Start Mandating health care

Mandating health care

(Automobile insurance isn't an exact parallel because only Americans who choose to drive must buy it, and the requirement comes from the states, not the Feds.) And it's true that the composition of the court has changed in the years since Gonzales v. Still, not even conservative and libertarian scholars who would like to see mandatory health insurance shot down by the courts are betting it will be, although Georgetown's Randy Barnett holds out some hope.

(See our CBS Evening News coverage of mandated health insurance, and a FAQ on the topic.) Timothy Jost, a professor of Washington and Lee University School of Law who says he prefers a national public plan, has argued the constitutional principles -- saying in a essay that the question was a Republican "talking point" that shouldn't be taken terribly seriously.

Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a 'tax' that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. Raich that concludes the decision "seems to all but eliminate the prospect of meaningful judicial restriction of congressional Commerce Clause authority." Somin writes for the Web site, where he says: "It is extremely rare for the Court to strike down a law that enjoys strong majority support from both the general public and the political elite, and is a major item on the current political agenda.

If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by 'taxing' anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables."Unfortunately for legal prognosticators, the U. Doing that is likely to create a head-on confrontation between the Court and the political branches of government, which the Court will almost certainly lose, as happened when the Court struck down various New Deal laws in the 1930s." He adds that while the Supreme Court is likely to uphold mandatory health insurance, "such a law would be unconstitutional under the correct interpretation of the Commerce Clause -- or any interpretation that takes the constitutional text seriously."Then again, a must-purchase-or-be-fined insurance law remains a recognizably different creature than the medical marijuana case, which dealt with punishing undesirable behavior criminally rather than requiring all Americans to purchase a service from a private company.

Specifically, under this new rule, refusals by health plans to cover “gender transition” (commonly known as “sex change”) treatments may be determined by HHS to constitute impermissible discrimination under federal civil rights laws.

The premise for that conclusion is the Administration’s opinion that physical interventions in the form of drugs and surgeries designed to achieve “gender transition” are medically appropriate treatments for individuals with the psychological condition of gender dysphoria.

"Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional" is the unapologetic title of an op-ed last week in the Wall Street Journal by David Rivkin and Lee Casey, Justice Department attorneys during the Reagan and George H. " So does an opinion article in the Christian Science Monitor, a discussion on the O'Reilly Factor, and commentary by Fox News' Andrew Napolitano.

For their part, defenders of mandatory insurance haven't engaged very much, in part because courts tend to be so reluctant to strike down federal laws in the first place.

Max Baucus' proposal that includes levying a $1,500 annual tax on uninsured Americans. Raich is more recent, it's presumably a better glimpse into what the court thinks.