Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Vud on 11-12-09
Kellyn Brown,
..and what you should probably mention next week in a third installment:
The New York Times cited several legal experts who said “they saw little room for such a challenge(s):“
Mark A. Hall, professor of law and public health at Wake Forest University, says states don’t have the power to override or “opt out” of, or not participate in the mandate.
The debate is “a flash in a pan” set off by libertarians who say “Washington, D.C. shouldn’t be telling us what to do,“ he said. “There is no way this challenge will succeed in court,” adding that the state measures seemed more “an act of defiance, a form of civil disobedience if you will.” [2]
Hall has studied the constitutionality of mandates that people buy health insurance, for the O’Neill Institute at Georgetown University.
——————————————————————————————————
“States can no more nullify a federal law like this than they could nullify the civil rights laws by adopting constitutional amendments,” said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a health law expert at Washington and Lee University School of Law. [3, 8]
——————————————————————————————————
Randy E. Barnett, a Georgetown law school professor who has written about what he views as legitimate constitutional questions about health insurance mandates, seemed doubtful.
“While using federal power to force individuals to buy private insurance raises serious constitutional questions,” Professor Barnett said, “I just don’t see what these state resolutions add to the constitutional objections to this expansion of federal power.” [8]
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By pahrumppete on 11-15-09
Of all the states involved, none can afford any barriers to economic rebound.
Their political temper trantrums duly noted, few companies would invest in new or expanded operations in any state opting out of the Health Care Reform programs when the bill passes.
Even if these individual state actions could hold up legally, which is doubtful in the extreme, a year or two of being on the outside looking in—will bring speeding repeal.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
In order to post comments you must register once with the Beacon and be logged in. Log in below or register now.
Warm Weather Facilitating Bypass Construction
PLACES: Gateway Community Center Food Court
Reviewing Kalispell’s Growth, Officials Look to More Conservative Approach
Led by High Schoolers, a Village is Built
Group Calls for Entire Fair Board to Resign
Comments on: Opt Out: States With Legislation Opposing Certain Health Reforms
Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Vud on 11-12-09
Kellyn Brown,
..and what you should probably mention next week in a third installment:
The New York Times cited several legal experts who said “they saw little room for such a challenge(s):“
Mark A. Hall, professor of law and public health at Wake Forest University, says states don’t have the power to override or “opt out” of, or not participate in the mandate.
The debate is “a flash in a pan” set off by libertarians who say “Washington, D.C. shouldn’t be telling us what to do,“ he said. “There is no way this challenge will succeed in court,” adding that the state measures seemed more “an act of defiance, a form of civil disobedience if you will.” [2]
Hall has studied the constitutionality of mandates that people buy health insurance, for the O’Neill Institute at Georgetown University.
——————————————————————————————————
“States can no more nullify a federal law like this than they could nullify the civil rights laws by adopting constitutional amendments,” said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a health law expert at Washington and Lee University School of Law. [3, 8]
——————————————————————————————————
Randy E. Barnett, a Georgetown law school professor who has written about what he views as legitimate constitutional questions about health insurance mandates, seemed doubtful.
“While using federal power to force individuals to buy private insurance raises serious constitutional questions,” Professor Barnett said, “I just don’t see what these state resolutions add to the constitutional objections to this expansion of federal power.” [8]
By pahrumppete on 11-15-09
Of all the states involved, none can afford any barriers to economic rebound.
Their political temper trantrums duly noted, few companies would invest in new or expanded operations in any state opting out of the Health Care Reform programs when the bill passes.
Even if these individual state actions could hold up legally, which is doubtful in the extreme, a year or two of being on the outside looking in—will bring speeding repeal.