Debating Affordable Healthcare Act

Earlier this month, the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., hosted a debate on the federal health care law, the Affordable Healthcare Act, pitting two of the most prominent attorneys general against each other.

The speakers at the Feb. 9 event were Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. And as the debate watchers soon found out, their views could not have been any further apart.

Coakley is a staunch defender of the Affordable Healthcare Act and its constitutionality. In her speech, she told the audience how the results from her state showed that Congress had a constitutional basis to enact health care reform – including the “individual mandate.” She said the commerce clause of the Constitution allows the federal government to regulate health care.

She also noted how under its reform, Massachusetts has been experiencing greatly expanded access to health care, while at the same time the number of people seeking free medical care at hospitals has been declining.

Coakley said the Massachusetts health care law spearheaded by then Gov. Mitt Romney is a prototype of the federal law. She quoted Romney who stated in 2006 that the Massachusetts bill was “not only constitutional, but good public policy.” She touted the fact that 98 percent of Massachusetts residents currently have health care access, 15 percent higher than the national average. She said the reform has also lowered emergency room care expenses by over 30 percent.

But speaking after Coakley, Virginia’s Cuccinelli offered a starkly different view. He said a portion of the Affordable Healthcare Act — the part that requires individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014 – is unconstitutional.

“The federal government cannot compel you into commerce or to buy a product,” Cuccinelli told the audience. “If you are ordered to buy health care, you can be ordered to buy a car or a gym membership.” He said the law will destroy liberty in the country and that the law is forcing citizens to purchase something against their will.
But Coakley pointed out that there are other comparable instances where individual requirements are legal – after all, she noted, auto insurance is required, and precedent allows congressional action on health care. Cuccinelli responded by saying that there are significant differences between state and national requirements.
This debate has been described by the media as a prelude to the U.S. Supreme Court’s consideration of challenges to the law in March. So far, 26 states have sued the federal government over the law.

So, what’s your take on this debate? Who do you agree with? (The hour-long debate and Q&A session can be viewed on C-Span.org – and it’s pretty fascinating to watch.) We are certain to hear a lot more about this hot-button issue, as the U.S. Supreme Court begins to examine this case in coming weeks.