- Can the challenge even be heard right now, or do challenges have to wait until somebody pays the fine for not having insurance?
- Can Congress require individuals to buy insurance?
- If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, to what extent is it severable from the remainder of the law?
- Do the new Medicaid requirements on states, without providing any new funding for them, rise to the point of coercion and therefore exceed Congress’ power?
My opinion on this SCOTUS review is quite simple: It is absolutely essential that SCOTUS overturn at least the individual mandate as unconstitutional, because the implications of it apply far beyond the ObamaCare law. If Congress can, in fact, require individuals to purchase a product from a private vendor, then there are no practical limitations to Federal power… and our Federal government was intentionally designed as a limited one with few and defined powers.
Finding in favor of the individual mandate would mean that the Federal Government has no limits to its powers, that Congress can do just about anything they take it into their minds to do. It would be the death-knell for freedom and individual rights. How can individual rights exist if Congress can force us to live our lives and spend our money in ways THEY find appropriate?
Overturning the individual mandate is absolutely essential if we are to remain a free nation. Period. I would LIKE to see them overturn the entire ObamaCare law, and not just because I don’t like the law. I think the individual mandate is NOT severable from the rest of the law, and for the following reasons. First, there was a severability clause in earlier drafts of the law, but it was intentionally removed by Congress. Second, it is obvious that the rest of the provisions are so cost-prohibitive to insurers that a mandate to buy insurance was necessary so that insurers wouldn’t go out of business trying to abide by the law. Third, Obama’s lawyers have argued in more than one court that the individual mandate is the heart and soul of the law, absolutely critical if the law is to function as intended. Since the administration has argued that in court, I see no reason why SCOTUS should decide they are wrong.
As to the argument that it is too soon to challenge the law, I don’t think it’s relevant. You see, this point relies on a hundred-year-old law that says people can’t challenge a tax until somebody has already paid it. The problem is, the individual mandate isn’t a tax. The administration has argued both ways at various times, depending on which position would get them what they wanted at that time. But the mandate isn’t a tax, because the money I pay for insurance goes to a private-sector insurance company, not to the government. And if I fail to purchase insurance, that isn’t a tax, it’s a penalty. So I don’t think the law in question applies here, simply because it isn’t a tax.
The Medicaid question is intriguing, and I’m looking at the issue closely now. Essentially, ObamaCare expanded Medicaid requirements so that states would have to offer Medicaid to anybody earning up to 133% of the Federal poverty level. Any state that refused would be denied Medicaid money entirely, thus forcing them to shoulder the entire financial burden of Medicaid alone. SCOTUS has previously ruled that Congress CAN set conditions on money supplied to states, but not so many that those conditions become coercive. Have the new requirements stepped across that line? I don’t know, but this is one of the points SCOTUS will consider.
This is probably the most important case that SCOTUS will decide since they ruled that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. At stake is the fundamental nature of our government. If they decide that the federal government can force us to spend our money as they see fit to dictate, then freedom is dead in this country. Future Congresses will jump on the bandwagon to force us to buy things “for our own good,” and we will be inundated and overrun by an all-powerful Federal government.
I would offer this wisdom. Mandating that you have to buy something...anything for that matter, from toilet paper, to haircuts....doesn't fit within the Constitutional boundaries that have been in place. If a majority court thinks otherwise....we could easily force everyone to buy a rifle for home protection, a fire extinguisher for safety purposes, long-underwear for winter purposes, and Bactine for wound purposes. It's hard to see the logic in this.
ReplyDeleteBut as for the remainder of the health law....it could all stand....if you remove the mandate of forced health care for everyone.
Here in...lies the magic formula and why this was built the way it was. I believe this was a scripted deal, and they knew the mandate would be tossed out four months before the election. It'll be this sharp stick for the president to turn the entire election into a father versus son, neighbor versus neighbor election.
So 2013 will arrive with a bare majority of Democrats in the Senate and still Republican control in the House....and this massive 2-year fight over reinventing the whole health-care debate. Version 2.0.
I don't much good out of this whole thing. We all get dragged further into a political debate that isn't worth our time.
Both Matthew and Ripley are "spot on" as far as the individual mandate is concerned and in some other respects. Let's hope that a majority of the members of the US Supreme Court is as astute as they are.....but I have my fingers crossed on what the "Supremes" might decide.
ReplyDelete