In USA, we have a strong tradition of federalism, which is to say, a two-tiered system, state governments and national government acting in very different roles with little overlap.
The regulation of health, safety, and welfare are traditionally state functions. Thus, Massachusetts is arguably fulfilling its traditional role in regulating health, safety and welfare by imposing requirements on private persons to obtain health insurance.
That said, this requirement is outside the norm. Nevertheless, historically Massachusetts has often been in the vanguard of social change (not always for the better). (Which is why the nickname "Taxachusetts").
Thre is a long standing tradition by the United States Supreme Court of deference to the individual states governing themselves as long as there is no conflict with the United States Constitution. It is considered beneficial to allow the various states to attempt to solve social problems by experimentation.
Bottom line, if you don't like living in Taxachusetts, move to New Hampshire.
So, yes, probably legal. Wisdom? Eh. I think not. |
