{"title":"宪法死亡:打击个人强制医保的先例效应","authors":"M. Hall","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1959612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Because insurance is necessary for decent access to health care, credible studies estimate that eliminating the Affordable Care Act or its individual mandate could cause thousands of avoidable deaths a year. That is sobering, but far more chilling is the loss of life that might result from the constitutional precedent that a negative ACA ruling would set. If the challengers’ chief argument is accepted, it creates the frightening prospect that the federal government may be unable to respond effectively to a catastrophic public health emergency that threatens millions of lives, if effective response requires mandating citizen behaviors unconditioned on any engagement in commerce. Credible scenarios for natural disasters and flu pandemics might require just such federal actions, in the form of mandatory vaccination, evacuation, screening, treatment, or even mundane sanitary measures – and the Commerce Clause is the only source for such power when military defense is not involved. State and local governments are the primary source of authority for such measures, but recent disasters and near-misses demonstrate the real possibility that their responses may prove inadequate. Thus, rather than fretting over what slippery-slope vegetables the government might force people to purchase if the mandate were upheld, courts should be much more concerned about the insurmountable barriers that a nullifying precedent would set for effective federal response to realistic catastrophes.","PeriodicalId":39484,"journal":{"name":"Law and Contemporary Problems","volume":"93 1","pages":"107-113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constitutional Mortality: Precedential Effects of Striking the Individual Mandate\",\"authors\":\"M. Hall\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1959612\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Because insurance is necessary for decent access to health care, credible studies estimate that eliminating the Affordable Care Act or its individual mandate could cause thousands of avoidable deaths a year. That is sobering, but far more chilling is the loss of life that might result from the constitutional precedent that a negative ACA ruling would set. If the challengers’ chief argument is accepted, it creates the frightening prospect that the federal government may be unable to respond effectively to a catastrophic public health emergency that threatens millions of lives, if effective response requires mandating citizen behaviors unconditioned on any engagement in commerce. Credible scenarios for natural disasters and flu pandemics might require just such federal actions, in the form of mandatory vaccination, evacuation, screening, treatment, or even mundane sanitary measures – and the Commerce Clause is the only source for such power when military defense is not involved. State and local governments are the primary source of authority for such measures, but recent disasters and near-misses demonstrate the real possibility that their responses may prove inadequate. Thus, rather than fretting over what slippery-slope vegetables the government might force people to purchase if the mandate were upheld, courts should be much more concerned about the insurmountable barriers that a nullifying precedent would set for effective federal response to realistic catastrophes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Contemporary Problems\",\"volume\":\"93 1\",\"pages\":\"107-113\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Contemporary Problems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1959612\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Contemporary Problems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1959612","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
由于保险是获得体面医疗服务的必要条件,可信的研究估计,取消《平价医疗法案》(Affordable care Act)或其个人授权,每年可能会导致数千例本可避免的死亡。这是发人深省的,但更令人不寒而栗的是,否决ACA的裁决可能会开创宪法先例,造成生命损失。如果挑战者的主要论点被接受,就会产生一种可怕的前景:如果有效的应对措施要求公民的行为不以任何商业参与为条件,那么联邦政府可能无法有效应对威胁数百万人生命的灾难性公共卫生紧急情况。对于自然灾害和流感大流行的可信情况,可能就需要这样的联邦行动,以强制接种疫苗、疏散、筛查、治疗,甚至是世俗的卫生措施的形式——当不涉及军事防御时,《商业条款》是这种权力的唯一来源。州政府和地方政府是这些措施的主要权威来源,但最近的灾难和险些发生的事故表明,他们的反应可能是不够的。因此,与其担心政府会强迫人们购买什么样的“滑坡蔬菜”,法院更应该关心的是,一个无效的先例将为联邦政府对现实灾难的有效反应设置不可逾越的障碍。
Constitutional Mortality: Precedential Effects of Striking the Individual Mandate
Because insurance is necessary for decent access to health care, credible studies estimate that eliminating the Affordable Care Act or its individual mandate could cause thousands of avoidable deaths a year. That is sobering, but far more chilling is the loss of life that might result from the constitutional precedent that a negative ACA ruling would set. If the challengers’ chief argument is accepted, it creates the frightening prospect that the federal government may be unable to respond effectively to a catastrophic public health emergency that threatens millions of lives, if effective response requires mandating citizen behaviors unconditioned on any engagement in commerce. Credible scenarios for natural disasters and flu pandemics might require just such federal actions, in the form of mandatory vaccination, evacuation, screening, treatment, or even mundane sanitary measures – and the Commerce Clause is the only source for such power when military defense is not involved. State and local governments are the primary source of authority for such measures, but recent disasters and near-misses demonstrate the real possibility that their responses may prove inadequate. Thus, rather than fretting over what slippery-slope vegetables the government might force people to purchase if the mandate were upheld, courts should be much more concerned about the insurmountable barriers that a nullifying precedent would set for effective federal response to realistic catastrophes.
期刊介绍:
Law and Contemporary Problems was founded in 1933 and is the oldest journal published at Duke Law School. It is a quarterly, interdisciplinary, faculty-edited publication of Duke Law School. L&CP recognizes that many fields in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities can enhance the development and understanding of law. It is our purpose to seek out these areas of overlap and to publish balanced symposia that enlighten not just legal readers, but readers from these other disciplines as well. L&CP uses a symposium format, generally publishing one symposium per issue on a topic of contemporary concern. Authors and articles are selected to ensure that each issue collectively creates a unified presentation of the contemporary problem under consideration. L&CP hosts an annual conference at Duke Law School featuring the authors of one of the year’s four symposia.