In the continuing back and forth rulings on the Affordable Care Act, the 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals has struck down the portion requiring everyone to purchase health care coverage. However the Atlanta based court also ruled that the remaining provisions of the law could remain in effect.

The health care madate is the most controversial part of the law as it requires people to purchase something or face penalties. The question being what gives the government the authority to make such a requirement.

Those who support the mandate cite the Commerce Clause which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. Over the years the courts have ruled this includes the power to regulate things with a ‘significant impact’ on interstate commerce.

In the case of the mandate, the argument is that when some people have coverage and others don’t it skews the market. Those without coverage show up at emergency rooms for free care and this cost is passed on to those with coverage in the form of higher costs. This is therefore a significant impact and thus subject to regulation.

Those who oppose the mandate tend to reject the entire concept of ‘significant impact’ since under it you can probably include almost anything. They contend the commerce clause should be narrowly viewed and thus things like the health care mandate (and indeed a lot of federal legislation) are not valid

I tend to support the first argument. While I am not a fan of expansive government the fact is that we are not going to adopt a Darwinian viewpoint that says ‘if you don’t have health coverage go in a corner and bleed’. It is simply not fair for some to refuse to purchase coverage and then expect me to pay for their care when they need it.

Of course I also think this law could have been better written, but that is the sausgage factor at play

Another issue at hand is that of the concept of severability with regard to the ACA. When Congress passes a law they frequently include what is called a severability clause. The clause basically says that if one part of the law is found to be invalid the remaining parts can remain in effect. The ACA did not contain such a provision and many have speculated that this means if one part of the law is invalid the entire law would fall.

However the 11th ruled otherwise and that could be a win for supporters of the law. Of course all of this is going to end up in the Supreme Court anyway but this was an interesting split decision for the 11th.

Details to follow as the story develops