The Health Insurance Mandate — A Tax or a Taking?

65 Pages Posted: 5 Dec 2014

Date Written: December 3, 2014

Abstract

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires Americans to have or buy health insurance. The “individual mandate” was upheld in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, as an exercise of Congress’ tax power. While Congress often uses its tax power to reward desired purchases, it has never before imposed a tax for failure to buy. Some inactions can be taxed; others cannot (e.g., refusal to go to church). If there is a constitutional right not to consume private goods, a tax on those who decline might violate the Takings Clause.

NFIB did not address other constitutional problems with the mandate. This article explores whether a consumption mandate is a novel form of “taking,” and whether the option to pay a tax instead is a constitutional alternative. It is a close question and provides an opportunity to examine recent takings cases involving the imposition of monetary burdens.

Suggested Citation

Manheim, Karl M., The Health Insurance Mandate — A Tax or a Taking? (December 3, 2014). Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol. 42, p. 101, Winter 2015, Forthcoming, Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2014-47, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2533645

Karl M. Manheim (Contact Author)

Loyola Law School Los Angeles ( email )

919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
United States
213-736-1106 (Phone)
213-380-3769 (Fax)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
54
Abstract Views
484
rank
419,812
PlumX Metrics