QUESTION: Is the Madate to Purchase Insurance the ONLY Unconstitutional Provision of the Bill?

March 22, 2010

[MrChips]

I am curious about the unconstitutionality of the Health Care Bill. We all know that there will be court challenges to the provision requiring Americans to purchase insurance. But, are there other parts of the Bill which violate the Constitution and could be challenged in court?

[EvilOverlord]

From what I’ve read the unequal treatment of people who live in different states violates the equal protection clause.

I don't see how having different laws for Federal employess and congressmen versus the common people doesn't violate equal protection.

If we're forced to buy social security and forced to buy government healthcare, they should have to buy it as well. Having a tier of laws for the rulers and a tier of laws for the ruled must be unconstitutional.

[Non-Sequitur]

Maybe not. But if the court strikes down that mandate then the bill is pretty much gutted.

[Hoodat]

Providing federal money for Medicaid coverage in Nebraska only violates equal protection. So does the Cadillac coverage penalty exemption for union members, as does the South Florida exemption for the phasing out of Medicare Advantage.

The part of the bill which states that no future Congress can change it is also unconstitutional. And most importantly, insurance companies do not operate across state lines, but work exclusively within a state. Therefore, they are not subject to the Commerce Clause (Article I, Sec. 8). Thus, the Federal Government does not have the authority to regulate them.

[TJC]

Replied to the wrong post....