The House will probably be voting on Obamacare late tonight or tomorrow. I expect it to narrowly pass, which is a vivid illustration of how badly the Obamacare pushers have lost the political debate, given the massive Democratic majority and the fearsome power of Pelosi’s anti-deliberative/democratic tactics against her own members.
This version, like that pending in the Senate, requires everyone to buy insurance, with the threat of jail if they don’t. The government mandating everyone to engage in a commercial activity is unprecedented in U.S. history. I doubt its constitutionality, and I am not the only one. Senator John McCain promises a constitutional challenge. From the story:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) predicted on Thursday that there will be a constitutional challenge to the provision in the health care bill under consideration in Congress that would require all Americans to buy health insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government has never before mandated that Americans purchase any good or service. When asked by CNSNews.com on Thursday where in the Constitution is Congress given the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance, McCain said, “That is an excellent question and I’m sure that if they pass health care legislation, I think there would be a challenge.”
So much of this roiling could have been avoided if health reform had focused solely on the problem that needs fixing–expanding competition and helping those with pre-existing conditions/financial problems obtain coverage.
But increasing access isn’t the main point of this exercise. Rather, it is making us all increasingly dependent on Uncle Sam/Aunt Samantha, so as to increase government’s raw power. Since almost all human activities can, in some way, be tied to health, Obamacare opens the door to massive government intrusion over our lives by unelected bureaucrats, aided by bioethicists who would be in charge of the rationing decisions. And what health doesn’t excuse, “saving the planet” will.
What a debacle if this entire thrust toward collectivism isn’t stopped. It shouldn’t have to come to this, but if it takes “the lawyers” to rein in extra-constitutional power, so be it.
November 7th, 2009 | 1:22 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by penguinponders, Halle Davies. Halle Davies said: Obamacare: Lawsuits Ahead: The House will probably be voting on Obamacare late tonight or tomorrow. I expect it.. http://bit.ly/3evkAn [...]
November 7th, 2009 | 1:26 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by trsol: RT @CO2HOG: Obamacare: Lawsuits Ahead http://bit.ly/5Pz6N #tcot #tlot #sgp #killbill #iamthemob #teaparty…
November 7th, 2009 | 6:25 pm
So let them challenge it. Their case may actually make it to the Supreme Court, where it will be defeated 5-4.
November 8th, 2009 | 12:29 am
I hope that every one who voted for thses morons writeing the checks that our kids will have to pay get sick and have to wait 5 hours to see a doctor, I lived in Germany for 18 years under socialized medicen where you go to see the dr. at 8 and leave at 2 in the after noon thats if you had a appointment. And all you people who say we should treat our vets better well guess what now the public will get the same dr. as the V.A. and we all know how good the V.A. is…… So I hope you democrats stay sick so you can use this system that is going to bankrupt this country..
November 8th, 2009 | 1:11 am
HW,
Quite the contrary. The SC will defeat the bill on constitutional grounds.
November 8th, 2009 | 3:11 pm
Dave: if compulsory insurance were unconstitutional the Supreme Court would have ruled against compulsory motor vehicle insurance decades ago. And yes, you CAN be fined heavily for driving a car without liability insurance in a state that requires it. But let’s hear why you think it’s unconstitutional. Are you going to claim it deprives any group of due process? Are you going to claim that it’s beyond the limits of the commerce clause, or that it violates the Tenth Amendment? Got any good precedents on your side?
November 9th, 2009 | 11:37 am
HistoryWriter, mandatory motor vehicle insurance is permissible because driving is a privilege, not a right. You don’t legally have to drive or own a motor vehicle (nobody does); if you do neither, you don’t need to buy auto insurance. And there are still a few states that don’t require drivers to carry liability insurance.
Nice try at conflating the provision in these Obamacare bills to require every adult to buy health insurance, but any comparison with auto insurance requirements is flatly bogus. I suspect you know better.
A government requirement that every adult purchase something is a tax—specifically, a poll tax. Poll taxes are broadly prohibited in the body of the Constitution except under a very narrowly defined exception that the mandatory insurance requirement doesn’t meet. The Tenth Amendment and, potentially, the First Amendment (think Christian Scientists who don’t use modern medicine being forced to buy insurance) also play here.
If the feds can require you to buy health insurance, they can also require you to buy a house to help the housing crisis, or buy a new GM or Chrysler vehicle to help those bailed-out automakers. Trust me, this is a can of worms that the Supremes aren’t likely to allow to be opened.
November 9th, 2009 | 12:19 pm
I think a Constitutional challenge is likely to succeed because I cannot, for the life of me, think of any legitimate Constitutional justification for a requirement to purchase health insurance. As fervently as some of the justices may want to approve it, I just can’t imagine the supporters of the requirement coming up with a justification that’s not laughable on its face.
November 10th, 2009 | 9:12 am
This is not unprecedented; it is Romney care. The justification for the mandate was a comparison to auto insurance mandates. The gov’t can claim authority on the roads as it builds the roads, but, in Romney care, it must consider itself to be the origin of the commonwealth. It is strictly totalitarian to declare prior authority over the individual in relation to his normal (non-epidemic) health care, and the expenditure of his income in procuring long term financial risk management policies (health insurance). The government has claimed authority over the individual and his property to a degree only equaled during the era of chattel slavery.
The Republican Party and major conservative figures who supported Romney, openly or on the sly, share the blame for this oncoming national fiasco.
I see Kman has hit the nail on the head with the privilege of driving vs. the right to live.
November 10th, 2009 | 10:19 am
New Timon said: “The Republican Party and major conservative figures who supported Romney, openly or on the sly, share the blame for this oncoming national fiasco.” Quite true. During the Clinton health insurance fiasco in 1993–1994, Republicans were the first to propose the idea of mandating that individuals buy health insurance. On his radio show Rush Limbaugh actually lambasted the Repubs for it, which for him was a rare occurrence.
Matters are different on a state level, but I suspect a suit against the Massachusetts individual mandate might be fruitful. A number of state constitutions have provisions that could be used against such a mandate.
December 4th, 2009 | 12:19 am
Oy. Thank you, Captain J. Obvious McCain. Of course there will be a challenge — it may well come from me if no one beats me to it!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact