Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Althouse

Legal Commentary

: Althouse

A federal district judge has upheld Congress's power ? under the Commerce Clause ? to require individuals to buy health insurance.

Here's the decision, linked from Politico. How does the judge ? George Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan ? deal with the key problem, that Congress is trying to regulate persons who are not engaging in any economic activity? This is the key passage:

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. 

That is, everyone is already in the market simply by virtue of having a body which might require medical care.

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. 

So, if you are planning to pay out of pocket for your own medical expenses if and when they arise, you have, through that decision, done something that affected the health care market.

Obviously, this market reality forms the rational basis for Congressional action designed to reduce the number of uninsureds.

The Supreme Court has consistently rejected claims that individuals who choose not to engage in commerce thereby place themselves beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., Raich, 545 U.S. at 30 (rejecting the argument that plaintiffs? home-grown marijuana was ?entirely separated from the market?); Wickard, 317 U.S. at 127, 128 (home-grown wheat ?competes with wheat in commerce? and ?may forestall resort to the market?); Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate decisions not to engage in transactions with persons with whom plaintiff did not wish to deal). 

Full post as published by Althouse on October 07, 2010 (boomark / email).