“Coakley argues in the brief filed last Friday that a similar provision in Massachusetts’ first-in-the-nation health care law has been highly successful.”
I have not read her brief, but if that’s her argument, it’s not a very good one. The fact that the program works is nice, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. States are different than the federal government in what they can regulate. Whether the federal mandate is constitutional remains to be seen.
Some may argue whether Massachusetts Romneycare is a roaring success. The last I heard, the costs were skyrocketing out of control even though they have enrolled almost everyone in the state. I would seriously doubt that the state has Tort Reform, so the lawyers still have a field day on suits and keep the doctors costs high with malpractice premiums.
I agree with the Other Point of View, the results aren’t a constitutional argument. I really wish people who were elected would educate themselves about constitutionality vs what may/may not work. No one would even have an argument that the health care law was constitutional if it were based on just what is written in the constitution.
I think the biggest flaw in the federal law is the failure to address the penalty. I doubt that the tax code can be used to levy a fine since to do so skirts the due process requirements of US law. Secondly, if the US governement requires the purchase and attaches it to the tax code in any way, it allows by association that the cost of mandated helath insruance is deductible for tax purposes for the individual.
That doesn’t even touch on whether or not the governement has any authority over how I spend my money and what products or services I buy or don’t buy.
The Federal government has quite a bit of authority about what you can’t buy. Cocaine and hand-grenades are a couple of obvious examples. The question is whether the government has the authority to force you to purchase a product. Or, more accurately, whether Congress’s authority to regulate commerce includes the mandated purchase of health insurance. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue.
“Coakley argues in the brief filed last Friday that a similar provision in Massachusetts’ first-in-the-nation health care law has been highly successful.”
I have not read her brief, but if that’s her argument, it’s not a very good one. The fact that the program works is nice, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. States are different than the federal government in what they can regulate. Whether the federal mandate is constitutional remains to be seen.
Some may argue whether Massachusetts Romneycare is a roaring success. The last I heard, the costs were skyrocketing out of control even though they have enrolled almost everyone in the state. I would seriously doubt that the state has Tort Reform, so the lawyers still have a field day on suits and keep the doctors costs high with malpractice premiums.
I agree with the Other Point of View, the results aren’t a constitutional argument. I really wish people who were elected would educate themselves about constitutionality vs what may/may not work. No one would even have an argument that the health care law was constitutional if it were based on just what is written in the constitution.
I think the biggest flaw in the federal law is the failure to address the penalty. I doubt that the tax code can be used to levy a fine since to do so skirts the due process requirements of US law. Secondly, if the US governement requires the purchase and attaches it to the tax code in any way, it allows by association that the cost of mandated helath insruance is deductible for tax purposes for the individual.
That doesn’t even touch on whether or not the governement has any authority over how I spend my money and what products or services I buy or don’t buy.
The Federal government has quite a bit of authority about what you can’t buy. Cocaine and hand-grenades are a couple of obvious examples. The question is whether the government has the authority to force you to purchase a product. Or, more accurately, whether Congress’s authority to regulate commerce includes the mandated purchase of health insurance. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue.