Letter to Senator Jim Webb

March 8, 2008

Hon. Jim Webb
U.S. Senate
248 RSOB
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Webb:

As a follow-up to my letter to you on March 5, I would like to provide you with my views on what the federal government actually might be able to do within the very limited parameters allowed under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

The Commerce Clause, I believe, would allow for a few things that would be potentially constructive. First, I would like to point out my utter disbelief that I have thus far heard so very little about the ongoing regulation of the health insurance companies already taking place at the state level which many in Congress would prefer to usurp. Each of the 50 states, republics by the way, has an insurance regulating agency. In some states, the insurance commissioner is elected; in others, they are appointed, usually by the governor.

The Commerce Clause allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, although it has been improperly used for more than that in years past, albeit beyond the limits of its constitutional authority. The first item that can be done is to repeal the anti-trust exemption for the insurance companies; health, property & casualty, etc. I can’t believe they have had the exemption to date anyway. Secondly, again under the Commerce Clause, states must treat all companies equally, who are doing interstate business. Thus, in my opinion, they would have to open their borders to all interstate companies, on an equal footing to their own in-state companies without discrimination.

As much as I would like to see tort reform, I believe the federal government would have the same difficulty enforcing such a reform in state courts. Article I, Section 8 was spelled out specifically, to let all governing authorities be aware of the very limited role allowed for the federal government, vis-à-vis the states, vice versa. They did that for obvious reasons to prevent what is now happening; that which you and I now are witnessing, to prevent federal usurpation. The two things I mentioned above would be constructive means for competition and hopefully better pricing of health and other types of insurance.

It is my opinion that most of both versions of healthcare reform are largely unconstitutional, as will be the administration version. As you well know, several lawyerly Senators have been preparing themselves to go straight to the US Supreme Court assuming any healthcare reform vehicle should pass. These Senators will be joined in their lawsuit by a substantial majority of the states, probably 35, to estop and stay implementation until a ruling is issued on the constitutionality of such vehicle. You and I know that the ruling will be, in the least, 5-4 for the plaintiffs. No one should be deluded in thinking otherwise. The vote on the constitutionality of the individual provision will be no less than 5-4.

In view of that, what’s the point? So you can tell the constituents you tried? What you are essentially telling your constituents is that you tried to wire around the Constitution but the big, bad Supreme Court would not allow it.

I served on staff for two Governors, a Member of Congress, and Appropriations Committee Staff. In 30 years, half of which was in public service, I have never seen such a charade. I am embarrassed, as a Jeffersonian Democrat that my party and my government would spit on the Constitution and on our forefathers, who provided us with such a magnificent and sacrosanct document. To even contemplate we could insure all of the uninsured is a fanciful panacea, perpetrating a lie and false hope to those constituents. It will never happen and we all know it.

As a former staffer, let me just say I do not want to tie up valuable staff time by responding to this letter. You implied that my views would be helpful in the continuing debate on healthcare reform. I am herewith providing my views and rather than tying up staff by writing me a response, just please have someone take 3 minutes to relate to Senator Webb my views on what the federal government/Senate might do in order to assist the states as expressed above.

Thank you again,


Steve Matthews