Round 2 Against Health Care Mandates
Several weeks ago -- it seems like a lifetime -- the State Senate passed a series of bills stating that no Virginian could be "forced" into purchasing insurance. After a long floor fight, the bills passed 23-17 and caused a mild shock in the political world, as the U.S. Congress was still apparently considering a comprehensive health care reform bill.
I voted against the bill and stated my opposition.
Of course, the bills have no effect against Federal legislation which supersedes state law. But that didn't stop us back then.
Today, having passed the House, the bills resurfaced on the Senate floor with "Governor's amendments." Ironically, the amendments covered the exact issue I raised on February 2nd, namely that the new law would strip away a court's ability to require parents in a custody case to provide insurance for their children.
The Governor sought to cure the problem. But even a good amendment can't cure a bad bill.
What about sports leagues that require insurance?
How about private schools?
How about outdoor organization, especially those for kids?
All kinds of organizations, whether state-run (e.g. colleges) or private, require insurance for certain activities. That is good for the organization and good for the individual.
These bills cause confusion and do the exact opposite of what we want -- which is to encourage people to get insurance, especially for their children.
Thanks for your leadership on this issue. The Republican party's position on this is absurd, especially where it relates to kids.
That's interesting - I raised that exact objection in our floor debate and said it needed to be amended and was ignored.
Great minds think alike.
Food for thought. You guys are the lawyers so you'll have to tell me where I am going astray. I thought the objection was that the Federal government couldn't force you to buy insurance. This is because there is no language in the Constitution that could be construed as giving the Federal government the right to compel a citizen into a private contract. However, the 10th Amendment empowers the states to do anything so long as it is not forbidden by the Constitution or reserved (in the Constitution) to the Federal government. Therefore, the Feds can't force you into a contract with a private company but Virginia can.
Where am I losing the plot on this?
That's an interesting argument. Obviously, at the state level, we do compel people to enter contracts in certain situations (the most obvious example is car insurance). Frankly, I haven't followed the Fed health care bill that closely -- and the most ambitious part appears dead -- but I understand that it would require adults to get insurance, at least for their children.
In my 16 years as a lawyer, I've never heard the 10th Amendment cited in an argument or a judicial opinion. I would argue that it's a rule of logic (that which is not named is therefore not included), not a legal principle.
Whether the 10th Amendment could provide you an "out" from buying insurance is an interesting concept. Of course, our state laws can't nullify Federal laws, period. So the bills we passed in Richmond this years are purely symbolic -- except for the unintended consequences they have within our own state.
How about the IDCC? One of the issues that is still outstanding is whether or not the committee will need to purchase insurance separate from the City's policy. One of the reasons I'm not participating this year is that I do not want to be potentially liable until such time as this issue is resolved.