处方政策选择、法律教授和卫生政策教授的法庭之友简报,支持卫生与公众服务部诉佛罗里达州一案中最低保险规定的请愿人

Abigail R. Moncrieff, K. Outterson, Kyle Thomson, D. Arnold, Julia Grace Mirabella, Wang Hao
{"title":"处方政策选择、法律教授和卫生政策教授的法庭之友简报,支持卫生与公众服务部诉佛罗里达州一案中最低保险规定的请愿人","authors":"Abigail R. Moncrieff, K. Outterson, Kyle Thomson, D. Arnold, Julia Grace Mirabella, Wang Hao","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2070625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":205352,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"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 Florida\",\"authors\":\"Abigail R. Moncrieff, K. Outterson, Kyle Thomson, D. Arnold, Julia Grace Mirabella, Wang Hao\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2070625\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":205352,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2070625\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2070625","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

个人授权的一个目的是消除自我保险医疗交易的市场。本院的先例已经证明,取消州际商业市场是国会根据《商业条款》追求的符合宪法的合法目的。根据必要和适当条款,国会可以使用任何合理调整的手段来实现宪法上合法的目的。个人强制医保不仅经过合理调整,而且作为消除自我保险医疗交易市场的一种手段也相当优雅。该条款有效地鼓励个人从效率低下的自我保险市场转向效率更高的完全保险替代市场。提出的问题是,最低覆盖范围的规定是否有效地行使了国会在宪法第一条下的权力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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 Florida
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信