By Steph Windsor
The Constitution provides Congress power “to regulate commerce among the states” under Article 1, Sec. 8. The general zones in which they may do this consist of: regulation of interstate commerce, regulation and protection of the instrumentality of interstate commerce and of persons or things in interstate commerce and, lastly, regulation of activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.
It is, then, a question of how to classify the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act with the Commerce Clause. It is clear that the issue of healthcare coverage is an economic activity unlike any other. This unique sector should be considered in a light different than cases that have set precedent in the court.
When it comes to the healthcare market, there is simply not an “opt out” option thus Congress under their Constitutional powers has rightly decided which avenue citizens will participate in when it comes down to how to pay for their engagement in the healthcare market. Previously, the three options for payment were: health insurance, out-of-the-pocket or uncompensated costs, which are then transferred to a third party such as a hospital or government entity.
This cost-shifting is a red flag that should allow for the regulation of the healthcare market by Congress under the Commerce Clause because it represents activity that has an overall impact on the economy.
The actions of those who are uninsured are substantially affecting interstate commerce in the healthcare market.The uninsured are making risky economic decisions that affect the rest of the market and the President’s Affordable Care Act is aimed at better regulating the commerce in this sector and should be seen as constitutionally fit.
By Andrew Struttmann
I would like to think that all of our politicians understand the core ideals of the Constitution, but the individual mandate of Obamacare clearly shows otherwise.
Nowhere in the powers given to the federal government is the right to force a citizen to purchase a good or service.
The left believes the Commerce Clause allows the feds to impose such a mandate. However, the ability to regulate interstate commerce is clearly intended to keep commerce running between the states.
It is made to ensure that one state does not prohibit goods from entering from another state, or to prevent the taxing of a good as it moves from state to state. Finally, the refusal to purchase insurance is a private choice, and thus not a matter of commercial activity to be mandated. We cannot mandate the inaction of not purchasing a product or service.
The Democrats also call forth the Necessary and Proper Clause, believing that it grants the legislature the ability to make any laws necessary and proper. Keep reading that clause my friends; it goes on to say, “for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.” Thus, the Elastic Clause only gives the power to enforce other powers; it is not an allowance of any and all laws.
Many argue that we can mandate health insurance the same way we do car insurance.
This is a poor comparison, as health insurance is not there to cover damages to others, which is the intent of car insurance. The individual mandate is as unconstitutional as it is poor policy.
B
