Posted on 03/14/2017 8:36:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I can understand a government case per the 16th amendment for a tax deduction (not a tax credit) extended to individuals and small business to offset the cost of health care premiums, however, I see no constitutional authority for the federal government to dictate to private insurance providers that they MUST cover preexisting conditions or that they MUST charge a 30% (or whatever) surcharge if a customer lets his policy lapse and then wants to sign up again later.
Whether these are "good ideas" or not, where is the constitutional authority?
Add Social Security, FDA, ICC, Fed to that list.
We have been unmoored from the Constitution for decades.
This doesn’t answer your question, but I think the accepted answer is because the SCOTUS said so (with Roberts concurring).
None. Nowhere.
It’s in the Insanity Clause...
the scotus violated the constitution by ruling that it ‘is a tax’ then later admitted that it isn’t (or vice versa- can’t remember how it went down- but the jist of the issue was that they LIED to get it rammed through, then turned around and admitted that the reason they got it through wasn’t valid-
Legal scholars all across the nation were absolutely stunned by the idiotic court opinion delivered by roberts- they could not believe the mental gymnastics he went through trying to justify his reason for voting for it- It was one of the most shameful votes ever- really- almost as bad as the supreme court inventing the ‘separation of church and state’ (No endorsement) nonsense that is now the ‘law of the land’ and the roe vs wade giving women the ‘right’ to murder innocent people fetuses
Or the Santa Clause.
Paul Ryan knows more about the Constitution than you.../S
Some one get one of the hooks and pull that Nimrod off the political stage.
What a pathetic joke he’s become.
It is wise for us all to remember how this racket got started in the first place. Under wage and price controls during WWII, insurance was a perk an employer could offer an employee in lieu of a raise. Quite quickly — humans being involved and all — employees of companies not offering the perk got jealous. In the decades since, in the hands of politicians pandering to their jealous gibsmedat voters of all colors and creeds, somehow “insurance” has become some kind of federal government carrot to be offered along with hundreds of sticks.
It should be incumbent on an employer to offer nothing but a fair wage for work completed, unless the employer wants to offer a perk at the employer’s discretion.
If the employee wants to use his or her fairly-earned wage to purchase insurance, that should be the employee’s prerogative.
There should be NO role for the federal government in this free-market transaction.
And isn’t it the slippery slope to start creating such an authority?
‘Hell is full of good intentions and wishes’ such as these.
OR mucked it up yesterday spouting about the general welfare clause. Can someone articulate the enumerated powers info.
Of course there isn’t one. But it won’t matter.
I agree that the ruling was both unwise and unconstitutional. It sets a terrible precedent.
Where is the constitutional authority for government to meddle in medicine and medical care and in insurance?
USGov is off the rails of the USConstitution, by a long way. So USGov is acting illegally in _many_ ways.
If Congress or others wish to implement their socialist state, lawfully; all they have to do is amend USConstitution.
SCOTUS with Roberts (likely being blackmailed with NSA info) decided ACA was lawful. No it isn’t, wasn’t, can’t be, without an amendment. But everyone is supposed to pretend that only SCOTUS can _read_. Pretend that We The People cannot read law, especially USConstitution.
Supposed lack of intelligence or not enough years being indoctrinated at a law school; learning up is down and left is right. Some kind of strange magic the black robes have, to conjure up what isn’t written...
None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
The way they’ve gotten away with it is via the courts torturing the Commerce Clause. The Clause gives the federal government the power to ‘regulate interstate commerce’.
Our Founders intended just what it says. To regulate=to make regular. They wanted to encourage the free flow of commerce across the states. To facilitate that required some oversight at times, such as a bushel of apples in Virginia was the same as a bushel of apples in New York. That kind of thing.
The court took the atrocious step of making believe the Commerce Clause applied to anything that had the POTENTIAL to affect interstate commerce.
IOW, it applies to anything and everything. It’s how the Feds can grab jurisdiction over a case involving phone calls between two parties in the same city. Phone lines are used, phone lines can affect interstate commerce—presto! Federal jurisdiction.
You can see the disastrous consequences of abusing the Commerce Clause. It’s become a judicial waste basket.
Amen!
Once “insurance” took hold, ALL medical costs skyrocketed, including doctor visits.
I can remember paying my family doctor $5.00 a visit for my toddlers in the early 70’s!
You have to vote on that question to even THINK that question.
From a Constitutional perspective, issues involving health care belong to the states. Anything pertaining to the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry is under state, not federal jurisdiction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.