Thirteen states have filed a lawsuit claiming that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional.
Will they win or are they just wasting taxpayers money in an attempt to look good to their political bases? If you guessed the later, you didn’t require anyone to read this to you.
Given that we have five Supremes who can’t differentiate between human beings and things that human beings create, anything is possible. By the way, since voting is the most important form of free speech, why have corporations never voted? Sorry, I didn’t mean to give them any ideas.
Even if the courts were to rule in the favor of these thirteen grandstanding attorneys general, they can’t win.
They claim that it is unconstitutional to require people to purchase private health insurance. If someone doesn’t have health insurance, others must pay for it out of their taxes. The requirement is a protection measure for the rest of us.
Don’t get me wrong. I have no desire to see people forced to give these private monsters more money. This law, as presently configured, gives these corporations an additional 31 or so million customers. That is estimated to increase their bank accounts by some $70 billion annually. No. I definitely am not pleased with that.
Having the public option is less rational than Medicare-For-All but it would at least provide an alternative for many of this 31 million and others. Most of that $70 billion would not go to the leeches. We have been promised that the Congress will amend the law to include the public option.
So, there is a possibility that the courts could rule in their favor. What happens? This law, as with most others of any complexity, includes a separability clause. That means, if the courts rule against any part of it, the entire law is not scrapped. The remainder remains.
Interestingly, the suit cites no case law or precedent. Why? Because there is none. Federal law overrules state law.
Under the commerce clause of the Constitution the government has broad, unchallenged power to regulate interstate commerce. Interstate commerce has historically been interpreted very broadly. Also, the right of the government to tax has been firmly established.
Even given the present makeup of the Court, there is almost no likelihood that the attorneys general can prevail with this suit. A few may prevail in their races for the governor’s seat in their state based on the publicity they will garner.
The solution, should the courts rule in their favor, is to offer the public option, or make a public program mandatory. All the former would do is offer a better deal at less cost by eliminating about 30% of the costs that unnecessary overhead represents. Making it mandatory simply means reducing the amount one pays for coverage and calling it a tax rather than a premium. The courts have already ruled that Social Security, Medicare, et al., are constitutional.
So, if they win, and their win brings a public option or Medicare-For-All, what have they won?
America’s Favorite Loon, Michelle Bachmann, or as she calls herself on her web site, Amaricas Congress Woman, has introduced a bill which calls the healthcare bill unconstitutional. If she can’t spell America’s correctly or punctuate it correctly or doesn’t know that Congresswoman is one word, her bill may need the services of an editor.
Were it anyone else, save Sarah, we would consider her to be doing this only for its symbolic effect. She, however, seems convinced that the bill will succeed. How she will attain majorities in either house no one can explain. Then, either the President must sign it or his veto must be overridden by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress. I would be hesitant to put too much money on any of those possibilities.
Then we have the Republican leadership saying that the passage of this bill is the death knell of the Democratic Party. Before passage they were exhibiting great concern for the welfare of the Democrats (pun intended). Their solicitude was impressive and heartwarming. Despite their concern for the wellbeing of their compatriots they intend to take advantage of this misstep by the Democrats by running on the position of repealing the healthcare bill.
I can see their logic. The people will swarm to their standard in order to reinstate the bar by the insurance companies of preexisting conditions. Their support will be overwhelming for reimposition of annual and total limitations of coverage.
Kids up to the age of 26 want to be independent. They will flock to the sides of the Republicans freeing them from sharing their parents coverage. Geezers like me will truly appreciate their efforts if we don’t have to worry about what to do with all of our money. We can just luxuriate in the do-nut hole and let the drug companies do all of that worrying.
I think those cagey Republicans have discovered the magic talisman of electoral politics.
Silly suit? Of course. But look to the source. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “Silly is as silly does.”
.
{ 2 comments }
As we have discussed in the past, I am all in favor of medicare for all. So, I am not interested in saving the dirty, nasty private insurers. I am interested in doing something that makes sense. Congress did not do something that makes sense in passing this law. But, as you said, silly is as silly does.
Right. No insurance corporation has ever cured an illness or saved a life. They do not play a necessary role in the delivery of health care.
This bill was seen by its supporters in Congress and the White House as getting something, whatever they could get. They miscalculated. They were far too timid. They could have gotten at least a public option and expanding Medicare by lowering the age limit by 10 years.
A couple of days ago the majority appeared not to favor the bill. Monday, after it passed but before it was signed, it was favored by a 9% margin. That will grow.
What that seeming turnabout means is not that people quickly changed their mind or better understood the bill. It means they saw Obama and the Democrats taking charge and being successful. They will follow a leader.
In a recent poll, only 4% wanted to keep our existing system. It needed to be changed. It needs even more change. That will come if Washington learned the lesson – to act. Bush sounded silly saying he was the decider but that is what the majority wants. He did have some political instincts.
Comments on this entry are closed.