This Washington
Gregoire's Legal Argument Against McKenna
We weren't too satisfied with Gov. Chris Gregoire's official statement regarding last week's Washington State Supreme Court ruling on state Attorney General Rob McKenna. (The city of Seattle sued McKenna for joining the multistate lawsuit against President Obama's health care law, arguing that McKenna didn't have the standing to represent the city, but the court ruled
9-0 that McKenna was totally within his rights to join the suit.) McKenna argues that the federal government doesn't have the right to make people buy insurance.
In addition to the relevance of the governor's reaction (Gregoire supports the health care law), she also came up in the ruling itself: The justices said that if she had legally challenged McKenna's right to bring the case on behalf of the state, McKenna's standing may have been illegitimate.
So, Gregoire released a statement last week saying she has no plans to challenge McKenna over the issue of his right to sue—"the [multitstate] lawsuit will go ahead with or without McKenna," Gregoire spokeswoman Karina Shagren tells us—but will instead stick with her effort to defeat the suit itself in federal court in Florida, filing briefs documenting that health care reform has benefited the state of Washington.
That doesn't strike me as a legal argument, though. Whether or not the 1.5 million Washingtonians who don't have access to health care get it thanks to the law has no bearing on whether it's a constitutional law.
Pressed to outline Gregoire's legal argument, Shagren says it boils down to this: "In a nutshell ... our main legal argument is that the uninsured pass their costs on to those that are insured – and, given that the uninsured are able to cross state lines, it poses an interstate economic problem that should be addressed under the federal commerce clause."
And for you lawyers out there, here's how Gregoire makes that point in the brief she filed in Florida.
In addition to the relevance of the governor's reaction (Gregoire supports the health care law), she also came up in the ruling itself: The justices said that if she had legally challenged McKenna's right to bring the case on behalf of the state, McKenna's standing may have been illegitimate.
So, Gregoire released a statement last week saying she has no plans to challenge McKenna over the issue of his right to sue—"the [multitstate] lawsuit will go ahead with or without McKenna," Gregoire spokeswoman Karina Shagren tells us—but will instead stick with her effort to defeat the suit itself in federal court in Florida, filing briefs documenting that health care reform has benefited the state of Washington.
That doesn't strike me as a legal argument, though. Whether or not the 1.5 million Washingtonians who don't have access to health care get it thanks to the law has no bearing on whether it's a constitutional law.
Pressed to outline Gregoire's legal argument, Shagren says it boils down to this: "In a nutshell ... our main legal argument is that the uninsured pass their costs on to those that are insured – and, given that the uninsured are able to cross state lines, it poses an interstate economic problem that should be addressed under the federal commerce clause."
And for you lawyers out there, here's how Gregoire makes that point in the brief she filed in Florida.
IV. THE MINIMUM COVERAGE PROVISION IS A NECESSARY AND PROPER EXERCISE OF FEDERAL POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO ADDRESS INTERSTATE ECONOMIC PROBLEMS, INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THE UNINSURED, THAT CANNOT BE SOLVED BY STATES ACTING ALONE
The Governor supports the minimum coverage provision of the ACA, and believes that provision directly serves federalism by protecting her State from costs that otherwise would be imposed on Washington’s budget and health care system, not just by its own uninsured, but by uninsured residents of other states seeking care in Washington facilities. The Governor further believes that actions of the uninsured with significant economic costs—such as accessing care late in the course of a disease, at more expensive levels of care than necessary because of the unavailability of primary care, or at state-funded trauma centers when they suffer injury from unpredictable catastrophic events—must be addressed by a federal regulatory scheme that rationalizes payment and aligns incentives with less expensive, more effective care. As Washington’s experience shows, the minimum coverage provision is essential to the success of that scheme.
