Paul Hsieh has a good op-ed in the Denver Post about Colorado’s Amendment 63, which is on the ballot for November 2. My favorite passage of the piece is the following:

Suppose the government required everyone to purchase their meals from state-run restaurants. The government would also select the menu items. If you liked spinach but their vegetable choice was broccoli, then tough luck. Everyone would also have to purchase dessert, whether they wanted it or not. And if some customers couldn’t afford the overpriced meals, you’d have to cover their tab.

Sound ridiculous?

But this is precisely what ObamaCare does with health insurance … Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily determine what constitutes an ‘acceptable’ plan. Hence, this creates a magnet for special interests seeking to include their pet benefits on the required insurance menu.

State-imposed mandates could be an unintended consequence of having ObamaCare struck down. Ever wonder why no one has challenged the constitutionality of the Massachusetts mandate?

There has been no challenge because there are no constitutional barriers for the states. Congress has no power to impose an individual insurance mandate, but your state does:

Some critics wrongly argue that Amendment 63 is pointless because “state law cannot trump federal law.” But Amendment 63 does not attempt to trump federal law. Rather, if any of the current legal challenges to ObamaCare succeeds, then the federal government may attempt to require state governments to enforce its insurance mandate.

That’s what Amendment 63 is about. It would prevent the State of Colorado from forcing citizens to purchase health insurance, as the state of Massachusetts does to its hapless electorate.

Any state that lacks such an amendment to its constitution can be forced, by the power of the federal purse, to impose an individual mandate.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *