The state attorneys general of 10 states and the District of Columbia have filed a legal brief that backs the authority of Congress to require that all Americans buy minimal health insurance.
With the friend-of-the-court or amicus brief filed Jan. 13, these state attorneys general have thrown their support behind the federal government in the coming battle before the Supreme Court that the individual mandate does not violate the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
The states are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Vermont and D.C.
These AGs are not to be confused with the attorneys general of 26 states, led by Florida, and the National Federation of Independent Business, who are challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The 26 state AGs fighting the law are Republicans, and the 10 in the just-filed amicus brief are Democrats, according to Douglas Gansler, Maryland attorney general (AG).
While the state attorneys general resist federal encroachment on their jurisdiction, “the healthcare problems that the Affordable Care Act attempts to address have been an albatross on our systems for decades and require a federal solution,” he said.
Under the ACA, each state maintains the right to establish its own unique healthcare system as long as it is consistent with the federal law, he said in a briefing with reporters. He compared it with the authority of Congress to require motorists to maintain insurance or residents to pay taxes.
The controversial law calls for greatly expanding the number of Americans who will have access to health coverage by mandating minimum health coverage.
John Kroger, Oregon AG, said the central issue was ost shifting. Millions of Americans who do not have health insurance are legally entitle to receive health care at hospital emergency rooms. But without the Affordable Care Act, taxpayers and those with insurance pay higher taxes and premiums to pay for those uncompensated costs.
“ACA makes sure that people who do not have insurance will get insurance so that those costs are not shifted to everyone else,” he said, adding that he would find it “astounding” if the Supreme Court determined that banning that cost shifting was unconstitutional
Critics of the law have defined the insurance mandate as a question of freedom. “I would say that there is no freedom to freeload. There is not a constitutional right to shift your healthcare costs onto someone else,” Kroger said.
The Affordable Care Act has become a political issue falling along party affiliation fault lines, with all the presidential candidates in the Republican primaries calling for its repeal.
“We welcome Republicans to sign on as well,” Gansler said of the brief, adding that the authority of Congress to pass a law that requires people to buy health care should be apolitical.
“Both Republican and Democrat state AGs have constituents in their states who need health care. Most of the people in their states have insurance, and those are the ones who are paying for the uninsured,” he said.
Earlier in the week, the 26 states led by Florida and NFIB that are challenging the law filed a brief with the Supreme Court saying that it is “coercive” for the federal government to force states to expand their Medicaid program or risk losing their full Medicaid funding. Medicaid was established as a voluntary program. In 2014, those who earn up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level will be eligible for Medicaid coverage.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments March 26, 27 and 28 on the health reform law.