Congress, courts, and commerce: upholding the individual mandate to protect the public's health.
نویسندگان
چکیده
Among multiple legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is the premise that PPACA's "individual mandate" (requiring all individuals to obtain health insurance by 2014 or face civil penalties) is inviolate of Congress' interstate commerce powers because Congress lacks the power to regulate commercial "inactivity." Several courts initially considering this argument have rejected it, but federal district courts in Virginia and Florida have concurred, leading to numerous appeals and prospective review of the United States Supreme Court. Despite creative arguments, the dispositive constitutional question is not whether Congress' interstate commerce power extends to commercial inactivity. Rather, it is whether Congress may regulate individual decisions with significant economic ramifications in the interests of protecting and promoting the public's health. This article offers a counter-interpretation of the scope of Congress' interstate commerce power to regulate in furtherance of the public's health.
منابع مشابه
The dénouement of the Supreme Court's ACA drama.
T Supreme Court decision on June 28, 2012, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius1 upholding nearly all of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)2 marked the dénouement of a drama that began in March 2010, when President Barack Obama signed the law. In three lengthy, interconnected opinions, members of the Court sent the contentious debate about the ACA’s expansion of health insuranc...
متن کاملReframing federalism--the Affordable Care Act (and broccoli) in the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold most of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including the insurance-coverage requirement, allows historic reforms in the health care system to move forward.1,2 Because the justices were split four to four on whether the ACA was constitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts was able to write the lead opinion that commanded five votes for whatever outcome he dete...
متن کاملBuying health care, the individual mandate, and the Constitution.
10.1056/nejmp1005897 nejm.org 1 Litigation has a Rashomon-like quality to it: two sides meet in a courtroom and each presents its case, arguing not only that abstract legal principles favor its cause, but equally important, that its version of the event that gave rise to the dispute should be the filter through which the court decides the matter. Three separate cases raising constitutional chal...
متن کاملThe individual mandate and patient-centered care.
ONE YEAR AFTER THE HISTORIC PASSAGE OF THE AFfordable Care Act (ACA), the individual mandate is subject to ongoing scrutiny both by the federal courts and Congress. This provision of the ACA would require most individuals to purchase health insurance, and recent attention has focused on the important legal issues associated with such a mandate. However, far less attention has been devoted to th...
متن کاملThe irrelevance of the broccoli argument against the insurance mandate.
10.1056/nejmp1113618 nejm.org e1(1) ulation of only commercial activity, not inactivity, and thus gives Congress no power to force individuals to buy a product. They argue that if the Supreme Court were to hold otherwise, then Congress could force us all to buy anything, from General Motors cars to broccoli. This claim is a red herring, however, because Congress could force precisely the same p...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics
دوره 39 3 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2011