Federal Judge allows Virginia Healthcare suitFollow

Maybe you should have read the entire article before declaring that "none of them hinge on automobile insurance"?

The guy's arguments are weak at best Joph. Everyone knows it.

It's a tapdance Joph. We all know how the court will eventually rule on this.

Finally, opponents of health care reform have raised a number of constitutional objections to the new statute. The attorneys general of thirteen states joined together to challenge several components of the legislation in a suit filed the day after the President signed the bill into law. The Attorney General of Virginia filed a separate challenge. The suit involving thirteen states alleges that the expansion of Medicaid and the role contemplated for the states in creating insurance exchanges violates the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause because it requires the states to take extensive actions and to commit resources and personnel to a federal program in violation of the anti-commandeering principle. In addition, the suit challenges the validity of the tax on persons who do not have health insurance on the grounds that the statute exceeds Congress's power to tax and spend. The insurance mandate is also challenged on the grounds that it exceeds congressional authority under the Commerce Clause in that it interferes with the ability of the states to protect their citizens from federal intrusion.

If the Supreme Court follows existing precedents, it is unlikely that these challenges will be successful. Two aspects of the health reform legislation have the potential to raise federalism concerns and questions about whether the requirements violate the Tenth Amendment. One is the expansion of the Medicaid program and the other is the requirement that states create insurance exchanges to make the process of purchasing of insurance more transparent and affordable. While historically the Tenth Amendment has not served as a meaningful restraint on federal power, recently the Supreme Court invalidated statutes where a state's participation in administering a federal program was required. Regarding the Medicaid expansion, it is true that expanding the eligibility criteria to require states to cover all persons having incomes at or below 133% of poverty will cost the states more in funding at a time when state resources are under significant pressure. If these new Medicaid requirements and the requirement to develop exchanges are tied to a state's decision to accept federal funding for participation in the federal program, the Supreme Court is not likely to find those two precedents applicable. To the extent that the requirements of the PPACA impose requirements on state and local governments identical to the requirements imposed on other employers, Congress is probably justified. In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Supreme Court held that state and local government employees are subject to federal minimum wage and maximum hour laws.

Although it is not possible within the framework of this [article] to present an exacting analysis of these issues in order to meet the challenges raised in the two lawsuits, the Supreme Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence would seem to give broad discretion to Congress in exercising power to regulate the availability and cost of health insurance. The recent case of Gonzales v. Raich illustrates the broad interpretation the Supreme Court has given Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. In that case, the Court held that Congress could prohibit the production and possession of small amounts of marijuana for medical purposes based on its Commerce Clause authority because of the impact of such activity on the national markets. The insurance mandate and the exchanges to regulate the markets for health insurance established in the PPACA certainly affect economic activity and have an impact on the interstate market for health insurance and health care services. Since 1937, the Supreme Court has limited the reach of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause only when Congress has sought to regulate non-economic activity. In United States v. Lopez, for example, the Court invalidated a federal law requiring gun-free zones around public school facilities because the statute was "a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce' or any sort of economic enterprise." Similarly, in United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act that created civil liability for violent crimes motivated by gender because the nature of the conduct at issue was noneconomic. Unless the Supreme Court decides to impose new limitations on congressional authority, the PPACA is likely to survive constitutional challenges on these grounds.

In before the Jophiel/gbaji 300-post snoozefest.

It's a tapdance Joph. We all know how the court will eventually rule on this. Even you know this, if you stop and are honest about it. Deep inside most US citizens innately "know" when something goes too far, and this clearly does. You know it. I know it. Everyone on this forum knows it. How about we stop pretending that some semantic argument is somehow going to change that?

Actually, a lot of people on this forum, especially those who live outside the US and think we're a bunch of screwball hicks for not having universal healthcare already, don't think it goes far enough.

I don't think it goes far enough.

Until the day when someone's survival doesn't hinge upon their ability to pay for treatments, especially from an unlucky roll of the genetic dice, it doesn't go far enough at all.

I think I'd like to edit that last comment to show how ridiculous some people are at times.

*cough*

Fixed. When presented in terms that don't use loaded words like "socialized medicine," intelligent people agree that maybe universal healthcare isn't such a bad idea if it means people don't die from treatable diseases.

For that matter, so do the phrases "HMOs" and "pre-existing condition", which is what you get when you have business controlling peoples' health care.

Outlaw medical insurance entirely. That's probably the best possible first step to making the health care system sane again.

HMO were created by the government btw. Well, at least the mandates for them. The phrase "pre existing condition" is yet another mandated requirement placed on health care. Those are not the product of private businesses "controlling" people's health care, but government stepping in and creating mandates on those businesses.

50 years ago