Here’s Virginia’s State legislator Bob Marshall explaining Virginia’s new bill allowing citizens to opt out of the mandate to purchase health insurance and if the IRS comes after any citizen the Virginia Attorney General will defend them and stop the IRS coming after a fine or jail time for the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. Come on Tennessee don’t fall behind any more like you already have.
Virginia Passes Health Freedom Bill, Setting Up Legal Challenge to Individual Mandate
In anticipation of the federal individual mandate to require citizens to purchase health insurance approved by the Congress, the Commonwealth of Virginia recently passed a bill providing the basis for a state-based legal challenge.
The pushback came from a bipartisan coalition of elected officials in advance of Congress’s approval of President Obama’s health care legislation. The Democrat-controlled Virginia Senate passed their version of the anti-mandate measure, Senate Bill 417, in February, followed by the House of Delegates passing House Bill 10, 87-17 in March.
Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, says he plans to sign the bill, and Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has declared his intention to file suit “against the federal government and its unconstitutional overreach of its authority.”
Other States Consider Action
Statehouses across the country have been considering similar legislation. According to Christie Herrera, director of the Health and Human Services Task Force for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a DC-based nonprofit, a total of 38 states are considering anti-mandate measures.
“Thirty-three states have introduced legislation,” Herrera said. “An additional four have announced their intentions to file, and there is one citizen-led initiative announced by the Independent Institute.”
Health Freedom Goes National
States are following Arizona’s lead via constitutional amendments and statutory approaches.
“Most states are doing a constitutional amendment. But some states don’t consider constitutional amendments this session, like Virginia, or have byzantine rules for amending their constitution, like Tennessee,” Herrera said. “A handful of states are pushing forward to enact statutory measures for now.”
Idaho’s statutory measure currently sits on the governor’s desk, and Kansas’s bill has passed out of committee and will head to the House floor. The Senate version of the Kansas bill is still being considered by the judiciary committee.
“The Health Care Freedom Act will be back on the November 2010 ballot in Arizona. It differs from the original initiative only in that it responds to critics who feared the 2008 initiative would have adversely affected existing state programs,” said Bolick.
Opt-Outs Could Scuttle Plan?
The legislation was not without opposition in Virginia. Herrera says opponents likened it to efforts to evade federally ordered racial integration of schools in the 1950s. Others say if states try to opt out of the federal mandate the entire plan could fail because without the healthy to subsidize the sick, prices would skyrocket.
“The people of Virginia have made a statement to the federal government through their state that government cannot control their health care decisions,” said Kansas Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook (R-Johnson County). “Hopefully the people of Kansas, like citizens in many other states, will soon join Virginia in making that statement.”
Supreme Court Could Decide
“If Congress tried to enforce a law that directly violated the terms of the Health Care Freedom Amendment, the courts would have to decide whether a state’s guarantee of liberty to its citizens can protect them from actions by the federal government that would violate that liberty,” said Roland.
According to Herrera, the Virginia act enables an individual citizen to rely on the legal power of the Commonwealth to defend him- or herself in a case that could conceivably go to the Supreme Court, which could decide the constitutionality of the mandate.
“Based on the current composition of the Supreme Court, I expect the individual health insurance mandate would probably be found unconstitutional, either as a violation of the commerce clause or the individual right to privacy,” said Roland.
Sarah McIntosh (mcintosh.sarah@gmail.com) teaches constitutional law and American politics at Wichita State University in Kansas.
Internet Info:
Virginia Senate Bill 417: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=sb417&Submit2=Go
Virginia House Bill 10: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb10&Submit2=Go
babybttrfly
Steve Hilton
Mike
Mar 22, 2010 @ 23:10:33
Just who are these people who don’t want to get health insurance? Seems like an extremely small minority that are causing all the fuss.
Mar 22, 2010 @ 23:19:24
Ben it’s people that don’t want the federal government meddling in their health care affairs including buying a federally approved health care plan that’s who. Looks to me like they’re not much of a minority since 36 States are in the process of doing the same thing. You might want to update yourself on that info before you call them a minority and here’s a link to do just that.
36 States to opt out of mandatory Obamacare
Mar 23, 2010 @ 08:03:20
No, that doesn’t mean it’s the will of the people. Colorado is on that list, but that’s just the action of the Attorney General. He doesn’t speak for the majority. As far as penalties for not having insurance, I doubt that’s going to be enforced anyway.
