Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many threads have wondered if the States can refuse to participate in the new Federal Socialized Medicine program. Specifically, can states make laws saying no citizen of that state can be forced to buy insurance they don't want, or fined if they refuse to buy it?
Normally, no. If the Fed makes a law saying that everyone with an income of $50,000/yr must pay Federal Income Taxes of $6,000, then no state can make a law saying that state's citizens only have to pay a Fed income tax of $2,000. Because the Fed is authorized by the Constitution to levy that tax in that way if it wants. (And boy, does it want!). See Article 6, Para. 2 of the Constitution.
But if the Fed makes a law saying that everybody must buy a Ford for their next car, or must buy, say, Health insurance whether they like it or not, or else pay the Fed a fine if they don't... that law is unconstitutional, since the Const gives the Fed no such authority to make those laws. Arguments about the Welfare Clause or Commerce Clause have long been debunked. And the Supreme Court has long ruled that any law that is contrary to the Constitution, is null and void - it is no law at all.
So states can certainly make a law saying that none of that state's citizens can be forced to buy a Ford, or an insurance policy, or anything else, or else pay a fine if they refuse. The state is opposig no Federal law at all... since that's what any such Federal law would be: null and void.
The Democrats dropped the ball on this on numerous counts..
Had insurance companies crossed the state lines, federal government would have jurisdiction.. But Democrats refused to pass the bill in steps and wanted an all for one approach. Its this all in one approach which will cause the bill to be deemed unconstitutional because only ONE line in the 2300 page bill needs to be deemed illegal and the whole bill gets thrown out..
Many threads have wondered if the States can refuse to participate in the new Federal Socialized Medicine program. Specifically, can states make laws saying no citizen of that state can be forced to buy insurance they don't want, or fined if they refuse to buy it?
Normally, no. If the Fed makes a law saying that everyone with an income of $50,000/yr must pay Federal Income Taxes of $6,000, then no state can make a law saying that state's citizens only have to pay a Fed income tax of $2,000. Because the Fed is authorized by the Constitution to levy that tax in that way if it wants. (And boy, does it want!)
But if the Fed makes a law saying that everybody must buy a Ford for their next car, or must buy, say, Health insurance whether they like it or not, or else pay the Fed a fine if they don't... that law is unconstitutional, since the Const gives the Fed no such authority to make those laws. Arguments about the Welfare Clause or Commerce Clause have long been debunked. And the Supreme Court has long ruled that any law that is contrary to the Constitution, is null and void - it is no law at all.
So states can certainly make a law saying that none of that state's citizens can be forced to buy a Ford, or an insurance policy, or anything else, or else pay a fine if they refuse.
And that's exactly what's happening. 38 states are fighting back, so far.
38 states are passing or have passed legislation voiding the HCR bill's insurance requirement and/or filing lawsuits against it. "Some 38 states have either filed or announced their intention to file similar legislation" Ten US states to file suit against health care reform - Yahoo! News
Its this all in one approach which will cause the bill to be deemed unconstitutional because only ONE line in the 2300 page bill needs to be deemed illegal and the whole bill gets thrown out..
Actually, the Supremes have been known to strike down part of a law while explicitly leaving other parts standing.
Whether they will do that to this monstrosity, I don't know.
I don't believe that even if Insurance companies crossed state lines, the federal government would have jurisdiction to mandate purchase of Private services. The Insurance Companies are still a Private entity. Banks are covered under the commerce clause but I am not forced to put money in a bank. The only way I think mandating citizens to buy health insurance is through a Public Option (directly through the Federal Government) - then the federal government could use "general welfare" and those that wanted strictly Private Insurance would Opt out.
I think they did it backwards. The true benefactor of this Bill is the Insurance Companies.
Hell, I'd love there be a public mandate to buy my private product too.
Strike the Mandate, careful what you ask for. Could result in UHC, Medicare for all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
