Florida Attorney General says federal health care reform might violate constitution
by Michael C. Bender | December 29th, 2009Read the story that appeared on page 2A of the Dec. 30 edition of The Palm Beach Post.
UPDATE: Quick response on Twitter from state Sen. Dan Gelber, a Democratic candidate for attorney general: “I wish McCollum was as concerned about solving Florida’s health care crisis as he was about stopping the solving of the health care crisis.”
From Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum says he will review the federal health care bill because he has “grave concerns” about whether it violates the federal and state constitution.
“The mandate is especially troubling to Floridians who are guaranteed through the Florida Constitution to have ‘the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into [their] private life,” McCollum wrote in a statement today.
McCollum specifically refers to a provision that would require Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a fine.
“Such a ‘living tax’ is worrisome because it would be levied on a person who does nothing, a person who simply wishes not to be forced to buy health insurance coverage. Upon initial review, this appears to be contrary to the freedoms we, as Americans, have enjoyed for the past 233 years,” McCollum said.
McCollum, the leading Republican candidate for governor next year, has also written a letter to other state attorneys general asking them to review the bill in regards to the Commerce Clause and taxing power in the U.S. Constitution.
McCollum is also joining several attorneys general who are evaluating the constitutionality of a U.S. Senate bill provision that provides 100 percent federal Medicaid funding to only one state, Nebraska.
Tags: Bill McCollum, health care reform
Where's the money? Use The Post's interactive database of who wants and who's getting federal dollars.
Use these interactive graphics to find and contact Palm Beach County and Treasure Coast legislators.
December 29th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
So if I want to “do nothing” and not pay my taxes, is that also covered by my right to be let alone? Get a grip, McCollum, we’re not idiots and seeing through your partisan crap is just too easy.
December 29th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
JustMeee:
McCollum is right. Never before have we levied a “tax” for inactivity under the Commerce Claus. You don’t want to buy car insurance? Don’t drive or have a car or license. Don’t want to pay income taxes? Don’t make any income. Don’t want to subsidize the health choices (including abortion) of others? Sorry, you can’t. You’ll be forced to pay a fine if you want to “opt out” — even if you never use medical services. The only way the health insurance bill works is to force some to pay for service they will never access to compensate for those receiving services which have no cap, and which they cannot be denied services for (the point in covering all “pre-existing” conditions.)
December 29th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
JustMeee:
You should read the U.S. and the Florida Constitution, and then consider the precedent. It’s not just partisan posturing to argue there’s a strong argument that the mandatory requirement is indeed unconstitutional. Look into it?
December 29th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Its good to know the chief law enforcement officer in Florida doesn’t know anything about the law. Even I know that the US Constitution and Federal law take precedence over state constitutions and law.
December 29th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Mary G,
The problem with your theory is when the person with no insurance shows up at the emergency room. Do you suggest we lay them out in the street? What is your grand solution? Obviously, by spreading the costs to everyone, fairly, the hospitals won’t have to charge my insurance company 78 dollars for when I need a Tylenol. If you have insurance now, you’re subsidizing the deadbeats already. Get a clue.
December 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
MaryG I’m guessing that your a republican, and a tea bagger to boot. We are so sick of this right wing obstructionist bull crap. No way McCollum gets my vote.
December 29th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
5.8 million Floridians lack heathcare coverage or about one-eighth of the nation’s uninsured. McCollum should be begging for help for Florida’s neediest. Illnesses and accidents don’t care which political party you are with, this isn’t a partisan issue.
December 29th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
McCollum is a joke. Throwing out “may be” constitutional. Before you sound the alarm get your facts right first. It would be unfair to allow a person to decide to not have insurance when available get sick and the rest of the citizens have to pay.
If your car has to have insurance, incase it gets an “injury” why would not the same apply to people? In Florida you pay a fine of $150 if your care does not have insurance for over 30 days.
MCCullum is another Republican “joke” who has his health care paid for by my tax dollars, but does not mind if a Floridian dies without insurance.
McCollum and his family should give up their health insurance until all Floridians have access to insurance.
December 29th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Does this also mean we don’t have to insure our cars or homes? Go Bill, you big phony.
December 29th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
i dont see any of these republican assh#le senators or congressman refusing their government run insurance policies that we the tax payer support ! give me a freakin break already !
