Samuel Johnson 360x1000
3confidencegames
lifeinmiddlemarch1
1madoff
2trap
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
storyparadox3
storyparadox2
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
2theleastofus
3albion
1paradide
Maurice B Foley 360x1000
Brendan Beehan 360x1000
2transadentilist
1lafayette
399
12albion
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
1gucci
5confidencegames
1theleasofus
1empireofpain
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
199
4confidencegames
Tad Friend 360x1000
Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
499
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
1lauber
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000
10abion
11albion
lifeinmiddlemarch2
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
2lafayette
Gilgamesh 360x1000
LillianFaderman
2lookingforthegoodwar
7confidencegames
Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
2defense
5albion
9albion
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000
2paradise
11632
George F Wil...360x1000
1transcendentalist
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
1jesusandjohnwayne
4albion
3theleastofus
13albion
3defense
7albion
3paradise
Richard Posner 360x1000
299
1falsewitness
2confidencegames
Maria Popova 360x1000
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
6confidencegames
2gucci
Storyparadox1
1albion
2jesusandjohnwayne
1defense
Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
8albion'
Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
2falsewitness
AlexRosenberg
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
6albion
Edmund Burke 360x1000
Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
1confidencegames
2albion
Learned Hand 360x1000
1lookingforthegoodwar
Betty Friedan 360x1000
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
1trap
14albion
Originally Published on forbes.com on July 28th, 2011
______________________________________
Earlier this month I reported on the decision in the suit by Thomas More Law Center against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is derisively referred to as Obamacare.  The Sixth Circuit found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the Act, but then went on to uphold it.  The constitutional question is whether as I would put it “Not doing nothing” (i.e. not buying health insurance) constitutes interstate commerce.  I understand the libertarian impulse behind the objection.  On the other hand, I don’t want to live in a society where we just let people die and I recognize the concept of “adverse selection” that insurance companies would face if they are unable to deny coverage to the people who really need insurance.
The Center is not giving up the fight and has filed a petition to the Supreme Court.  This issue falls barely within my beat because the enforcement mechaninsm will be a tax under the Internal Revenue Code on those who do not get a policy that meets minimum standards.  It is in the same section as the already effective tax on indoor tanning services, which I told you how to beat recently.  Quoting one of the dissenting  judges the petition indicates that the stakes in the case are very high:
If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause authority would be.
So like the Defense of Marriage Act, this is another states rights case.  Of course the Left likes states rights when it comes to DOMA but not when it comes to health care.  The Right likes states rights when it comes to health care but not when it comes to same sex marriage.  Just like the slave states liked states rights when it came to tariffs, but not so much when it came to personal liberty laws that interfered with the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law.  When they let the Supreme Court handle that mess we got the Dred Scott decision and a few hundred thousand dead soldiers.  Hopefully the result in this case will be better.
In Massachusetts we have a requirement similar to that provided for in the Patient Protection Act enforced by an additional state tax.  We’ve also had marriage equality for several years.  So far the world hasn’t ended.  Incidentally, it was really, really hard to get fugitive slaves out of Massachusetts as the Anthony Burns incident showed.  Personally, I’m  100% for states rights and 100% for federal supremacy.  It just depends on what the issue is.