Mar 23, 2010 @ 09:35:02
Ben, let’s use some common sense here. The AG is doing that because a lot of people have asked him, the same thing is going on like I told you in 36 States. I think 36 states out of 50 is a majority, not a minority. We also have a CNN Poll from the last weekend just before the Health Care bill was voted on that said 59% Oppose Obamacare …. the last time I checked 59% is a majority not minority.
There’s another thing too. The States are only striking down the mandate to purchase insurance in their legislation and the citizens of the States that want to buy into the government plan can still do so.
I don’t know about the penalties not being enforced, because the IRS will be responsible for that and they are hiring an additional 16,500 agents to do that. You will be required to put your health insurance policy number on you Income Tax return and if you don’t, you’ll get a letter or knock on the door asking to see your policy.
I do believe the mandate to buy health insurance will ruled unconstitutional as well. The mandate to purchase insurance is the main reason for the lawsuits, along with the cost passed along to the States that none of them can afford.
Mar 23, 2010 @ 10:23:05
Just for the record, I’m against those mandates. As far as the AG acting in the interest of the majority, I doubt that’s the case. He was appointed by Bush, not elected by the people of Colorado.
Mar 23, 2010 @ 21:44:51
I’m glad your against the mandates Ben, because they are unconstitutional. Whether you realize it or not, the AG is acting for your good as well to keep you from the usurpation of the over reaching central government, but if you choose to participate in the new federal law, you still can, but it will be voluntary thanks to you AG and not mandatory.
Mar 24, 2010 @ 09:08:00
It’s crazy to go without health insurance but it should be a choice. That said, if some uninsured person winds up in the emergency room for something that should have been covered by insurance, that person should be fined and required to buy insurance so the rest of us don’t have to pay for his emergency room charges again.
As far as the mandates being unconstitutional, I doubt that argument will pass the muster in court. You never know what will happen with the Robert’s court, though.
Mar 24, 2010 @ 10:26:03
“As far as the mandates being unconstitutional, I doubt that argument will pass the muster in court”
Then Ben, could you tell me where in the Constitution mandating that someone purchase a product is? (I’ll warn you up front on this question, Steve and I both already know it’s not and why. I’ll give you another heads up…the “commerce clause”, “general welfare clause” and “supremacy clause” won’t work as the answer-they will be shot down by the founding father’s own statements. So now, being forewarned, tell me where would you find this ability to mandate buying a product in the Constitution?)
Mar 24, 2010 @ 22:54:46
[Then Ben, could you tell me where in the Constitution mandating that someone purchase a product is?]
We have all sorts of mandates. We have to buy auto insurance. Is that unconstitutional?
Mar 24, 2010 @ 23:04:24
Nice try Ben…that’s the standard come back…That’s different, it’s a individual state requirement if your going to drive a car, you have to insure it. Some states require it and some don’t. The federal attempt at mandating is buying an insurance policy and they don’t have the Constitutional authority to force you or me to buy a product, period.
Read this article, it will save me a lot of writing trying to explain it.
Refuting The Bad “Health Insurance – Auto Insurance” Analogy: A Lesson In Federalism.
Mar 25, 2010 @ 07:22:12
True, I have a problem with the gov, state or federal, requiring me to buy a product in which somebody is making a profit. That’s why I was for the public option.
But the real question is: why do you want to go without insurance?
Mar 25, 2010 @ 09:52:43
Ben no one wants to go without insurance, that’s not the point. The point is that the federal government doesn’t have the authority to force me to buy a policy they want me to buy at the threat of paying a fine or going to jail for a year.
A policy that the gov’t sets minimums for what kind of policy THEY think we need with the benefits THEY think we need, which include several things I don’t need in my coverage and shouldn’t have to pay for, but I must take it anyway.
This is only leading to complete government run health care and they don’t have the Constitutional authority to do it, yet they forced even their own party to go along with it. Many of the Dems are going to pay the price of being out of a job come November just because they voted for what most knew was an unpopular bill. They did this to “save” the presidency and Democratic party they say. Well if they were on the right track they wouldn’t need to save anyone now would they?
Mar 25, 2010 @ 14:05:15
Seems like much ado about nothing since the mandate won’t affect those of us who want insurance at all. Those who don’t want to be insured are idiots, so your protest is to protect the idiots. I’m not sure it’s worth the trouble.
Mar 25, 2010 @ 14:54:59
Yes it’s to protect us from the idiots alright…..but the idiots I’m referring to are our legislators that voted and pushed this unconstitutional bill into law.