December 29th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
This angers me. If we as a community are using services, than we as a community should be paying for them. Don’t want to pay the gas tax? Great. Don’t pay it. But know that if you choose to use the roads that the tax pays for, you are doing so on the backs of others. The same applies to health care. I pay thousands of dollars a year to insure my family, and yet the uninsured are still being treated for “free” or at a reduced rate. Guess what? It’s not “free.” The taxpayers and people paying insurance premiums are paying for that “free” healthcare, and it’s raising our rates. I absolutely want every American to have access to healthcare, but everyone who wants treatment can do their part by paying into it.
December 29th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
this is beautifull political hypocrisy mc collum needs to do floridians a service and get out of florida back to his kkk roots
December 29th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
You’re all missing the point. 18 million Americans can afford insurance but don’t buy it. Those 18 million people do pay for any services they recieve at hospitals/clinics, etc. To force those people to BUY insurance is unconstitutional. The government can’t force you to BUY anything. If you don’t want car insurance you don’t have to buy a car. Don’t want homeowners insurance don’t buy a house, etc.
December 29th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
* If you have insurance now, you’re subsidizing the deadbeats already. Get a clue.*
But you can’t force other people to join that insurance pool, or to thereby subsidize the operations of the insurance companies and hospitals.
If you want insurance, you must then participate in the “pool”. And right now, the insurance companies can underwrite the bad risks.
December 29th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
I pay thousands of dollars a year to insure my family, and yet the uninsured are still being treated for “free” or at a reduced rate. Guess what? It’s not “free.” The taxpayers and people paying insurance premiums are paying for that “free” healthcare, and it’s raising our rates. I absolutely want every American to have access to healthcare, but everyone who wants treatment can do their part by paying into it.
But … a big part of those uninsured who are passing their medical bills on to the taxpayers are non-citizens. They will still be treated, not covered under this plan, and their costs still will be passed on to the insureds.
There are plenty of uninsureds who have sufficient resources to pay out of pocket, IF NEEDED. Familial assets, car insurance to cover catostropic injuries from accidents, savings to pay out of pocket.
It’s unconstitutional to force these people into the insurance pool for services they are not receiving and are not skipping out on bills. Particularly when the proposed legislation does not address the problem of ALL uninsureds, ie the non citizen example stated above.
December 29th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
In short, if you don’t need health insurance to pay for the medical needs incurred, you can’t force an individual to subsidize the economic choices made by individuals who do want insurance, and the insurance companies who need an artificial “bail out” by making purchase of their product mandatory — whether is it needed and will be used, or not.
December 29th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
McCollom, who, by the way, wants to be your next governor (yeah, right), is going to use all of his resources and funds to fight this stupid battle and overlook what the focus of his job really is — law enforcement in the State of Florida. Want to take a guess why we had to have FEDERAL law enforcement investigate and prosecute corrupt polititians in So Fla? It’s because McCollom refused to do so. Yes. That’s right. McCollom wouldn’t prosecute Republican polititians in PB County, West Palm Beach, and Broward County because he didn’t want to upset the apple cart or the “good ol’ boy” network. He’s too busy trying to monitor the Internet and fight battles like this. Hey, McCollom, besides Charlie Crist and Claude Kirk, you may become Florida’s absolute worst governor. Why don’t you do what you are supposed to be doing: Enforce the laws in the State of Florida. Let the feds to their job lest they do it too well and get rid of you.
December 29th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Well, after reading Bill’s bogus ideas about the constitutionality of this or that here is what bill needs to understand. Under the commerce clause of the United Constitution, congress can, in fact, make such laws because it’s not only for commerce but for the good and use of the public in general (5th amendment). The latter was just upheld by the United States Supreme Court a fews years ago.
I currently have health insurance, it’s only good to me while I am working. I can’t afford to pay the cobra if I’m fired or forced to leave my job because of my own or a family member’s illness. To continue down this road is like telling me your car insurance is great as long as you don’t crash it.
I have never needed or received a hand out, but I have seen what living without health insurance can do to a person. I won’t even wish that on my enemy. UNLESS YOU’RE A REPBULICAN. lol!
