Posted by Lady Liberty on Thursday, October 7, 2010, 5:56 PM
A federal judge in Michigan has upheld the health care legislation that was passed this year, in the first significant challenge to its constitutionality.
Via CBS News -
A federal judge in Michigan has rejected a constitutional attack on President Obama’s health care overhaul, ruling that Congress did not exceed its authority when it passed the landmark legislation requiring people to buy health insurance.The decision (.pdf) is here.
Federal Judge George Caram Steeh rejected claims by the Thomas More Law Center and several Michigan residents, who argued they should not be required to buy into a health plan that could fund abortions. Today’s decision focused on two constitutional issues: whether the law violated the Commerce Clause, because it exceeded Congress’ authority, and whether it amounted to an unconstitutional tax.
Although the decision is the first case to reach the merits on the Commerce Clause, it should go without saying that the issues are far from resolved. It’s like a tropical storm brewing in the ocean that hasn’t quite made it to hurricane status. For one, this case is certain to be appealed, and more importantly, the two major lawsuits — one in Florida and another in Virginia — have yet to be decided. Those lawsuits involve challenges by more than a dozen state attorneys general and governors.
All of the cases are gathering strength to make landfall at One First Street — the Supreme Court.
Still, it is the first case to reach the merits on the Commerce Clause issue, which is one of the more compelling legal arguments against the health care reforms. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to regulate economic activity. These lawsuits argue the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate economic inactivity.
The judge rejected those arguments, ruling that Congress had power to pass the law because it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce and was part of a broader regulatory scheme.
Here is one key passage from his decision on whether Congress had a “rational basis” to conclude that the legislation would affect interstate commerce:
“The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. Indeed, the opposite is nearly always true. The question is how participants in the health care market pay for medical expenses – through insurance, or through an attempt to pay out of pocket with a backstop of uncompensated care funded by third parties.Federal Judge George Caram Steeh is a Clinton appointee to the Eastern District of Michigan.
This phenomenon of cost- shifting is what makes the health care market unique. Far from “inactivity,” by choosing to forgo insurance plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance,collectively shifting billions of dollars, $43 billion in 2008, onto other market participants….
The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings, who do not oppose medical services on religious grounds, they cannot opt out of this market. As inseparable and integral members of the health care services market, plaintiffs have made a choice regarding the method of payment for the services they expect to receive. The government makes the apropos analogy of paying by credit card rather than by check. How participants in the health care services market pay for such services has a documented impact on interstate commerce. Obviously, this market reality forms the rational basis for Congressional action designed to reduce the number of uninsureds.”
No comments:
Post a Comment