DENVER Thursdays Supreme Court ruling on national health care came as a shock to Attorney General John Suthers, who went to court to overturn it.
Suthers, a Republican, sued the federal government on behalf of Colorado, joining 25 other states. The National Federation of Independent Business filed a separate suit. The Supreme Court decided both cases at the same time Thursday.
Suthers was surprised by the ruling, in which Chief Justice John Roberts appointed by former President George W. Bush upheld the mandate that everyone buy insurance. Roberts said the mandate acted like a tax, which is within the power of Congress to enact.
The court has endorsed Congresss unprecedented decision to mandate that individual Americans buy a particular product or service or pay an economic sanction, Suthers said in a written statement.
Suthers has argued that the law is the same as forcing someone to buy a fuel-efficent car.
Now that the Court has endorsed this unprecedented exercise of federal power, I worry that Congress will pass other laws requiring people to buy one product or another to further a federal government policy, he said.
On the other hand, Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, greeted the ruling and said it will help the nearly 1 million Coloradans who dont have health insurance.
He pointed out that the Legislature created a health care exchange two years ago to give people and businesses a way to find affordable coverage. The exchange is scheduled to open in October 2013, and Hickenlooper said the state would have kept it even if the Supreme Court overturned the federal law.
We had contingencies whether it was shot down or it was upheld. We never slowed down, Hickenlooper said.
Suthers found one silver lining in the decision. The federal government cannot take back all its Medicaid payments to states if states dont cooperate by expanding their health care coverage for low-income people.
Roberts noted that federal Medicaid funds make up 10 percent of some states budgets, and he said Congress cant engage in economic dragooning by threatening to withhold the funds.
This means, at least, that there are limits on the federal governments power to compel states to make policy, Suthers said.