|
||||
|
||||
Brief Amici Curiae of Prescription Policy Choices, Professors of Law, and Professors of Health Policy in Support of Petitioners on the Minimum Coverage Provision in Department of Health & Human Services v. State of FloridaAbigail R. MoncrieffBoston University - School of Law Kevin OuttersonBoston University School of Law Kyle ThomsonOffice of Chief Counsel, Food and Drug Administration David Arnoldaffiliation not provided to SSRN Julia Grace MirabellaBoston University School of Law Wang Haoaffiliation not provided to SSRN May 22, 2012 Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 12-26 Boston Univ. School of Law, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 12-26 Abstract: One purpose of the individual mandate is to eliminate the market for self-insured healthcare transactions. It is well-established in this Court’s precedent that the elimination of an interstate commercial market is a constitutionally legitimate end for Congress to pursue under the Commerce Clause. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress may use any reasonably adapted means to accomplish constitutionally legitimate ends. The individual mandate is not only reasonably adapted but is quite elegant as a means of eliminating the market for self-insured healthcare transactions. The provision effectively encourages individuals to shift from the inefficient market for self-insured care to its more efficient substitute market for fully-insured care. The question presented is whether the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of Congress’s powers under Article I of the Constitution.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 53 Keywords: Article I, individual mandate, Necessary and Proper Clause, Commerce Clause JEL Classification: K32, K39 working papers seriesDate posted: June 1, 2012Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.547 seconds