Superb piece here by Law Professor, Mark Hall, explaining why healthcare reform mandate is constitutionally sound - and why GOP legal arguments are specious:
"Conservative lawyers think compulsory health insurance is unconstitutional...Their reasoning is unconvincing & deeply flawed."
Posts
Hey Bren, thanks for the link. As ever it is the comments which provide the entertainment. Ian
ReplyDeleteNo sweat mate - glad you liked it! ;)
ReplyDeletethe writer ignores the actual constitutional argument (the 10 ammendment) and takes on the more dicey argument (the commerce clause argument etc.) he uses the example of business being required to carry insurance and that of people being required to cary automotive insurance.
ReplyDeleteTo take on those points , first business is required to carry insurance by lenders not the government (state or federal) the only requirement the government places on business is to obtain a permit , pay taxes and folllow existing regulation pertaining to their respective type of business, and of course to obey the laws where fraud is concerned. The insurance laws with respect to automobiles vary from state to state (in my state there are no such requirements at all) so his own points seem to devalue the thrust of his argument. in that those actually have nothing at all to do with the federal government. The example I've used before is that many states already have insurance programs in place for those most in need or most vulnerable and in addition the federal government does offer health insurance (free) to those with disabilities as well as those over 65 years of age(this bill actually taxes those people at a higher rate for their care). since we all agree that the poinrt should always have been to provide an outlet for those most vulnerable and unable to obtain health insurance, I've never been able to understand the rationale for this approach (ie requiring people to purchase a product they don't want or the federal government trampeling on a states rights) it seems to me that what ought to happen for the agreed upon goal ( those who are not able to purchase health insurance) would be for the people to petition their respective states (as we have done in my state) for the individual states to offer alternatives to people that are going without health care based on their ability to pay- certainly the federal government could provide incentive by offering to match funds for any state that provides such a program- thus not violating the rights of the state while stil laddressing the problem in a compassionate and logical manner (as well as encouraging jobs within the respective state)
I know , I know
us crazy consertvatives................
I think you could do with reading this article Chris - click the title to access the full article:
ReplyDeleteStates fighting healthcare law don't have precedent on their side
A 2005 Supreme Court ruling citing the authority to regulate commerce poses a problem for suits claiming it's unconstitutional for the federal government to force individuals to have insurance.