destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
I don't see anything in the Constitution or past case law preventing a single payer insurance model.
There is that nasty little Citizens United case, for which the Supreme Court ought to feel some wrath for, but I don't see that being used successfully as case law against any future single payer insurance system. Hell, that could be the best chance at overturning Citizens United. That case law is still really weird though, they aren't people because they aren't citizens, but they are people in certain situations. I think a distinction would be in that corporations can't be -- at least not yet -- given status as a protected class of people, among many other potential distinctions.
Frankly, I think the government could easily defend a well-designed national healthcare system. While there are many things not specifically mentioned as being reserved for the Federal government to implement as law, myriad laws and codes find themselves falling under certain broad sections of text; an example is the national economy and ensuring its stability and prosperity, where the Federal government has the right to shape that as it sees fit, and whatever ways the Federal government hasn't regulated can be added to by the States.
There are many, many more regulations that the Federal government could implement, if done so smartly and they can properly defend the use of whatever clause in the Constitution they want to cite as source of that power.
There is that nasty little Citizens United case, for which the Supreme Court ought to feel some wrath for, but I don't see that being used successfully as case law against any future single payer insurance system. Hell, that could be the best chance at overturning Citizens United. That case law is still really weird though, they aren't people because they aren't citizens, but they are people in certain situations. I think a distinction would be in that corporations can't be -- at least not yet -- given status as a protected class of people, among many other potential distinctions.
Frankly, I think the government could easily defend a well-designed national healthcare system. While there are many things not specifically mentioned as being reserved for the Federal government to implement as law, myriad laws and codes find themselves falling under certain broad sections of text; an example is the national economy and ensuring its stability and prosperity, where the Federal government has the right to shape that as it sees fit, and whatever ways the Federal government hasn't regulated can be added to by the States.
There are many, many more regulations that the Federal government could implement, if done so smartly and they can properly defend the use of whatever clause in the Constitution they want to cite as source of that power.