States sue to Block Healthcare Bill

So, it has been a tumultuous weekend in Washington, and already the rest of the nation is reeling from the aftershocks of the passage of the first bill to overhaul the Healthcare system. Already, several states’ attorney generals have formally or informally proposed moves to block the new legislation from extending into their jurisdictions. Reuters reports that “eleven of the attorney generals plan to band together in a collective lawsuit on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington.”
The plaintiffs challenge the right of the national legislature (i.e. Congress) to pass laws that compel individuals to obtain insurance (in this case health insurance). The White House, on the other hand, cites precedent of more than a century, giving the federal government the role of regulating interstate commerce. In fact, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was the very first administrative bureau for the US government, created during the late nineteenth century.
Still, the opponents maintain that this is not an issue of interstate trade. Virginia attorney general Cuccinelli states that “If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce… If you’re not engaging in commerce, how can the government regulate you?” At first glance, of course, this logic appears valid. However, isn’t there more to this issue than such simple hypothetical statements suggest?
Allow me to tell a brief story… During the civil rights struggle, the Supreme Court ruled in Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) the Congress had the power to employ its jurisdiction over interstate commerce to combat racial segregation in certain cases. Because hotels facilitate interstate commerce, to deny patrons on the basis of race impeded the goal of promoting trade, and, therefore, state laws that allowed such activity were unconstitutional.
Now, on its surface, this case appears quite distinct from the current contention over compulsory healthcare. Congress, after all, was compelling businesses to open their doors to citizens previously denied access. Today, Congress is presumably compelling citizens to purchase health insurance or face penalties (which seems more like telling people they HAVE to stay in hotels when they travel). The Virginia attorney general’s statement above seems to bear out this claim, but his words overlook the fact that people aren’t simply “choosing” not to buy insurance. Indeed, most of the uninsured simply cannot afford to have a policy. The individual lacks the power to demand affordable coverage and thus, she marginalized not through a choice of her own, but by the institutional arrangements of the national healthcare industry. Congress, consequently, should theoretically be able to use the commerce clause to open access to medical coverage for those now unable to participate. Obviously, a public option more explicitly solves this problem, but when this failed to gain traction last fall, the new bill (soon to be law) attacks the same issue from another direction. By forcing individuals to have insurance, the whole private sector must adjust to accommodate this requirement. If insurers or businesses fail to provide viable options for the currently uninsured, these organizations, then, open themselves to accusations of opportunism and malfeasance. Ultimately, the bill’s goal is to help individuals obtain healthcare, not to hurt them, and the commerce clause certainly works properly for this purpose, despite the rhetoric from this lawsuit.
This is the first installment of several more posts to come regarding healthcare reform… Stay tuned for more.