Dear Editor:
I have a great deal of respect for Scott Siegel and enjoy reading his editorials, however, I felt compelled to address his letter regarding the unconstitutionality of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” AKA Obamacare. Scott’s arguments are driven more by ideology than logic or the law. Scott states that the Act should be considered unconstitutional because insurance is regulated by the McCarron Act of 1944. The McCarron Act is not part of the constitution so using it as a justification for saying that Obamacare is not constitutional does not make sense. Also, ironically, the McCarron Act was enacted in response to a Supreme Court decision confirming that the Federal Government does indeed have the authority to regulate insurance under the Commerce Clause (United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association). Also, Scott’s suggestion that the Federal government should not have the authority to interfere in intrastate commerce, is undermined by his suggestion that we should all be allowed to buy any insurance plan across state lines. The United States has among the worst health outcomes of all industrialized countries even though we pay more per capita on healthcare than any other country in the world. What we are doing is obviously not working for the vast majority of our citizens, and it is bankrupting our nation. Obamacare was a republican idea already implemented by a republican governor in Massachusetts. Our state government forces us to buy auto insurance. Our federal government has the authority to tax us, draft us to fight in wars, force us and our employers to pay for unemployment insurance, pension plans, medicare, and disability insurance. But for some reason charging a penalty to those that lay the cost of their irresponsible behavior at the feet of the taxpayer is unconstitutional. On it’s face this argument makes no sense.
Brian Jennings