Corbett’s Attacks on Health Care Reform Legally Unfounded
Brandon S. Bruce, Esq. on 04/07/2010
In no more than 7 minutes after President Obama signed the historic “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” into law, Pennsylvania Attorney General (“AG”) Tom Corbett joined 12 other AGs in their lawsuit against the federal government claiming in their complaint that the health care legislation is an “unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states.” In particular, AG Corbett said, “[w]ith one signature, our government has thrown out the constitutional framework developed by the founding fathers and expanded the Commerce Clause to include unprecedented power to regulate and penalize private decisions not to engage in commerce.” It appears based on AG Corbett’s interpretation of the Constitution that he fails to appreciate the Spending Clause, which has been long upheld by the Supreme Court as a permissible means for the federal government to require states that choose to accept federal funds to comply with federal program requirements. This clause is distinguishable from the Supreme Court’s prohibition on “commandeering” state governments by the federal government, which have the effect of rendering states to mere instruments of the federal government.
AG Corbett went on to say that the law "threatens every citizen's individual liberties;" however, this simply is not the case. In fact, the Act specifically addresses these concerns, even granting states the ability to offer alternative methods for providing cost-conscious insurance to its citizens. Like any rule prescribed under the Spending Clause, states have the option of accepting or declining the funds. Section 1333 describes the waiver option available to states if they do not wish to accept the funds and choose to use a completely different approach to covering their residents. In addition, there is no undue burden placed on the states by accepting these funds because if a state chooses to receive the funds, but does not want to be hassled with executing and maintaining the insurance exchanges, relief comes in the form of Section 1321. Under Section 1321 of the Act, states may elect for the federal government to enforce the law and operate exchanges that would make health insurance available to consumers in the state.
Those critics that believe the reform law is intrusive because it compels people to buy health insurance should consider that the government has a strong interest in the well-being of its people and thus has the ability to mandate action to preserve their life. This sentiment is reflected in the government’s requirement that citizens maintain auto insurance. In the event of an accident, severe injury and/or death can result. If a person is lucky enough to survive a serious accident, great financial loss can result which, in the aggregate, can have a negative impact on the economy. So why do critics of the reform legislation treat health care differently?
These lawsuits against the Act should be dismissed on multiple grounds. Article III represents a procedural limitation on the ability of the AGs to bring the lawsuit at all. For instance, because the law does not mandate that states require their citizens to have health insurance for another four years, it can be argued that Courts have jurisdiction to hear the claim due to the “ripeness” requirement. Because courts need the details of a concrete factual situation arising from enforcement in order to engage in a reasoned balancing of individual rights and governmental interests, by not having an actual controversy before the Court, the lawsuit could be dismissed purely on procedural grounds.
In addition, the Act requires people who have household incomes above the tax filing limit ($18,700 for joint filers) and who are not covered by their employer or a public program to buy health insurance. The states may not be able to successfully challenge the law because they are unable to show any injury to the state that will result from the law’s mandate that individuals buy health insurance. A state’s ability to challenge the Act are even less likely when you consider that people who earn less than 400%of the poverty level will receive tax credits to help pay for the cost of the insurance. It should be noted that only those individuals subject to the mandate who choose not to be insured will have to pay a tax, which will increase with his or her income.
Opponents have relied primarily on the 10th Amendment that declares “powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.” This argument completely lacks an understanding of the Supremacy Clause, which states that the “Constitution and the Laws of the
Add Comment
- Pennsylvania’s Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act
- The Foundations of Foundations: Admission of Documentary Exhibits into Evidence at Trial
- Private Attorney-Client Conferences During Depositions
- Philadelphia Bar Association’s Professional Guidance Committee Weighs In On Social Media
- Alternative Pleading in a Divorce Action? Not so Fast!
- Philadelphia’s Transfer Tax Ordinance Benefits All Families
- The Economic Front Lines: Lessons for Philadelphia’s Business Lawyers Facing an Economy of Change
Become a Contributor
You can submit your own articles to be considered for publication on Upon Further Review. LEARN MORE
+ Add CommentComments
04/08/2010 by Doug Humes
“it compels people to buy health insurance should consider that the government has a strong interest in the well-being of its people and thus has the ability to mandate action to preserve their life.”
