Posted by Nolan Miller on Jun 28, 2012
Filed Under (Health Care, U.S. Fiscal Policy)
Hot off the Internet, the Supreme Court has upheld the “Obamacare” individual mandate, which requires most people to buy health insurance or else pay a tax. The ruling isn’t available yet, but I have to say that I’m really, really impressed by this decision because it shows that the Supreme Court was able to look beyond the politics of the situation and the poor argument by the administration in defense of the bill, and rule according to the law.
The argument against the mandate was that it violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution in that it regulated economic “inactivity” rather than activity. That is, it forced people to participate in the individual insurance market even if they didn’t want to. The administration flubbed its defense on this point by failing to show how health insurance markets are different than most other markets, giving the Supreme Court a limiting principle that would prohibit the ruling from establishing that Congress can regulate anything it wants.
It sounds like the Supreme Court did not buy the argument that the indivual mandate was justified under the Commerce Clause. But, in some sense this is all a red herring. The individual mandate is a tax, plain and simple. People who do not buy health insurance must pay a fine to the IRS. A fine paid to the IRS is a tax. The Democrats and the administration tried to hide the fact that this was a tax while rallying support for the bill for obvious reasons. Nobody wanted to be seen as raising taxes, and President Obama had promised during the campaign that he would not raise taxes for middle income Americans. But, just because the Democrats wanted to pretend that this wasn’t a tax, that doesn’t make it true. It’s a tax. And, Congress has the right to impose taxes.
Despite the fact that the administration did not emphasize the tax aspect of PPACA’s indivual mandate in either its presetation of the bill to the public or in its defense before the Supreme Court, the Court was able to step beyond the narrative that was being fed to them and identify the key legal principle involved.
Whether you support the bill or not, I think that in a post Bush v. Gore / Citizens United world, when people are wondering whether the Supreme Court really is an impartial arbiter of the law, you have to see this as a great moment for the Court. Hooray for them.
More after I have a chance to look at the ruling.