners are required to buy auto insurance and no one is required to buy a car.

As far as the "Commerce Clause," only time will tell how the Supreme Court might interpret the Constitution in this case. Who would have ever thought that a farmer growing wheat for his own use (Wickard v. Filburn) could be determined in violation of interstate commerce? Should an individual refuse to purchase a product, such as health insurance, how could they be in violation of interstate commerce? Especially if they haven't bought anything...

Will be interesting to watch this all unfold.

The last I heard the corporations owned the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by honedright

Someone always claims (and probably will here) "auto insurance", but auto insurance is not comparable. Only car owners are required to buy auto insurance and no one is required to buy a car.

As far as the "Commerce Clause," only time will tell how the Supreme Court might interpret the Constitution in this case. Who would have ever thought that a farmer growing corn for his own use could be determined in violation of interstate commerce? Should an individual refuse to purchase a product, such as health insurance, how could they be in violation of interstate commerce? Especially if they haven't bought anything...

Will be interesting to watch this all unfold.

Auto insurance is regulated at the state level, not federal. Wisconsin has a quasi requirement for auto insurance at best. Technically, if a Wisconsin citizen has the financial means to pay out of pocket for damages caused rather than purchase auto insurance, they don't need to buy auto insurance. Few people have such means, but many Wisconsinites believe it's just optional for them when in most (not all) cases it is required.

Chris L

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Auto insurance is regulated at the state level, not federal.

Understood. But many people just generalize and do not make this distinction for the auto insurance comparison argument. Regardless, the requirement by states to purchase auto insurance is the closest comparison, but not a good one as I pointed out above.

Your post brings out another point: you say that if a person can afford to pay for damages out-of-pocket, no auto insurance is required. Under the new health legislation, the same won't be true. Even if you can afford to pay for health services out-of-pocket, you will still be required to buy the national coverage. Therefore you are dinged twice. Wonder how that will fit into the constitutional/ not constitutional debate.

I'm glad you pointed it out. That will maybe save someone some keystrokes if they were thinking of using that as an argument.

Chris L

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I'm glad you pointed it out. That will maybe save someone some keystrokes if they were thinking of using that as an argument.

Chris L

Ha! Wishful thinking...

Originally Posted by honedright

Ha! Wishful thinking...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

What happened when the states sued the feds over the Bush Medicare drug program?

Forcing states to participate seems like it could also violate the forced participation/commandeering bits of the 10th amendment.