My Cart 
Home |
Corbett’s Attacks on Health Care Reform Legally Unfounded
Brandon S. Bruce, Esq..
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 United States…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Under the Supremacy Clause, states must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law or policy. We are one country, not just an accumulation of independent states. If you go abroad, you will not present a passport from Pennsylvania, you will show a U.S. passport. It is our collective identity that makes America such a great and beautiful nation. States, and their duly elected officials, should support and celebrate the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as a milestone in our pursuit of maintaining America’s place as the greatest country on earth because America can not be great absent a healthy citizenry to sustain it.
