Monday, March 22, 2010

Health Care Mandate Likely to Survive Legal Challenges

      With the historic health care reform bill not yet signed into law, opponents are already preparing to take the predictable next step to challenge the measure in court as unconstitutional. The litigation promised by attorneys general in 11 states will give opponents a new forum to register their disagreements, but the legal arguments appear to be clearly contradicted by Supreme Court precedents supporting Congress’s regulatory and taxing powers over interstate commerce.
      The attorneys general, all of them Republicans, also plan to argue that the measure violates states’ sovereignty. Virginia has already passed and other states are considering legislation aimed at blocking the federal law from taking effect within their borders. On that score, the Constitution itself could hardly be clearer. Under the Supremacy Clause (Art. VI), the Constitution and “the laws of the United States” are “the supreme law of the land,” any state laws to the contrary notwithstanding.
      The opponents correctly note that the bill’s central provision — a tax-based mandate for everyone to purchase health insurance — is unprecedented, but the lack of a precedent is not constitutionally fatal. Before passage of the federal wage and hour law in 1938, it was also unprecedented for Congress to require all employers to pay a minimum wage and overtime to all employees. But the Supreme Court upheld the law in a unanimous decision three years later (United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 1941), and hardly anyone doubts its constitutionality today.
      The legal experts defending the constitutionality of a health insurance mandate start with a famous Supreme Court decision two years later that rejected a farmer’s attack on a federal agriculture quota limiting the amount of wheat he grew for his own consumption. In Wickard v. Filburn (1943), the court unanimously said that Congress’s power over interstate commerce extends even that far. The farmer’s “trivial” contribution to the demand for wheat was “not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation,” Justice Robert H. Jackson explained, “where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.”
      Opponents of the health insurance mandate criticize the decision. Andrew Napolitano, legal analyst for Fox News and a former state court judge in New Jersey, calls the ruling “notoriously tendentious.” In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in September, Napolitano argued in any event that health services is neither commerce nor interstate. “In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and does not move across interstate lines,” Napolitano wrote. In addition, “one goes to a physician not to engage in commercial activity, as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to improve one’s health.”
      Anyone who has recently been billed for medical or hospital services will understand that commercial activity is taking place. As for Napolitano’s narrow definition of interstate commerce, the Supreme Court followed that approach in the early 20th century, but has taken a broader view almost without exception since the New Deal.
      True, under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Supreme Court twice in the 1990s invoked a narrower definition of interstate commerce to strike down federal laws that banned possession of guns near schools (United States v. Lopez, 1995) and that created a federal cause of action for victims of gender-motivated violence (United States v. Morrison, 2000). Five years later, however, the court returned to a broader view in ruling that federal drug law takes precedence over state laws allowing medical use of marijuana. As Justice John Paul Stevens explained in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), home-grown marijuana, like home-grown wheat, could have a “substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.”
      Opponents of the health insurance mandate also argue that the measure will effectively require some people to subsidize insurance for others. Supporters counter that such subsidies are the very nature of an insurance pool. Regardless, the Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn answers the argument. Any regulation, Justice Jackson explained, imposes a cost on the regulated in order to benefit the broader public good. Those conflicts, he said, “are wisely left under our system to resolution by the Congress,” not the courts.
      The opponents look to the Tenth Amendment for their state sovereignty arguments, with its language reserving to the states all powers not delegated to the national government. The Supreme Court once famously described the amendment as a mere “truism.” In any event, if the law is a valid exercise of Congress’s commerce power, the Tenth Amendment is satisfied. And Congress’s power to enact the measure is even clearer if viewed as a tax. The law actually operates by imposing an excise tax on anyone who does not have health insurance. And Congress’s taxing power is almost unbounded — even if the purpose is not to raise revenue, but to regulate conduct.
      Some constitutional law experts see some validity in the opponents’ arguments — including Randy Barnett, a libertarian professor at Georgetown University Law Center and the losing lawyer in the medical marijuana case. Most other legal experts see the opponents’ attack as implausible, bordering on the frivolous. “I don’t think the vote would be close,” Timothy Jost, a health law expert at Washington & Lee University (no relation), told the Washington Times last fall.

