Commerce Clause?
I heard race-baiter (and-all around idiot), Congresswoman Shiela Jackson-Lee, mention today that the Interstate Commerce Clause gives the government the authority to regulate insurance, and to force us to go get insurance. When I heard this, I virtually exploded with invectives. I was like a Profane Loom, weaving a tapestry of vulgarity.
I did so, because while the ICC gives the Government broad – overly broad in my opinion – powers to regulate anything that comes within 100 feet of interstate commerce, I’m pretty sure that it can’t touch something that is actually forbidden from being sold outside of a state. Congress had the chance to make insurance an interstate thing, but it chose not to. Health insurance remains a solely intrastate commodity.
So if something in Illinois can only be sold in Illinois, how the flying monkey-fuck can the ICC be used to justify it’s regulation??
The answer, I suspect, has something to do Congressional understanding of the Constitution.
Take a deep breath and consider this. Even though health insurance is sold only intra state it certainly can be used interstate. Think of the people from all over the country that go to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. Their local insurance policies are used in interstate commcerce to pay for services out of state. Let’s consider the case of a certain conservative talk show host who lives in Florida but was recently hospitalized in Hawaii. I would think his Florida insurance policy covered whatever medical expenses were in Hawaii. Think about it.
Comment by harold willis — 3/27/2010 @ 7:04 am
Key phrase: “Congress had the chance to make insurance an interstate thing.” If that choice was Congress’s to make, then you’ve answered your own question. Besides, your statement that insurance is strictly intrastate even under the existing scheme is factually incorrect. Something in Illinois – let’s call it “Allstate” – sells insurance in … um … let’s call them “all states?”
Comment by Xrlq — 3/27/2010 @ 11:25 am
Harold Willis’s ‘take a breath’ patronizing tone is very typical of the assholes lately. You can’t disagree with Sheila Jackson Lee without being an insane loser, right?
Anyway, while I agree with Scott that this interpretation of the commerce clause is ridiculous, the fact is that Wickard justifies this disgusting overreach.
Insurance affects interstate suppliers of medical supplies and services, etc etc etc etc. This isn’t what the commerce clause was meant to do, but if they can string together any connection at all with basically anything in another state, which is any transaction, they have cover to control it.
Comment by dustin — 3/30/2010 @ 11:05 am
Ummmm … isn’t the whole point of being able to regulate Interstate Commerce to be able to facilitate it, to be able to prevent folk getting in the way of it ?
On another blog, I raised a very similar question – basically, since Congress would not allow Healthcare Insurance to cross state lines, then should that not debar them from using ICC arguments to regulate healthcare insurance ?
(grin) I didn”t get a coherent answer there, yet, either …
Comment by Alasdair — 3/31/2010 @ 2:27 pm
Hi, guys…I noticed the Senate Bill noted a Supreme Court case in section 1501, U.S. v. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS’N, 322 U.S. 533 (1944) , as justification for their ability to do this under the “Commerce Clause”. However, Congress passed a law in 1945 that remains to this day McCarran–Ferguson Act, 1945. This act basically was passed in response to the Supreme Court 1944 decision….to exempt insurrance (for the most part) from the Commerce Clause and allow it as State jurisdiction….Congress gave up its “rights” on regulation of insurrance in 1945 so this new “law” premise is wrong and violates established law since 1945, does it not?
Comment by Johnathan Line — 4/3/2010 @ 5:53 pm
Well, if Line’s 1945 law is in conflict with the 2010 law, then the more recent law probably just overrides the old to whatever extent they conflict. There’s no stare decisis for Capitol Hill, sadly.
Commerce clause jurisprudence is such a mess.
Comment by Dustin — 4/4/2010 @ 11:46 am