Abstract
The fundamental focus of this Article is whether the decision not to buy individual health insurance as required by Congress also qualifies as valid economic activity under the Commerce Clause. This question before the Court continues the modern battle regarding the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, and the battle regarding the regulation of economic activity continues, irrespective of the Supreme Court decision regarding PPACA, because of the continuing impact of the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Lopez. Part II of this Article contends that the decision not to purchase health insurance is not to be treated as an economic activity because it is not connected to economic risk-taking should be rejected outright as nothing more than a denial of the economic reality at a practical interactive marketplace level. Part III of this Article provides an analysis of the individual mandate as a Commerce Clause issue, with a focus particularly on a case from Florida, objecting to the 2010 healthcare overhaul law as unconstitutional, which on November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court agreed to hear. Three different courts had urged the Supreme Court to review the essential issue concerning the power of Congress to invoke PPACA’s individual mandate. Since the 11th Circuit was the only court to hold the individual mandate unconstitutional, the Supreme Court may have been persuaded to hear the cases from that circuit. Part III discusses why the Supreme Court should have reversed the conclusion from the District Court in Florida that the individual health insurance mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
Recommended Citation
L. Darnell Weeden,
The Commerce Clause Implications of the Individual Mandate Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ,
26 J.L. & Health
29
(2013)
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/jlh/vol26/iss1/4