Broccoli mandate

Last updated

The broccoli mandate, [1] [2] also known as the broccoli test, [3] broccoli argument, [4] broccoli hypothetical or broccoli horrible, [5] was an argument used by those opposed to healthcare reform in the United States proposed by Barack Obama, who was then the President of the United States.

Contents

Use in 2012 Supreme Court summation

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia used the broccoli argument in a 2012 summation. Antonin Scalia Official SCOTUS Portrait.jpg
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia used the broccoli argument in a 2012 summation.

The broccoli mandate was referenced by the conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 2012, in his summation against healthcare reform. [6] On March 27 of that year, Justice Scalia asked Donald B. Verrilli Jr., a lawyer for the Obama administration, to defend the individual shared responsibility provision (commonly called the individual mandate) of the ACA, saying to Verrilli:

It may well be that everybody needs health care sooner or later, but not everybody needs a heart transplant, not everybody needs a liver transplant ... Could you define the market? Everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli. [7] [8]

Opponents of reform – such as Justice Scalia – say that it should not be compulsory for American people to purchase health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) just because it is beneficial, otherwise, an enforcement body could similarly mandate Americans to buy broccoli because of its benefits to human health, which they say is an example of over-reaching authority. [9] It has been described as a form of the slippery slope and reductio ad absurdum arguments. [10]

Supporters of the individual mandate have questioned this analogy. For example, Verrilli told Justice Scalia that the health care market is unique and:

... quite different [to the food market]. The food market, while it shares that trait that everybody's in it, it is not a market in which your participation is often unpredictable and often involuntary. It is not a market in which you often don't know before you go in what you need, and it is not a market in which, if you go in and – and seek to obtain a product or service, you will get it even if you can't pay for it. [7]

Legacy

Use of the so-called 'broccoli mandate' in the summations of conservative justices in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB) case was said to have:

... sealed broccoli's immortality in constitutional jurisprudence. The three main written opinions included twelve references to broccoli and five separate discussions of the broccoli mandate's legal implications. Five justices cited the government's inability to provide a satisfying answer to the broccoli hypothetical as a justification for creating a novel limitation on Congress's Commerce Clause powers and for concluding that the ACA's mandate exceeded that limit. Even the dissenters to the Commerce Clause holding felt compelled to respond to what Justice Ginsburg referred to as "the broccoli horrible".

— Mark D. Rosen and Christopher W. Schmidt, UCLA Law Review [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Volokh Conspiracy</span> American legal blog

The Volokh Conspiracy is a legal blog co-founded in 2002 by law professor Eugene Volokh, covering legal and political issues from an ideological orientation it describes as "generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these." It is one of the most widely read and cited legal blogs in the United States. The blog is written by legal scholars and provides discussion on complex court decisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Massachusetts health care reform</span>

The Massachusetts health care reform, commonly referred to as Romneycare, was a healthcare reform law passed in 2006 and signed into law by Governor Mitt Romney with the aim of providing health insurance to nearly all of the residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

In the United States, health insurance helps pay for medical expenses through privately purchased insurance, social insurance, or a social welfare program funded by the government. Synonyms for this usage include "health coverage", "health care coverage", and "health benefits". In a more technical sense, the term "health insurance" is used to describe any form of insurance providing protection against the costs of medical services. This usage includes both private insurance programs and social insurance programs such as Medicare, which pools resources and spreads the financial risk associated with major medical expenses across the entire population to protect everyone, as well as social welfare programs like Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, which both provide assistance to people who cannot afford health coverage.

Healthcare reform in the United States has a long history. Reforms have often been proposed but have rarely been accomplished. In 2010, landmark reform was passed through two federal statutes: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), signed March 23, 2010, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which amended the PPACA and became law on March 30, 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Donald B. Verrilli Jr.</span> United States Solicitor General

Donald Beaton Verrilli Jr. is an American lawyer who served as the solicitor general of the United States from 2011 to 2016. President Barack Obama nominated Verrilli to the post on January 26, 2011. On June 6, the United States Senate confirmed Verrilli in a 72–16 vote, and he was sworn in on June 9. Verrilli previously served in the Obama administration as the associate deputy attorney general and as Deputy Counsel to the President. He is currently a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Munger, Tolles & Olson and a lecturer at Columbia University Law School, his alma mater.

In the United States, health insurance marketplaces, also called health exchanges, are organizations in each state through which people can purchase health insurance. People can purchase health insurance that complies with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at ACA health exchanges, where they can choose from a range of government-regulated and standardized health care plans offered by the insurers participating in the exchange.

