The federal health care law should be struck down because it pushes the government's constitutional powers past the breaking point, Georgia and 25 other states told the U.S. appeals court in Atlanta Wednesday.
By requiring people to obtain health insurance, the law "marks the first time in our nation's history that Congress has required individuals to enter into commerce as a condition of living in the United States," the states said in a court filing.
The states said the so-called individual mandate was "an unprecedented assertion" of congressional power and wondered how far Congress will go if the law is upheld. Will it require individuals in the health care market to have an annual physical or undertake certain courses of treatment?
The federal government's interest in controlling health care costs could likewise give Congress authority "to order individuals to eat more vegetables and fewer deserts, to exercise at least 45 minutes per day, to sleep at least eight hours per day and to drink one glass of wine a day but never beer," the states said.
The filing asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a sweeping ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Pensacola, who struck down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in its entirety.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, listed as the lead counsel, said Wednesday he will be presenting arguments on behalf of the states when a three-judge 11th Circuit panel hears the appeal on June 8. Clement recently resigned in protest from the Atlanta firm King & Spalding when it dropped its defense of the federal gay marriage ban.
Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens said Wednesday the health care law "passes on massive costs and additional requirements to the states. Georgia simply cannot afford for this law to stand."
The lawsuit is brought by 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and two individual plaintiffs -- a small business owner and a retiree, both of whom say they do not have health insurance. The Obama administration is defending the act.
Vinson, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, is one of five federal judges to decide challenges to the law and the only one to declare the entire act unconstitutional. Another Republican appointee in Virginia struck down the individual mandate provision, while three Democratic appointees have upheld the law.
The administration has argued the law will improve the market for health care and fulfill two fundamental goals: It prevents people from shifting the costs of their care to others in the health care market and it bars insurers from denying coverage or setting premiums based on medical condition or history.
Millions of people without health insurance consume health care services -- $43 billion in 2008 alone -- for which they cannot pay, the administration said in its recent appeal of Vinson’s ruling.
Health care providers shift these costs to insurance companies, which raise premiums that “make insurance unaffordable to even more people,” the administration said.
The law addresses these national problems by making affordable health care coverage widely available, protecting consumers from restrictive underwriting and reducing the uncompensated care obtained by the uninsured and paid for by other participants in the health care market, the administration said.
On Wednesday, the states said the law also should be struck down because it coerces states to comply with the act by imposing new conditions on billions of dollars in pre-existing federal Medicaid grants.
For more than 200 years, Congress has never exercised its Commerce Clause power in such a manner, the states said. "That is not the product of remarkable restraint; Congress has not exercised such a power because it does not exist."
The Associated Press contributed to this article.
About the Author
