Skip to content
My WebMD Sign In, Sign Up

Health Care Reform:

Health Insurance & Affordable Care Act

Supreme Court, Day 3: Can the Mandate Be Cut Out?

A Key Question Tackled on Third Day of the Health Care Hearings

WebMD Health News

March 28, 2012 -- Wednesday morning’s arguments in the Supreme Court case on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) revolved around a seemingly hypothetical question: If the court says the individual mandate that requires individuals to obtain health insurance is illegal, what happens to the rest of the law? Should it, too, be struck down?

The question seems less hypothetical, however, after Tuesday’s two-hour hearing on the individual mandate. Although no one can predict how the court will rule, its intense questioning around the mandate led some legal experts to say that it could very well rule against it.

Attorney Paul Clement, representing the 26 state officials and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in their challenge of the health care reform law, told the justices that if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, “the rest of the act cannot stand.”

“What you would end up with is a hollow shell,” Clement said. He said the court should erase the entire law and give Congress a “clean slate” for tackling health care reform.

U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler conceded that a few of the law’s key provisions would need to go if the individual mandate is found illegal. But Kneedler argued that most of the law should remain, particularly since Americans are already benefiting from some of its reforms, such as keeping young adults on their parents’ health plans up to age 26. They would lose that coverage, he warned, if the court invalidated the entire law.

Opponents of the health reform law have challenged it in more than two dozen federal lawsuits, and have lost most of them. Only once have they convinced a court to declare the entire law unconstitutional. That happened in the case that officials from 26 states and the NFIB filed in a district court in Pensacola, Fla. There, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said the mandate overstepped Congress’ constitutional authority to regulate commerce. And since Vinson viewed the mandate as “inextricably bound” to the rest of the law,  he canned all of it.

An appeals court in Atlanta also declared the mandate unconstitutional, but said the rest of the health reform law could stand. That  ruling is now under review by the Supreme Court, which will settle the matter once and for all.

Government Says Most of Law Does Not Affect States, NFIB

To convince the high court that the mandate and the law are “inextricably bound,” Clement today cited the government’s own argument that the law’s dramatic health insurance reforms hinge on everyone obtaining coverage. Without the mandate, the government contends, it would be counterproductive to require private health insurance companies to guarantee coverage to everyone.

The reason? Healthy Americans could wait until they were seriously ill before they applied for insurance, leaving private insurers in the meantime with a risk pool of sick and expensive individuals. This would force insurers to raise premiums to unaffordable levels, according to the government.

In response, Kneedler said today that the state officials and the NFIB are not impacted by most of the law’s provisions and therefore lack a good reason to get rid of all of it. Kneedler disagreed that Congress viewed the law as an all-or-nothing proposition. If the court declares the mandate unconstitutional, Kneedler said, it should only abolish guaranteed coverage, not the entire law.

Calculate
Your Costs

See insurance premium
costs and financial aid.

Start Here

Health Insurance
Advisor

Find a plan that's right
for you.

Start Here

Your State's Insurance Marketplace

Get informed about plans, benefits and costs.

From WebMD

Latest Health Reform News

Loading …
URAC: Accredited Health Web Site HONcode Seal AdChoices