Supreme Court Could Kill ObamaCare's Insurance Mandate at the Federal Level, But It Might Survive In States

One thing to remember about the various legal challenges to ObamaCare's health insurance mandate is that even if the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate, that doesn't mean that the entire country will suddenly be mandate-free. That's because states can impose health insurance mandates of their own, like most do with auto insurance, without fear of constitutional challenge. That's what Massachusetts did with RomneyCare,and according to Politico, other liberal lawmakers are looking to follow suit should the mandate fall:

A group of progressive state lawmakers from around the country is considering what can be done to encourage residents to buy insurance if the federal health reform law's individual mandate is struck by the Supreme Court. Lawmakers associated with the Progressive States Network are meeting next month in Baltimore with hopes of coming up with state-based legislation that could fill the void in the health law.

This obviously won't happen in all states. But I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see mandates or mandate alternatives designed to encourage people to purchase insurance (rather than penalize them for not buying it) pop up in a handful of states should the mandate be struck down. 

Comments

[John]

It probably does survive in the states. The states have general police power. They can do crazy shit like this.

[Lord Humungus]

So Texas is going to run out of room?

[John Tagliaferro]

Combine this with the illegal immigrant shift to there an Florida, you might be close.

[John Tagliaferro]

So, the National Socialism of Obama and his ilk marches on. Sadly, too many people think that government does have an interest in insurance, just because they grew up with many States requiring car insurance, or that is it perfectly fine to require employers to provide health insurance.

I am with Hank, they can keep the change.

[Tony]

Since the individual mandate was originally a conservative, Republican idea, are they National Socialists too?

[Mitt Romney]

Yes we are. What's your point?

[sarcasmic]

"What's your point?"

I believe Tony's point is something along the lines of "But Mommy! He did it first!"

[Groovus Maximus]

Not according to Robert Moffit

Our research in the ensuing two decades has led us to realize our initial idea was operationally ineffective and legally defective. Well before Obama was elected, we dropped it. In the spring 2008 edition of the Harvard Health Policy Review, I advanced far better alternatives to the individual mandate to expand coverage, relying on positive tax incentives and other mechanisms to facilitate enrollment in private health insurance. This is what researchers and fact-based policymakers do when they discover new facts or conduct deeper analysis.

Ahem, let's try this again. (emphasis mine)

[John Tagliaferro]

Tony, Republican does not mean anti-Socialist. As you can see in the other comments even your ignorant notion about this topic is false.

Republicans are about as polar opposite of Democrats as International Socialists are polar opposites of National Socialists. They say it a lot in their marketing rhetoric, but in reality they are joined at the hip.

[califronian]

Are you under the mistaken impression that this is a blog for Republican supporters?

[Fist of Etiquette]

Lawmakers associated with the Progressive States Network are meeting next month in Baltimore with hopes of coming up with state-based legislation that could fill the void in the health law.

Scheming to fill the void in our butts is more like it.

[Episiarch]

Kirk would void this law like he voided Nomad's warranty.

[Pro Libertate]

Sterilize!

[P Brooks]

the Progressive States Network

Seriously?

Great; another reason to bang my head on my desk.

[0x90]

No big deal. It's alot easier to vote with your feet when we're talking states, rather than nations.

Not to mention, in the event of the mandate being struck down at the federal level, the case would doubtless be made for federal prohibition of the same among the states, if/when enacted at that level. A framework for this argument would, after all, now have been established, that being: if individual positive action cannot be compelled from the federal level, on what grounds can it be compelled from the state level?

[Rev. Blue Moon]

It likely does not matter. I see Kennedy making a complete fucking hash of the decision so no one knows what is really constitutional and what is not.

[sarcasmic]

I don't need a lawyer obfuscator in a black robe to tell me what is constitutional and what is not.
The document is not that difficult to read.

[wylie]

blah blah blah over 100 years ago, blah blah blah English blah blah.

[Ezra Klein]

Golly, Wylie is, like, smart.

[Troy]

like most do with auto insurance,

State only make you buy insurance if you want to drive on their roads. If you choose not to drive, you don't have to buy car insurance. So what are the States gonna say, "If you want to live, you got to buy health insurance?"

[California]

So what are the States gonna say, "If you want to live, you got to buy health insurance?"

Your ideas are intriguing. Do you have a newsletter that I may subscribe to?

[T]

Some states don't require auto insurance, either.

[califronian]

Kind of off-topic but there is no question that mandatory liability insurance is a scam in favor of the auto-insurers.

I would love to have a law passed that forces everyone to buy my services too!

[curiousgeorge]

Every state but NH, which only requires that you have enough financial ability to pay someone should you be at fault in an auto accident.

[T]

Virgina does not require insurance.

[califronian]

"which only requires that you have enough financial ability to pay someone should you be at fault in an auto accident"

Which is exactly backwards from what it should be and of course benefits the insurers immensely.

[P Brooks]

"You're breathing our air, aintcha?"

[Troy]

And I fart a lot too. Probably going to have to buy some extra methane credits.

[CrackertyAssCracker]

How bout this ?:

A state could make any health insurance premiums a de jure voluntary state income tax. That way individuals get effectively get to write off their health insurance, and we can start de-coupling the employer from the insurance provider ... which is a good hunk of the real problem.

Could something like that hold legal water?

[Hazel Meade]

This is pretty much the new progressive stance. Assume it gets struck down, but is severed, so the community rating and guarenteed issue regs stand. Then the only way to prevent an insurance death spiral in the state is for the state is to impose a mandate.

It's like forcing conservative states to enact part of the law, and then use the laws perverse effects for force them to adopt the rest.

[John Tagliaferro]

How far behind is federal funding of the State mandates? I say sooner than you can say 2012.