Pelosi Healthcare Proposal H.R. 3 Isn’t Just Destructive, It’s Likely Unconstitutional
Alongside other conservative and libertarian organizations, we at CFIF have been highlighting the clear and present danger of Nancy Pelosi’s (D – California) proposed healthcare legislation H.R. 3 in letters to Congress and commentaries.
Pelosi’s bill includes an astonishing 95% tax on total pharmaceutical sales – not on profits, but sales – for private companies that don’t play ball to Pelosi’s satisfaction. Her proposal would also impose foreign price controls, completely restructure the popular Medicare Part D program, and create a compulsory arbitration mechanism overseen by government bureaucrats… Pelosi’s legislation would jeopardize nearly $1 trillion in U.S. pharmaceutical investment, undermine patent protections, suffocate drug innovation and ultimately punish consumers. That’s far too high a price to pay, and responsible members of Congress must therefore stop Pelosi’s bill in its tracks.”
Now, a new nonpartisan Congressional legal analysis suggests that it’s also likely unconstitutional. In fact, the report cites three separate provisions of the Constitution that Pelosi’s effort to commandeer Americans’ healthcare choices under federal bureaucrats’ control:
The Program created by Title I raises a number of legal considerations. First, because the negotiation under the Program is intended to lower the prices manufacturers can charge for certain selected, single-source drugs, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment may be implicated. Second, the Program’s enforcement mechanisms – the excise tax and civil monetary penalties – may raise questions relating to the scope of Congress’s taxing power and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Third, the Program’s limitation on judicial review may prompt questions regarding Congress’s powers to limit the subject matter jurisdiction of Article III courts. Finally, in setting forth the parameters of the Program, the language of Title I may implicate certain statutory interpretation questions.”
There’s reason enough for Congress to resolutely reject Pelosi’s H.R. 3 due to the negative impact that her proposal would inflict upon Americans’ healthcare, our world-leading pharmaceutical innovators and our healthcare industry more broadly. The fact that it’s likely unconstitutional offers another reason to avoid the protracted sort of legal battles that would ensue, so that Congress can work toward solutions that actually improve American healthcare, like stronger patent protections and free-market principles.
CFIF on Twitter
CFIF on YouTube