Judge Upholds PPACA’s Individual Mandate

A Federal court judge ruled Thursday that Congress has the authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to enact the individual mandate provision of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which requires consumers to purchase health care insurance or pay a penalty for failing to do so.

A Federal court judge ruled Thursday that Congress has the authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to enact the individual mandate provision of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which requires consumers to purchase health care insurance or pay a penalty for failing to do so.Judge George Steeh of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, held the mandate is supported by Supreme Court Court precedent; and that Congress’ power under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause extends to regulating “economic decisions,” and not just “economic activity.”

“[PPACA’s] minimum coverage provision, which addresses economic decisions regarding health care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congress’s goal,” Judge Steeh wrote in a 20-page opinion. “While plaintiffs describe the Commerce Clause power as reaching economic activity, the government’s characterization of the Commerce Clause reaching economic decisions is more accurate.”

The case was brought by the Thomas More Law Center, Ann Arbor, Mich., which represented four Michigan plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs argued, in part, that Congress has no authority to regulate “inactivity” under the Commerce Clause—in this case, an individual’s decision not to purchase health insurance under PPACA’s mandate.

The judge further ruled that PPACA’s penalty provision is also constitutional because it’s “incidental” to the act’s purpose. And he held that because Congress has the authority to impose the mandate, the court needn’t address Congress’s ability to tax under the constitution’s general welfare clause.

“The Act regulates a broader interstate market in health care services,” wrote Steeh. “This is not a market created by Congress; it is one created by the fundamental need for health care and the necessity of paying for such services received.

“The provision at issue addresses cost-shifting in those markets and operates as an essential part of a comprehensive, regulatory scheme, he added. “The uninsured, like plaintiffs, benefit from the “guaranteed issue” provision in the Act, which enables them to become insured even when they are already sick. This benefit makes imposing the minimum coverage provision appropriate.”

Richard Thompson, president and chief Counsel of the Law Center commented in reaction to the ruling that it will continue to challenge PPACA in the courts.

“Obama Care is one of the most oppressive measures in the history of our Nation,” he said. “And it was passed by Congress despite overwhelming opposition of the American people. It was not about reforming health care, but a government seizure of unprecedented power over our lives. 

“[PPACA] transfers control of one-sixth of our Nation’s economy to Washington bureaucrats,” he added. “And it will add an estimated 16,000 to 20,000 additional IRS agents to monitor tax returns and records to determine compliance with the new regulations.”

Rob Muise, The Law Center’s senior trial counsel who handled the case commented, “This decision is ripe for appeal, which we intend to do expeditiously.”

 

Written By Warren S. Hersch

Published 10/8/2010 LifeandHealthInsuranceNews.com

2 responses

“The judge further ruled that PPACA’s penalty provision is also constitutional because it’s “incidental” to the act’s purpose. ”

Really? A Constitutional Penalty for not purchasing something for our own ‘benefit’? “Constitutional Penalty” just doesn’t sit well with me for anything that doesn’t oppress the unalienable rights of another human.

Leave a Reply

*

Be sure to include your first and last name.

If you don't have one, no problem! Just leave this blank.