Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:48:35.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Constitutionality of Mandates to Purchase Health Insurance

Executive Summary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Mark A. Hall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Many proposals to reform health care finance and delivery require individuals or private employers to pay for private health insurance. Senators Ron Wyden and Robert Bennett’s Healthy Americans Act, for instance, would require every adult person who is not covered by a public program to purchase health insurance. Similarly, President Obama’s campaign proposal requires that parents arrange for coverage of their minor children and that all but small employers pay a tax if they do not provide their workers health insurance.

This paper addresses the constitutionality of such proposals. Compulsory health insurance might raise constitutional concerns because there is no existing social legislation that serves as a perfect legal analogy to an individual mandate for private health insurance. Insurance mandates are familiar in other contexts, such as automobile liability, but they present an easier case for constitutionality because they are a condition of exercising a privilege, such as driving a car.

Type
JLME Supplement
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 37 , Issue S2 , Fall 2009 , pp. 38 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld compulsory automobile insurance long ago, even when judicial scrutiny of economic and social legislation was much more demanding. Ex Parte Poresky, 290 U.S. 30 (1933).Google Scholar
U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 3.Google Scholar
See, e.g., United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941), overturning Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918) regarding child labor laws.Google Scholar
545 U.S. 1 (2005) (6–3, per Stevens, J.).Google Scholar
Id., at 19.Google Scholar
514 U.S. 549 (1995) (5–4, per Rhenquist, W.).Google Scholar
Id., at 557.Google Scholar
Id., at 561.Google Scholar
529 U.S. 598 (2000) (5–4, per Rhenquist, W.).Google Scholar
Id., at 610.Google Scholar
425 U.S. 738 (1976) (9–0, per Marshall, J.).Google Scholar
See Monahan, A. B., “Federalism, Federal Regulation, or Free Market? An Examination of Mandated Health Benefit Reform,” University of Illinois Law Review (2007): 1361–1416, at 1389.Google Scholar
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533 (1944).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. 1011 (2000).Google Scholar
U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8 Clause 1.Google Scholar
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937).Google Scholar
See Penalver, E., “Regulatory Taxings,” Columbia Law Review 104 (2005): 2198–2199, at 2182; Martinez, L. P., “The Trouble with Taxes: Fairness, Tax Policy, and the Constitution,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 31 (2004): 430-446, at 413 (“This deference to Congress or to state legislatures in matters relating to taxation is a theme that echoes throughout the Court's tax cases…. The power to tax is circumscribed only when a very high threshold of arbitrariness or irrationality is met.”).Google Scholar
Baily v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 US 20 (1922).Google Scholar
Chemerinsky, E., Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (New York: Aspen Law & Business, 3rd ed. 2006): at 276–278.Google Scholar
Sonzinsky v. U.S., 300 U.S. 506, 513 (1937). The modern view is captured in Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540, 547 (1983) (9–0, per Rehnquist, J.): Legislatures have especially broad latitude in creating classifications and distinctions in tax statutes. “The passage of time has only served to underscore the wisdom of that recognition of the large area of discretion which is needed by a legislature in formulating sound tax policies. It has, because of this, been pointed out that in taxation, even more than in other fields, legislatures possess the greatest freedom in classification. Since the members of a legislature necessarily enjoy a familiarity with local conditions which this Court cannot have, the presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the most explicit demonstration that a classification is a hostile and oppressive discrimination against particular persons and classes.”Google Scholar
Kaye, T. A. and Mazza, S. W., “Constitutional Limitations on the Legislative Power to Tax in the United States,” Michigan State Journal of International Law 15 (2007): 481–520. There might also be a challenge if a tax law was not uniform across the states, but even then some variation is permitted to account for different local circumstances. See Greely, H. T., “Policy Issues in Health Alliances: Of Efficiency, Monopsony, and Equity,” Health Matrix 5 (1995): 37-82, at 65.Google Scholar
For instance, before it was repealed the National Health Planning and Resources Development Act of 1974 required states, as a condition for receiving federal funds for hospital construction and medical institutions, to adopt a comprehensive “certificate of need” regulation of capital expenditures by health care facilities. Despite the federalism concerns of mandating state legislation that, in part, regulated state-owned facilities, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed a lower court's decision that this was a valid exercise of Congress's spending power. North Carolina v. Morrow, 435 U.S. 962 (1978), affirming mem. North Carolina v. Califano, 445 F. Supp. 532 (E.D.N.C., 1977) (3-judge court).Google Scholar
Rosenthal, A. J., “Conditional Federal Spending and the Constitution,” Stanford Law Review 39 (1987): 1103–1164, at 1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
483 U.S. 203 (1987) (7–2, per Rehnquist, J.),Google Scholar
Nowak, J. E. and Rotunda, R. D., Constitutional Law, 7th ed. (St. Paul: West, 2004): at 230–231.Google Scholar
Hoke, C., “Constitutional Impediments to National Health Reform: Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause Hurdles,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 21 (1994): 489–575, at 572 (1994). Accord R. Briffault, “Federalism and Health Care Reform: Is Half a Loaf Really Worse Than None?” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 21 (1994): 611-633, at 613–16. See generally, Sullivan, K. M., “Unconstitutional Conditions,” Harvard Law Review 102 (1989): 1413-1506; Baker, L. A., “Conditional Federal Spending After Lopez,” Columbia Law Review 95 (1995): 1911-1989.Google Scholar
U.S. Const. Amend. X.Google Scholar
