As they await next year’s likely Supreme Court’s ruling on the
constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act, better known as “Obamacare,” states continue to grapple with
its odious expenses as they decide whether to accept federal money
for health care insurance exchanges so long as the law’s
constitutionality remains in doubt.
As this chart from ALEC
shows, a vast majority of states from
California to Maine have passed measures to reject aspects of
the new health care law. And because this month, the
Department of Justice filed petitions for certiorari, asking for a
final review by the Supreme Court in HHS v. Florida, the
last citizens’ initiative to be voted on before oral arguments at
the Supreme Court begin is on Ohio’s November 2011
ballot.
Polling
shows that while Ohio voters are eager to
reject (via the Issue 2 initiative) Gov. John Kasich’s strict
anti-collective bargaining laws for public employees, there is
bipartisan support for
Issue 3, which would create a new amendment
in Ohio’s constitution explicitly prohibiting the federal or state
government from mandating citizens’ participation in private health
care systems.
The mixed polling results may explain why Presidential
candidate Mitt Romney, who endorsed both issues in June, came to
Ohio to speak at a call-center for Republicans, only to refuse to
endorse them. However, more than 24 hours later, Romney has
backtracked again and endorsed both issues. He
said he is “110%” behind both issues
and he apologized for the confusion. However, a Lexis-Nexis
search reveals Romney in 2006 campaigned in Ohio in support of
Massachusetts-style health insurance mandates.
Issue 3, originally sponsored by local Tea Party groups
and the Ohio Liberty
Council, saw more than 27,000 volunteers join in
the largest, truly grassroots ballot initiative in the state, and
perhaps the country. Jeff Longstreth, campaign manager
for Issue 3, notes that less than $50,000 was spent on collecting
the first 441,000 signatures, with an overwhelming 90 percent
validity rate.
As the federal law trumps state authority, Longsreth is
quick to say the “first priority is to prohibit a forced insurance
program on the state level.” But he adds, “The individual mandate
is unconstitutional. We believe our ballot initiative adds strength
to that argument. And because it was a citizen driven initiative,
it will send a clear message to anyone in the federal level that
forcing citizens to buy products from private insurance companies
is wrong.”
The opposition to Issue 3 is led by Innovation Ohio,
a union-funded think tank run by former staffers of former Gov. Ted
Strickland. Its communications director, Dale Butland, a former
press secretary for Sen. John Glenn, believes the problem with
Issue 3 is how broadly it defines a “health care system.” He asks,
“If no one can be required to be in a health care system, how can
deadbeat parents be forced to buy health care for their children?
Or how could [the] Ohio State University require students to buy
health insurance?” Butland also believes that under the
initiative’s strict wording, Ohioans could not be forced to pay for
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (MRDD)
levies and the legislature would be unable to rework the state’s
scandal-ridden workers’ compensation system.
Issue 3 backers are quick to refute these points, noting
that child support orders are already binding on both parties and
are part of preexisting law. Also, universities can still mandate
health insurance coverage because attending them is voluntary and
as such a far cry from forcing citizens to purchase health
insurance simply because they are alive. Also, as a matter of state
law, levies to provide health services for the less fortunate do
not require anyone to join a health system any more than the taxes
that pay for roads compel a taxpayer to drive on them.
Ohio, as a depressed manufacturing state, has a majority
of voters in favor of collective bargaining rights. So expect Issue
3 to pass on November 8. However, with turnout expected to be low
and a month of early voting, the fate of Issue 2 is still up in the
air. It will probably come down to which side is better organized.
Win or lose, the outcome will be reverberate nationwide, as the
contentious issue of mandated care moves to the Supreme
Court.
