One thing has been bothering me about the debate over the new health care bill is that every discussion between lawmakers I’ve heard in the media goes something like this:
Opponent: “Forcing people to buy health insurance is unprecedented and violates the commerce clause of the Constitution.”
Supporter: “It will cover 30 million new people and make health care cheaper and all of my constituents want it.”
Am I missing something? I am really hopeful that the healthcare bill they’ve will result in better and cheaper access to health care, but shouldn’t somebody, y’know, make some sort of cogent argument that it is constitutional? And then tell me what it is?
Here’s the thing: 18 state attorneys general are filing a federal lawsuit challenging the bill. Somebody please tell me the defense in the case has a better argument than “Hooray Obamacare.”
Well there’s that giant “general welfare” loophole:
Atrticle I, Section 8:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
The way I understand it is if the government decides something is needed for the “general welfare” they can spend the taxpayers’ money on it.