|
|
In a case destined to go to
the Supreme Court, the Insurance Journal reports Federal Judge in
Florida Rules Federal Healthcare Law Must Be Voided
U.S. District Judge Roger
Vinson, appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, ruled that
the reform law’s so-called “individual mandate” went too
far in requiring that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay
a penalty.
“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable,
the entire act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to
reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications,”
Vinson wrote.
He was referring to a key provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act and sided with governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states,
almost all of whom are Republicans, in declaring it unconstitutional. The
issue will likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Two other federal judges have rejected challenges to the individual mandate.
But a federal district judge in Richmond, Virginia, last month struck down
that central provision of the law in a case in that state, saying it invited
an “unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”
The provision is key to the law’s mission of covering more than 30
million uninsured. Officials argue it is only by requiring healthy people to
purchase policies that they can help pay for reforms, including a mandate
that individuals with pre-existing medical conditions cannot be refused
coverage.
Unbridled Exercise of
Federal Police Powers
Please consider the Wall Street Journal article Court Strikes at Health Law
U.S. District Judge Henry E.
Hudson said the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay
a penalty "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional
power."
The 42-page ruling doesn't mean states or the federal government must stop
implementing the law. But it is expected to give ammunition to a broad
Republican assault against the overhaul, which includes efforts in Congress
to chip away at it.
Requiring Americans to buy insurance "would invite unbridled exercise of
federal police powers," wrote Judge Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee
in the Eastern District of Virginia. "At its core, this dispute is not
simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme
of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right
to choose to participate."
Administration officials portrayed the ruling as an attack on one of the
law's most popular provisions, the ban on insurers denying coverage to people
with pre-existing health conditions. That piece of the law cannot work unless
coupled with a requirement that nearly all Americans carry insurance, they
said.
Who Cares if it's
Constitutional as Long as it's Popular?
Obama does not care about constitutionality. He is concerned about bragging
rights (He got healthcare passed when no other president could). He is also
concerned about popularity.
Ironically, most polls show US citizens are not in favor of the bill that
passed.
I happen to agree with the Virginia and Florida rulings regarding
constitutionality of that provision. Moreover, given the poor way in which
the bill was written, I also agree with the Florida ruling “Because the
individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must
be declared void."
Many will point to auto insurance as proof of legality. However, not everyone
has to buy auto insurance (only those drive cars do). Moreover, the point of
auto insurance is to protect others from your damage, not yourself from your
damage.
Nonetheless, I do not know how the Supreme Court will rule. I suspect they
will uphold the law. They would be wise to not do so. The best thing to do
with the monstrous healthcare bill is start over.
Addendum:
"LastBoyScout"
says ...
Good points! Another, more important point is that auto insurance is required
by individual states, not the federal government.
The 10th Amendment - Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.
Mish
GlobalEconomicAnalysis.blogspot.com
To sign up for a free
copy of Sitka’s Monthly Client Newsletter, please register your
email address at the bottom of the Sitka Pacific Commentary Page.
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Thoughts on the great
inflation/deflation/stagflation debate as well as discussions on gold,
silver, currencies, interest rates, and policy decisions that affect the
global markets.
|
|