A health insurance mandate is either an employer or individual mandate to obtain private health insurance instead of a national health insurance plan.

An individual mandate is a requirement by law for certain persons to purchase or otherwise obtain a good or service.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affordable Care Act</span> U.S. federal statute also known as Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and colloquially known as Obamacare, is a landmark U.S. federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 amendment, it represents the U.S. healthcare system's most significant regulatory overhaul and expansion of coverage since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

A contraceptive mandate is a government regulation or law that requires health insurers, or employers that provide their employees with health insurance, to cover some contraceptive costs in their health insurance plans.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most Americans to pay a penalty for forgoing health insurance by 2014. The Acts represented a major set of changes to the American health care system that had been the subject of highly contentious debate, largely divided on political party lines.

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. They include challenges by states against the ACA, reactions from legal experts with respect to its constitutionality, several federal court rulings on the ACA's constitutionality, the final ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation by the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and notable subsequent lawsuits challenging the ACA. The Supreme Court upheld ACA for a third time in a June 2021 decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fairness for American Families Act</span>

The Fairness for American Families Act is a bill that would "amend the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to delay until 2015 the requirement that individuals maintain minimal essential health care coverage." The bill was introduced into the United States House of Representatives during the 113th United States Congress.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is divided into 10 titles and contains provisions that became effective immediately, 90 days after enactment, and six months after enactment, as well as provisions phased in through to 2020. Below are some of the key provisions of the ACA. For simplicity, the amendments in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 are integrated into this timeline.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation that its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It is the first time that the Court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to privately held corporations. The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.

In the United States, essential health benefits (EHBs) are a set of ten benefits, defined under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, that must be covered by individually-purchased health insurance and plans in small-group markets both inside and outside of health insurance marketplaces. Large-group health plans, self-insured ERISA plans, and ERISA-governed multi-employer welfare arrangements that are not subject to state insurance law are exempted from the requirement.

Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.

California v. Texas, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), colloquially known as Obamacare. It was the third such challenge to the ACA seen by the Supreme Court since its enactment. The case in California followed after the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and the change to the tax penalty amount for Americans without required insurance that reduced the "individual mandate" to zero, effective for months after December 31, 2018. The District Court of the Northern District of Texas concluded that this individual mandate was a critical provision of the ACA and that, with a penalty amount equal to zero, some or all of the ACA was potentially unconstitutional as an improper use of Congress's taxation powers.

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving ongoing conflicts between the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) over the ACA's contraceptive mandate. The ACA exempts nonprofit religious organizations from complying with the mandate, to which for-profit religious organizations objected.

References

  1. ↑ Orentlicher, David (2011). "Can Congress Make You Buy Broccoli - And Why It Really Doesn't Matter". Southern California Law Review Postscript. 84: 9.
  2. ↑ Somin, Ilya. "A Mandate for Mandates: Is the Individual Health Insurance Case a Slippery Slope?." Law and Contemporary Problems 75, no. 3 (2012): 75-106.
  3. ↑ Elhauge, Einer (November 16, 2011). "The Broccoli Test" (PDF). The New York Times. p. A35.
  4. ↑ Elhauge, Einer (January 5, 2012). "The Irrelevance of the Broccoli Argument against the Insurance Mandate". New England Journal of Medicine. 366 (1): e1. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1113618. ISSN   0028-4793. PMID   22187959.
  5. ↑ "'The Broccoli Horrible': A Culinary-Legal Dissent". The New Yorker. June 28, 2012.
  6. ↑ Stewart, James B. (June 13, 2012). "How Broccoli Landed on Supreme Court Menu". The New York Times.
  7. 1 2 Tau, Byron (March 27, 2012). "Scalia wonders about a broccoli mandate". Politico. Reuters.
  8. ↑ Freeman, Michael; Hawkes, Sarah; Bennett, Belinda (29 May 2014). Law and Global Health: Current Legal Issues Volume 16. OUP Oxford. p. 66. ISBN   978-0-19-100345-5.
  9. ↑ Elhauge, Einer (April 16, 2012). "It's Not About Broccoli: The False Case Against Health Care". The Atlantic.
  10. 1 2 Mark D. Rosen and Christopher W. Schmidt, "Why Broccoli? Limiting Principles and Popular Constitutionalism in the Health Care Case", 61 UCLA L. Rev. 66 (2013).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.