Why put a band aid on the problem then? Why not deal with the actual issue of health – and compel people to wake up each morning and do 100 situps and 100 pushups, then a brisk 2 mile walk, followed by a healthy breakfast. A low fat, low carb diet. No smoking and no drinking – two of the biggest contributors to cancer and heart deaths. Periodic psychical examinations and blood tests to determine compliance. Under your view of the Commerce Clause, this is all permissible, because anything is permissible – the Commerce Clause is a blank check to enact anything you want. So rather than forcing me to pay for the health insurance of people who make lousy decisions about their health, make them shape up. Have them, rather than me, pay the penalty for their choices. That will actually change behavior. It will lead to “health”. Is that the point? No, of course not. This law doesn’t do anything about actual “health”. It doesn’t do anything to address costs. It is a triumph of political expediency over common sense. It is a political victory but an economic disaster. And of course when you believe that anything that your elected representatives can think of is a legitimate exercise of the Commerce Clause, and that the Commerce Clause trumps all other checks and balances in our system, you have effectively thrown the Constitution out the window. Intelligent people beg to differ with you.04/08/2010 by Anonymous
The author writes: “Those critics that believe the reform law is intrusive because it compels people to buy health insurance should consider that the government has a strong interest in the well-being of its people and thus has the ability to mandate action to preserve their life…So why do critics of the reform legislation treat health care differently? ” Interesting perspective. One must wonder why pro-abortion supporters view attempts to limit abortions or overturn Roe v. Wade treat that issue differently. Does the government not have a strong interest in the well-being of pregnant women citizens and the potential mental health ramifications to her psyche post-abortion? Does the government not have a strong interest in the well-being of the father citizen who may suffer from intentional infliction of emotional distress if he is opposed to the fetus/neonate his sperm contributed to being aborted? Does the government not have a strong interest in the well-being of its neonate citizen, especially in light of the fact that we will need a large employee base to sustain the costs of growing government programs (e.g. TARP, HCR)? One must believe in the rights of individuals to make private decisions related to their health or not. One cannot “split the baby” (no pun intended) and decide that the right to privacy is applicable to a woman’s right to choose abortion but not applicable to a person’s right to choose to maintain or not maintain health insurance. Consistency in legislation creates sustainable government. Inconsistency and political expediency breed contempt.
04/08/2010 by Anonymous
While Attorney Bruce is generally correct in his statement that “the Spending Clause … has been long upheld by the Supreme Court as a permissible means for the federal government to require states that choose to accept federal funds to comply with federal program requirements,” I think his overall interpretation of the Spending Clause may be incorrect. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987) lays out a four part test regarding the Spending Power: 1. the spending must be for the general welfare; 2. Congress may condition state receipt of funds, but it “must do so unambiguously,” in order for the states to knowingly choose to accept the funds; 3. “conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated ’to the federal interest in particular national projects or Programs;’” and 4. the Supreme Court must see if another clause of the Constitution acts as an “independent bar” to the spending. Dole, 483 U.S. at 207-209; 107 S.Ct. at 2796-2797. The Supreme Court further states that “the [Spending] power may not be used to induce the States to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional.” Dole, 483 U.S. at 211, 107 S.Ct. at 2798. The Constitutional bar would be the Commerce Clause.
Moreover, I have heard the argument that this situation is analogous to buying automobile insurance, but I don’t think that it is correct. One need not buy car insurance if he or she does not own an automobile. The purchase of an automobile insurance policy is a condition on the privilege of driving on public roads, whereas the purchase of a health insurance policy is a condition of, apparently, living.04/08/2010 by Anonymous
So, we’re all upset because you have to obtain health insurance whether you want to or not or pay a penalty. Then I guess everyone who works and has to pay into Medicare and Social Security also should refuse to pay that also. That way when you get older or you have a child who has serious health problems or when you don’t have enough money to retire on, you can say, I’m so glad I insisted on not paying for Medicare or Social Security. Yes, it’s a mandate but if you look back in history when Medicare was being passed the same arguments you are making now were also stated, even by your President Reagan. And look at what has happened. When people heard about the Health Care Reform the first thing they yelded was, DON’T TOUCH MY MEDICARE. What a shame that no matter what the government does in this country it still is a rotten thing to do. Try for once to think pass today.
04/09/2010 by Anonymous
Believe me, paying into Medicare and Social Security is something most people detest paying into. We are paying now, but there will be nothing left when we retire. On the Medicare front, since we have created a dependency, what are we going to do now? We are going to cut Medicare funding by 500 milllion dollars. What will senior citizens do now? We are also cutting their prescription benefits, how can that be, I suppose our President is okay with that. We made them dependent, now we are going to cut them off. How about paying for the new health insurance plans, how will we be able to afford it? No one will be working because this plan will be the end of private industry. Oh, right, that’s what they want, everyone to be dependent on the government, it’s happening now, look how long unemployment is, 99 weeks!
I prefer to save for my retirement, it would be nice if the money I have paid in will still be there, but I am not counting on it. So for those of us who don’t like what is happening, and are looking PAST today, we will be able to say thanks, but no thanks. Democracy--don’t let it slip away. WAKE UP.