Kasz216 said:
No. Healthcare does fall under interstate commerce. That was never challenged at the hearing. The government already regulates healthcare at a national level. The issue is that inaction =/= action... and the government has no power to force commerce... that is a power reserved by the state. Hence why whenever the federal government wanted a law like that. Like say car insurance. Instead of passing said law they blackmailed states into it. Like say "You have to pass a mandatory car isurance law, or you won't get any highway tax funds". |
The way heath care is set up now, it is done on the state level. You do not go across state lines to get it. It is on a state level. It is part of the reason why state level mandates can be accepted, but the argument is federal level mandates are argued to not be acceptable, because it is argued that health care is not under federal justidiction. What Mass. has, for example, with individual mandates, hasn't been challenged as being constitutional, because it is on the state level. Now, this doesn't mean that mandates on a federal level can't be challenged for other reasons, but interstate commerce is one of them. Because it is on the state level, like auto insurance is, there is no constitutional issues.
A number of articles said that what is at debate in part is interstate commerce:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/business/the-health-care-mandate-and-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/health-care-and-interstate-commerce/1132428
http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/03/editorial_health_care_system_i.html
http://www.news-journal.com/news/nation/legal-risks-of-health-care-overhaul-surprised-its-supporters/article_2a671727-3a82-5122-9401-4a1656dbcd36.html
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1830858/pg1







