It is official. The highest court in all the land will decide the fate of health care reform! One can only hope it is from a purely constitutional and not partisan perspective. Arguments are expected in March, with a decision in late June, 2012. Here is why the Supreme Court of the United States of America should uphold the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act individual mandate:
The individual mandate functions not only as a punitive measure, but also a means of raising revenue otherwise lost to uncompensated care. It is a direct interpretation of the 16th Amendment. The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the right to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. The individual mandate provides funding for the entire law. That is the definition of necessary and proper.
Traditionally, the Commerce Clause has granted Congress the right to broadly regulate business with significant interstate commerce. During the landmark case Wickard v. Filburn, the Courts decided Congress could regulate a farmer’s personal wheat production based on the threat of every other farmer following suit and lowering national wheat consumption. Health care has an even larger national component. Not only do citizens constantly travel interstate, uncompensated costs result in billions of dollars, but almost all medical supplies, drugs, and equipment have significant interstate commerce.
Most constitutional dissent focuses on the right to compel persons deemed “inactive” in the current health insurance market. Often conceding interstate commerce, opponents argue Congress cannot compel the uninsured to purchase health insurance because they are not actively participating in healthcare commerce. This is flawed. No person is inactive when deciding how to pay for health care whether it is self-insurance, private, or public insurance. Those intentionally uninsured cannot guarantee abstinence of incurring exorbitant medical debt and burdening society. Inaction is action.
This concept is incredibly exciting and nerve-wracking all at the same time. As most political junkies know, the current Supreme Court definitely leans to the right. With Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. at the helm, I sometimes become cynical of political coercion and judges. However, the conservative base lost a huge ally when George W. Bush appointed Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, who opinioned the ACA was constitutional a month ago. Who really knows what will happen.
Andrew G. Mychkovsky is a Healthcare Consulting Intern at Blue Cottage Consulting.
Tags: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Supreme Court of the United States of America, the 16th Amendment, Wickard v. Filburn
