States Challenge Federal Government Health Insurance Mandate
According to a story in today’s The New York Times, in more than a dozen statehouses across the country, a small but growing group of lawmakers are pressing for state constitutional amendments that would outlaw a crucial element of the health care plans under discussion in Washington: the requirement that everyone buy insurance or pay a penalty.
This situation is evolving into a confrontation that erupts periodically, beginning with the signing of the U.S. Constitution: the legal battle over the rights of states versus the reach of federal power.
“While using federal power to force individuals to buy private insurance raises serious constitutional questions, I just don’t see what these state resolutions add to the constitutional objections to this expansion of federal power,” Professor Randy Barnett, a Georgetown Law professor said.
“All I’m trying to do is protect the individual’s right to make health care decisions,” said State Representative Tom Emmer, a Republican. “I just don’t want the government getting between my decisions with my doctors.”
The Times indicated that in spite of all the legal experts who discount the states’ chances of trumping a federal plan, Mr. Emmer seemed unconvinced.
“They’re essentially saying that state constitutions are meaningless, and I disagree,” he said. “And tell me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the federal government has the right to provide health care? This is the essence of the debate.”
According to joint committee on taxation chief of staff Thomas Barthold, Americans who refuse or cannot afford health care could face up to a $25,000 fine or a up to one year in jail. Read more…