7 comments:

  1. How many current members of the Supreme Court have also been members of the Federalist Society? Hasn't there been a trend among those justices to try to revive the Tenth Amendment and to curb some of the New Deal-era (and subsequent) cases which gave such a broad view of the Commerce Clause?
    On this subject, I'm reminded of Professor Frank Friedel's observation that, despite a lot of high-falutin' language, the outcome of federalism/states' rights controversies, most often depends on whose ox is being gored.

    ReplyDelete
  2. From the article:
    >>The legal experts defending the constitutionality of a health insurance mandate start with a famous Supreme Court decision two years later that rejected a farmer’s attack on a federal agriculture quota limiting the amount of wheat he grew for his own consumption. In Wickard v. Filburn (1943), the court unanimously said that Congress’s power over interstate commerce extends even that far. The farmer’s “trivial” contribution to the demand for wheat was “not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation,” Justice Robert H. Jackson explained, “where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.”<<

    Wickard is inapplicable to the debate on the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate for one simple reason: the wheat growers in that case were engaging in an activity, namely, the agricultural production of wheat. The fact that they did so for personal consumption did not minimize the underlying economic nature of this activity.

    The health insurance mandate, on the other hand, is an attempt to regulate a non-activity, a non-event. Whereas the purchasing of health insurance is an economic activity that can be regulated, NOT purchasing health insurance is NOT an activity.

    There are an almost innumerable number of products and services that individuals do NOT and will not ever purchase or contract for in their lives. Can their non-purchase be deemed an "economic activity"? Of course not.

    Roland
    Chicago, IL

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, not purchasing insurance is an economic activity, i.e., the lack of a large pool of insured affects the price of premiums for those who are insured. The non-purchase of housing is reported as an economic activity, e.g, the price of housing. W.Hanks, Covington, KY

    ReplyDelete
  4. A number of people usually do not have to feel concerned about spending for their individual health care expenses or about obtaining insurance plan because they live in countries where their governments take treatment of these folks. Nevertheless, for the rest of people, we are better off planning into a health and fitness insurance cover plan, such as a group health insurance plan. However how do you get into a particular of these kind of policies as well as exactly what are they?

    A group health policy is not for family members or single people. It is acquired by employers who want to supply their important staff with health insurance policy coverage. For staff to decide into the company health insurance plan, she or he must work a certain amount of period each 7 days or far more.

    All insurance cover plans are completely different. They will are available at different expenses and will cover different varieties of factors. To discover out what your insurance particulars are, you will have to question your company about your insurance policy, so everyone can find out how it succeeds.

    Health Insurance Medicare supplement

    ReplyDelete
  5. Affordable health care insurance programs have been around in excellent demand from customers recent years ages, considering the results of international economic depression definite throughout the world. Regardless of this, on the other hand, several households happen to be capable of preserve a good deal in their own insurance plan bills by simply having a reasonable health care insurance which lets them continue to be shielded regarding mishaps as well as unpredicted health problems. There are Varieties of Health care insurance Programs readily available. You will find a number of kinds of health care insurance ideas in which family members seeking regarding affordable medical health insurance prepare can buy. For instance , managing your health firm (The hmo), desired service provider firm (PPO), fee-for support, as well as stage involving assistance programs (Fea).

    Get really cheap health insurance

    ReplyDelete
  6. The discussions about Healthcare is now at its boiling point. The idea that it has been prematurely passed has caused great distress for both the medical field and the patients. I was really surprised that they never thought of another alternative to this. As someone here has mentioned, there are lots of healthcare insurance ideas that they could have adopted instead of the current one they have now.

    In case someone is looking for a solid and efficient medical insurance billing outsource, please feel free to check out the link in my post.

    ReplyDelete