Remind me again which part of the Constitution authorizes the Fed to run Health Care?

[Little-Acorn]

The old, tired argument about the "Welfare Clause" has long been debunked (see http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=24953 ). Even more so the excuses for the "Commerce Clause".

In fact, the coming government intrusion into Health Care, is completely unconstitutional... as are programs such as Welfare, Social Security, etc.

How long will it be before someone whose employer drops their company's health care program, sues the Fed Govt over enactment of this massive program?

The 10th amendment says that any power not specified in the Constitution, is FORBIDDEN to the Fed, though "the states and the people" can still exercise it if they want.

And running Health Care isn't specified anywhere in the Constitution as a power of the Federal Govt.

For you leftists, what part of the Constitution, exactly, authorizes the Fed Govt to run Health care?

[Kathianne]

You're not the only one that thinks it's unconstitutional:

http://www.pointoflaw.com/columns/archives/2009/12/impermissible-ratemaking-in-he.php


December 18, 2009

Impermissible Ratemaking in Health-Insurance Reform: Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional
By Richard A. Epstein

DOWNLOAD PDF

Right now, the Senate is anxiously considering HR-SA 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—a.k.a. the Reid Bill—which builds on earlier efforts in the Senate and House to reach a new consensus on health-care reform.[1] Many legislative uncertainties remain, but its key characteristics seem fixed in stone, and they highlight the radical nature of this legislation.

Senator Orrin Hatch has long urged that the legislation is unconstitutional for its overreaching on individual choice. This paper focuses on the constitutional question in the ratemaking context, by comparison to analogous regulations in the context of public-utility regulation.
One telling sign of the relevance of this analysis comes from the Congressional Budget Office ("CBO"). In a recent release, it has treated the proposal as if it nationalizes much of the private health insurance industry, most specifically because it may well require that rebates to customers kick in whenever, in its words, "medical loss ratios are less than 90 percent."[2] In plain English, the Reid Bill assumes that health-care administration, which is always costly, can be done cheaply even in the new legal environment, so cheaply in fact that these health-insurance rebates kick in whenever insurers' administrative expenses exceed 10 percent of their premium dollar. As the CBO has concluded, "this further expansion of the federal government's role in the health insurance market would make such insurance an essentially governmental program ..."

In effect, the onerous obligations under the Reid Bill would convert private health insurance companies into virtual public utilities. This action is not only a source of real anxiety but also a decision of constitutional proportions, for it systematically strips the regulated health-insurance issuers of their constitutional entitlement to earn a reasonable rate of return on the massive amounts of capital that they have already invested in building out their businesses.

In order to make out this argument, let me proceed as follows. In part I, I shall give a general overview in order to place in context the system of health-care regulation that shall be operated through the State Exchanges that would be formed under the Reid Bill. In part II, I shall give a detailed analysis of some of the major provisions of the Reid Bill. In part III, I shall give a brief analysis of the economic assumptions that underlie the Reid Bill, and the way in which they are likely to lead to extensive price fixing. In part IV, I shall flesh out the constitutional implications of the above analysis. I shall then close with a brief conclusion, which recommends that the Reid Bill be scrapped....