Rejecting the Affordable Care Act could deprive 30 million people of health insurance
It might help create a situation where more people are insured. All the coverage requirements in the PPACA drive up cost for insurance.
Ever since the New Deal, the Court has held that federal power here is very broad.
The courts have gone to far here, but the article is correct that they have allowed for broad federal power.
But, if so, they’ll need to break new ground – that is, they’ll have to establish a limit on the commerce power that does not now exist.
What would truly be breaking new ground is considering the lack of activity to be interstate commerce. Wikard was seriously flawed in that it allowed non-commercial activity to be covered under the federal power to regulate interstate commerce, but the ability to force commerce would be new. Wikard allowed federal regulation of the activity of farming (even if the farmer in the case wasn't selling wheat, just growing a small amount for his family), that if you want to farm the government can regulate it. Allowing the PPACA to stand based on the interstate commerce clause would allow the government to order activity to be done, not just regulate activity that is already occurring. It comes very close to just granting unlimited power to the federal government to do anything that isn't explicitly forbidden by the constitution, despite the constitution clearly granting the feds specific limited powers.
No Supreme Court case has ever held or implied that Congress’s Commerce Clause authority is limited to individuals who are presently engaging in an activity involving, or substantially affecting, interstate commerce.
Because the federal government hasn't tried to use the interstate commerce clause to force activity on those who where not engaging in an activity involving or substantially affecting interstate commerce before, at least not anywhere close to this extent. The Supreme Court only decides cases in front of it. It doesn't' try to resolve all possible future constitutional issues peremptorily.
The individual mandate would seem to meet those two criteria rather easily. Insurance mandates are certainly common for more voluntary activities, like driving a car or living in a flood plain.
State insurance mandates. States have the power to do anything the constitution doesn't forbid them from doing. The feds only have the power under the constitution to do what they are allowed to do by the constitution. Also those where mandates to do X if your engaging in Y, not simply mandates to do X. No state requires you buy car insurance. Many of them require car insurance if your going to operate a car on public roads.
And, by enacting the mandate, Congress was following the advice of non-partisan experts, including those at the Congressional Budget Office, who said that a mandate was essential to maximizing insurance coverage and reducing the price of insurance through a system of private health benefits.
Except that the mandate increases the price of insurance. And even if it did decrease it and was generally beneficial, "providing a benefit to the country" != "is constitutional. |
