Is the Health Care bill unconstitutional?
I’m beginning to wonder how the health care bills that have been passed by the House and Senate can be constitutional.
Let’s consider a healthy 25-year-old who lives in California and never travels outside of the state. As a matter of federal law, he will be required to purchase health insurance. If he uses the health insurance it will be with a doctor or hospital within California. Forcing this guy to buy insurance is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government (see Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution). Expansion of federal power is typically put through under the “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States” clause, also referred to as “Interstate Commerce”. But in this case the Californian never leaves his state. The health insurers are prohibited from doing business across state lines. The doctors are licensed just in California and are prohibited by other states from practicing anywhere other than California. How can this be interstate commerce?
Now let’s consider the 14th Amendment, which guarantees “equal protection of the laws”. This was originally imposed by the Feds upon the states, but I think it has been interpreted to apply to the federal government as well. Let’s stick with our Californian. He will be hit with higher state taxes to pay for Medicaid patients in California. He will be hit with higher federal taxes to pay for Medicaid patients in Nebraska. Overall he will be getting a very different deal than citizens of Nebraska (source).
Suppose that our Californian is not among those fortunate enough to work for the government. That means it is 93 percent probable that he does not belong to a union. He will be subject to a tax on health insurance provided by an employer; a government worker, autoworker at a government-owned car maker, or worker at a munitions plant who belongs to a union will not pay the tax (more; this is a recent promise by Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress to their union supporters).
The Californian’s in-state decision to purchase services that are illegal to sell across state lines is being regulated by the Federal government. The Californian is paying higher taxes for a federal program than a Nebraskan simply because he is a Californian rather than a Nebraskan. The non-union Californian is paying a tax that union workers nationwide are exempt from. Where is his and California’s protection from intrusive federal regulations? Where is his equal protection under the law compared to a union worker in Nebraska?
How can these new schemes not require an amendment to the Constitution?
Some references (all written before the decision to tax union members differently from other U.S. citizens):
- WSJ article from September 2009 by a former state judge
- UPI article on planned Florida challenge to the Supreme Court
- Christian Science Monitor on potential South Carolina challenge to the Supreme Court, based primarily on the favoritism toward Nebraska citizens
- Cato Institute piece saying that a penalty assessed through income tax is not an income tax and therefore is not covered by the 16th Amendment