This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Judge upholds constitutionality of health care law
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
A federal judge for the District of Columbia has ruled that the health care reform law enacted under President Barack Obama, which requires individuals to purchase health insurance, is constitutional.
The five plaintiffs in the case argued that the mandate requiring individuals to obtain health care coverage or pay a penalty was unconstitutional, and that Congress’s inclusion of the provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exceeded its authority granted under the Commerce Clause. The clause allows Congress to regulate actions that substantially impact interstate commerce.
The plaintiffs also contended that the law violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which prevents the government from placing substantial burdens on the right to exercise religion. Some of the plaintiffs stated that they believe God provides for their physical well-being, and buying insurance indicates a lack and conflict in faith.
The plaintiffs, aged 36 years to 62 years old, stated that they have gone a range of 5 years to 22 years without health insurance.
‘Cost-shifting effect’
In her ruling, Judge Gladys Kessler said that Congress has the authority to regulate insurance markets because, “insurance policies are ‘commodities’ in the flow of interstate commerce,” she wrote. She said that the decision to buy insurance is an economic one and noted a “cost-shifting effect” in which the aggregate impact of individuals not paying for health insurance leads to increased premiums for payors and “substantially affects the national health insurance market.”
In response to the plaintiffs’ argument that Congress could not regulate economic inactivity — in this case, the decision to not purchase insurance — Kessler wrote, “It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not ‘acting,’ especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.”
Religious freedom
In regards to the potential encroachment of religious freedom, she wrote that the law does not place a substantial burden on the exercise of faith, and, “assuming that it does, it is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling governmental interest.”
The case is one of many questioning the validity of the health care law. Kessler is the third federal judge to uphold the legislation, joining district court judges in Eastern Michigan and Lynchburg, Va. As originally reported on ORTHOSuperSite.com, a federal district court judge in Florida ruled the law unconstitutional. A district judge in Eastern Virginia ruled that the provision mandating health care participation was unconstitutional, but upheld other parts of the act.