December 29th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
AL,
Regarding your first paragraph, you are halfway there in your analysis. For the distinctions in forcing this purchase of health care insurance, check out this link.
http://author.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm0049es.cfm
December 29th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
This is not partisan, I voted for obama, but I do believe it is unfair to force me to buy insurance from a private company. This is not a tax, as its not paid to government, but its forcing me to buy a product I do not want from a private company, and its not comparable to car insurance, as no one is forced to have car insurance, only registered owners of vehicles and licensed drivers in that household, and that is a class that chooses to own a car, and since the states have determined that driving is not a right but a privilege that is earned by compliance, its different than health insurance, as living is a right and not a privilege and i should not be forced to buy a commercial product from a private company to exercise my right to life and liberty. I pay cash for doctor visits and pharmacy and spend thousands less a year than i would if i had health insurance. I applaud our attorney general for dfending my rights.
December 29th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
reply to al, you say you cannot afford cobra if you lose your job,under this plan it is still very expensive to buy insurance.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
It is ridiculous to claim that a federal law violates the State Constitution. The Federal Constitution plainly states that that Constitution and all laws enacted pursuant to it are the “Supreme law of the land.” Even a federal regulation, promulgated by an administrative agency, can override the Florida Constitution. McCollum simply does not know what he’s talking about on this ground. The Commerce Clause argument is more colorable, but ultimately not one that the courts are likely to accept given existing precedent.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Constitutional lawyer, you say yourself that the commerce clause is not relevant since existing precedent makes it moot, and i doubt if court would say commerce clause can be used to force people to buy a product from a private company. That would mean gov’t could also say ford is better for country than chevy, everyone must buy ford. If they take the fine for no insurance out of this health care bill
that would solve the dilema, why should i be forced to pay thousands per year for insurance that will still have co-pay and deductable when i have not spent over 500 dollars per year total in last 35 years with no insurance.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
When i don’t pay the fine for not having insurance i will be costing the taxpayers about 50 grand a year in costs for my prison cell, and i will have free health care. When hundreds of thousands of others refuse to pay this fine, where will they put us all? As someone who voted for obama, i would like to apologize for that act.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:44 am
I don’t care who chooses to fight this health care bill, but someone needs to. My husband and I have always made sure that one of us has health benefits from the entity we work for. We have turned down jobs because they offer no group insurance. We all have the right to do that. The millions who are uninsured, if they want insurance, need to find jobs that offer group insurance. I resent being told by the government that I MUST have health insurance or pay a fine – smacks of communism. I resent being told I must wear a seatbelt (though I would anyway). This was pushed by the auto insurance industry to lower their payouts, but it took away another of my liberties. Plus, how can anyone endorse this bill that will decrease Medicare benefits to those of us who have paid into it for 40 years? Are none of you closing in on 65 y/o? How can they say this bill is good for the American people when it takes benefits away from those who will need them the most, those over 65? You just wait, the taxes for all of these items the White House and Congress have passed in the last 245 days will be choking you, me, our children, and their children for the rest of our lives. Besides, I don’t understand why any intelligent person would want the government running any of our benefit programs – they have fouled up Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security – what on earth makes you think this new “wonderful” health care program won’t be fraught with fraud and be bankrupt shortly after it starts?
January 17th, 2010 at 9:20 am
What amazes me most about all of this is the partisan posturing of those in support of what Washington is doing, while they accuse the opposition of doing so. There are many problems with the bill. It will prevent physicians from owning their own facilities. These facilities in many cases provide better, and cheaper services. Congress will not be required to be in the system they are developing for the citizenry. Unions, too, will now likely be excluded from paying fees to keep their existing plans, which are better than mine. There is nothing fair about this bill. It is partisan to the core. How is just 70 years did we go from insurance being offered as a job benefit, to a society that feels entitled to have it? I have the same concerns as all of you. However, my biggest concern under the system, is that I will no longer be able to afford the insurance that I have to provide as a single parent to my two children. I like being able to switch employers for better pay and better benefits. Use your rights as Americans to choose a better life for yourself, instead of someone else making a choice for you. WAKE UP, America!!!
January 20th, 2010 at 8:28 am
For those folks saying we must by car insurance remember you only required to purchase LIABITLITY insurance that provides payments to OTHERS you “INJURY” (third party). You are not required to purchase insurance to pay to repair damage to your vehicle. This is different than health insurance where you recieve payments for medical services (first party).