United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941).Google Scholar
505 U.S. 144 (1992) (6–3, per O'Connor, J.).Google Scholar
521 U.S. 898 (1997) (5–4, per Scalia, J.).Google Scholar
Id., at 918.Google Scholar
See Siegel, N. S., “Commandeering and Its Alternatives: A Federalism Perspective,” Vanderbilt Law Review 59 (2006): 1629–1691; Jackson, V. C., “Federalism and the Uses and Limits of Law: Printz and Principle?” Harvard Law Review 111 (1998): 2180-2259.Google Scholar
Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141, 151 (2000) (9–0, per Rehnquist, J.) (upholding a federal law prohibiting states from selling drivers license information for commercial purposes).Google Scholar
See Hoke, , Supra note 26, at 565.Google Scholar
505 U.S. 144 (1992) (6–3, per O'Connor, J.).Google Scholar
Id., at 167.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Kondrates, A. et al., “Assessing the New Federalism: An Introduction,” Health Affairs, 17 no. 3 (1998): 17–24.Google Scholar
469 U.S. 528 (1985) (5–4, per Blackmun, J.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 554.Google Scholar
U.S. v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 257 (1982).Google Scholar
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. Note, as the result of City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), which held that RFRA's application to state laws unconstitutional, RFRA now applies only to federal laws.Google Scholar
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 424 (2006) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a)).Google Scholar
455 U.S. 252 (1982).Google Scholar
Id., at 260.Google Scholar
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430–31 (2006).Google Scholar
Id., at 421.Google Scholar
U.S. Const. Amend. V.Google Scholar
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 727 (1997).Google Scholar
Stone, G. R. et al., Constitutional Law, 5th ed. (New York: Aspen Publishers, 2005): at 765.Google Scholar
See U.S. v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434, 445 (1973) (“We see no fundamental interest that is gained or lost depending on the availability of a discharge in bankruptcy.”)Google Scholar
E.g., Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).Google Scholar
Cf. Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs and Washington Legal Foundation v. Eschenbach, 495 F.3d 695 (D.C. Cir. 2007).Google Scholar
Cf. Chaoulli v. Quebec, 2005 SCC 35 (Canada) (finding such a right under Quebec's Charter of Human Rights).Google Scholar
348 U.S. 483 (1955).Google Scholar
Id., at 487.Google Scholar
Id., at 487–88.Google Scholar
Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156 (1998) (5–4, per Rehnquist, J.).Google Scholar
Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington, 538 U.S. 216 (2003) (5–4, Stevens, J.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
524 U.S. 498 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Merrill, T. W., “The Landscape of Constitutional Property,” Virginia Law Review 86 (2000): 885–999; Kades, E., “Drawing the Line Between Taxes and Takings: The Continuous Burdens Principle, and Its Broader Application,” Northwestern University Law Review 97 (2002): 189-265, at 194 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
E.g., Rubenfeld, J., “Usings,” Yale Law Journal 102 (1993): 1077–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The circumstance that the statute does not take money for the Government but instead makes it payable to third persons is not a factor I rely upon to show the lack of a taking: “[T]he Government ought not to have the capacity to give itself immunity from a takings claim by the device of requiring the transfer of property from one private owner directly to another.” 524 U.S. 498 at 543–44.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Lingle v. Chevron U.S. A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005).Google Scholar
Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 475 U.S. 211 (1986) (9–0, per White, J.).Google Scholar
524 U.S. at 554.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Church, W. L., “The Eastern Enterprises Case: New Vigor for Judicial Review?” Wisconsin Law Review 2000 (2000): 547-570; Krotoszynski, R. J., Jr., “Expropriatory Intent: Defining Property Boundaries of Substantive Due Process and the Takings Clause,” North Carolina Law Review 80 (2002): 713–772.Google Scholar
See generally Sunstein, C. R., Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America (Cambridge, MA: Basic Books, 2005); Van Alstyne, W. W., “Foreword: The Constitution in Exile: Is It Time to Bring It In from the Cold?” Duke Law Journal 51 (2001): 1-25; Editor's Forward, “A New Constitutional Order?” Fordham Law Review 75 (2006): 471-474.Google Scholar
For leading exponents, see, e.g., Epstein, R., Supreme Neglect (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); Barnett, R., Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
301 U.S. 619 (1937).Google Scholar
348 U.S. 483 (1955).Google Scholar
See Sunstein, , supra note 68, at 245; Calabresi, S. G., “Substantive Due Process after Gonzales v. Carhart,” Michigan Law Review 106 (2008): 1517–1541.Google Scholar
545 U.S. 1 (2005).Google Scholar
Id., at 34–35.Google Scholar
See also Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 275 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring) (“I reject the proposition that the Due Process Clause guarantees certain (unspecified) liberties, rather than merely guarantees certain procedures as a prerequisite to deprivation of liberty.”).Google Scholar
Scalia, A., “Economic Affairs as Human Affairs,” Cato Journal, no. 3 (1985): 703–709, at 705-706.Google Scholar
U.S. v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26, 39 (concurring). See also Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 592 (Scalia, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C. J. and Thomas, J.) (“there is no right to ‘liberty’ under the Due Process Clause… The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citizens of ‘liberty,’ so long as ‘due process of law’ is provided.”); BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 598–599 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting, joined by Thomas, J.) (“I do not regard the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause as a secret repository of substantive guarantees against ‘unfairness.’”).Google Scholar
Some others, it is worth noting, have advanced the opposite argument, that the government is constitutionally compelled to provide universal access in some fashion. See, e.g., Barber, S. A., Welfare and the Constitution (Princeton, NJ: University Press, 2003).Google Scholar