I am not a Constitutional expert. I do not know precedent regarding cases involving the federal government encroaching on state’s rights as set forth in the Constitution. I just want to get that out of the way before anyone reads my next statement.
What the heck does Kathleen Sebelius think she is doing?!
Really. A federal judge in Virginia just struck down a portion of Obamacare as being unconstitutional, saying that the Obama Administration has overstepped its bounds and gone beyond limits in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The U.S. attorney general, Eric Cantor, will likely appeal that ruling, although taking it to the Supreme Court right now – in my opinion – would speed things up because it will end up there eventually anyway.
So, now that a judge has ruled the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution, what Sebelius do? She announces today (Dec. 21) that she is issuing a rule that requires states to meet some arbitrary guideline for approving health insurance premium increases of 10 percent or more, or HHS will step in and do the reviewing for them.
The only problem is, Sebelius and HHS have no authority to either approve or disapprove any proposed rate increases. That right rests solely with the states. So why her edict?
It’s simple: Sebelius wants to exert even more control over states, eventually pushing for complete regulation of insurance rates. And to me, at least, it flies directly in the face of the U.S. Constitution, which allows states to regulate commerce within their own borders.
According to Obamacare and Sebelius’s new rule, the most that the Fed can do is exclude a health insurance whose rates don’t meet some sort of vague threshold of being a responsible rate increase. That means that the Fed can order states to not allow certain insurers into each state’s health insurance exchange, which must be set up by 2014.
But, if HHS can get a foothold into how the states approve or disapprove rate increases, it will be one step closer to controlling not only interstate commerce (the current administration’s justification for Obamacare in the first place), but it will also control how state agencies operate.
Yes, the Fed has lots of power when it comes to a lot of things, such as withholding highway funds if states don’t meet highway speed limits, etc. But in this case, I believe, the Fed wants to get its fingers directly into the working of state insurance departments.
Sebelius and her staff have gone to great lengths to try to assure America that this new rule is intended to “help” consumers, that her goal is to “protect” state-based regulation.
But with 20 state attorneys general suing the federal government to stop implementation of Obamacare, it seems a bit disingenuous for her to suggest that her goal is to “protect” those very states and their rights, when the rule she announced does just the opposite.
Now that the federal judge in Virginia has found part of the health insurance overhaul law unconstitutional, it appears to this observer that the Obama Administration is digging its heels in, seeing just how far it can go in usurping state rights and protections as set forth in the Constitution, and shoring up its agencies and attorney general’s office for a battle over bringing the delivery, payment and ultimately decision-making of citizens’ health care under the prevue of Congress, the president and those he has appointed to help him fulfill his dream of universal health care.
A blog I wrote in mid-2009 showed an interesting video where President Obama and others praise the idea of universal care, with hopes that “a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer,” according to Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and that “this is a fight about strategy for getting there, and I believe we will.” The video is below.
The ruling from Sebelius, I believe, is part of that strategy.
Some could say I am an alarmist. But with the largest number of states ever in our history actually suing the U.S. government to protect their Constitutional rights, and for the current administration to in effect stick its collective middle finger in the air at those very states with this new ruling, it appears that this could be construed as not only a political debate, but a battle to uphold the document that has kept our country bound together for more than 200 years.
That’s my take.
In face of court ruling, HHS again pushes limits set in Constitution via IFAwebnews.com .
No related posts.