The Pelican Post

Original bill weakened by amendment, but state is first with Democrat-controlled legislature to pass Health Care Freedom Act

On Sunday the Louisiana House concurred with the Senate to pass HB 1474, which provides that no resident of Louisiana “shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual health insurance coverage.” The measure was weakened by a controversial amendment, but Louisiana is the first state with Democratic majorities to pass legislation that opposes federal insurance mandates.

Click here to read the full article.

As early as today the Louisiana Senate will be voting on Rep. Kirk Talbot’s HB 1474, which would protect our state against the unconstitutional government micromanagement of intrastate commerce and personal choice also known as the  individual mandate for health insurance coverage. The timing of Rep. Talbot’s bill could not be better. As reported by both the New York Times and the Cato Institute, President Obama’s issuance of new health insurance regulations this week emphasizes the dire economic implications of mandated insurance coverage on private businesses and individuals.

Continue reading…

Last week at the State Capitol, Rep. Kirk Talbot’s HB1474 received a brief hearing in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee. While efforts to stall hearing the bill resulted in it being holed up  in the back of the agenda, the truncated hearing it received brought to light several points which beg to be addressed.

Most of the dialogue was between Rep. Talbot and Sen. Karen Carter Peterson. Peterson attempted to trap Rep. Talbot into admitting that he had betrayed his conservative principles of personal responsibility by sponsoring a bill which, in effect, would not mandate people to “take responsibility” for themselves by purchasing health insurance. Overlooking the sophistry of her argument, and the fact that it was not remotely pertinent to the  question  of Constitutionality at hand, her argument is fallacious on a philosophical foundation.

She wanted to undermine his ideological position yet, instead, highlighted this conservative precept: How can an individual exercise his/her responsibility when they are deprived of  that choice altogether? Moreover, since when is the act of purchasing health insurance an unequivocal act of “responsibility?” Depriving citizens of their Constitutional right to choose hardly equates to civic responsibility. To ensure more “responsibility,” what is stopping the government from mandating the purchase of hybird cars or outlawing cigarettes? Talbot’s bill is a truly responsible measure because it seeks to protect our rights as citizens to make choices for ourselves about our own health and welfare.

Furthermore, Sen. Peterson’s oratorical skills far surpass her her Constitutional knowledge. At times, she both alluded to health care as a Constitutional right to citizens afforded at birth, and stated that Federal laws are invariably legally superior to state laws. A brief consultation of the Constitution quickly dispels the first notion, and legal precedent contradicts her second point, as well. Though the idea of Federalism on which our nation is grounded has been  ravaged in last 150 years by spurious judicial decisions, Gonzalez v. Oregon (2006) fortunately reaffirmed that states do retain a degree of autonomy. That decision reestablished that state laws may operate independently of Federal regulation and safeguards against unnecessary preemption by Congress, especially in cases of health care choices.

On that note of Constitutional validity, the Commerce clause gives Congress the right to regulate commerce among the states, but on two points in particular is the individual mandate incompatible with this. One, Congress is meddling in intrastate affairs, which as explicated by Chief Justice John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden (1829), is not a power delegated to Congress. Rather, it is “restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one.” Secondly, and of equal importance, is that for the first time, Congress is regulating a non-activity, a non-purchase of a product. There is no clear legal precedent for Congress forcing citizens to purchase a product such as health insurance. In presenting her argument, Peterson demonstrated the weakness of the Left’s case for the individual mandate, strong on notions of ideology but bereft of Constitutional support.

Would you like to read an excessively optimistic view on health care reform? Sen. Mary Landrieu’s op-ed highlights what she believes to be the greatest ObamaCare achievements, praising the full coverage of Louisiana’s children, young adults, and seniors.

Claiming that “congress has finally delivered meaningful health care coverage to all Americans,” Sen. Landrieu argues that the new reform will “save businesses thousands of dollars each year which will allow businesses to potentially increase wages or hire more employees.”

But Sen. Landrieu is overly confident – and even deceptive – because she is neglecting important facts behind the new health care reform: its costs. As Michael Cannon from the Cato Institute points out:

“Obama’s plan [aka: ObamaCare] would vastly increase the size and scope of the federal government, and increase our already record federal deficit”

The Congressional Budget Office estimated costs to be around $940 billion, but this projection takes into account only the costs to expand current health insurance coverage. Considering other unavoidable spending provisions, the costs would amount to around $1.2 trillion.  And that is a conservative estimate. Further, the new health care reform will force nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance, set price controls on the private health insurance industry, and increase the federal deficit by providing more than $1 trillion in subsidies.

Sure, Landrieu is right to claim that these reforms will extend coverage to more children, seniors, and sick individuals. Unfortunately she fails to acknowledge that this will not be sustainable in the long run.