Judge rejects health care insurance mandate
Uninsured patient Donaji Cruz, 3, has her blood pressure measured by hospital assistant Rosalinda Galvan during a health check-up at Venice Family Clinic in Venice, California, June 25, 2009.
Credit: Reuters/Lucy Nicholson
(Reuters) - A federal judge in Pennsylvania said the insurance-buying mandate in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is unconstitutional, the latest ruling over an issue likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner in Harrisburg said the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution did not give Congress power to require nearly all Americans to buy health insurance, whether they want it or not. The requirement is scheduled to take effect in 2014.
"The nation undoubtedly faces a health care crisis," Conner wrote on Tuesday. "Scores of individuals are uninsured and the costs to all citizens are measurable and significant.
"The federal government, however, is one of limited enumerated powers, and Congress' efforts to remedy the ailing health care and health insurance markets must fit squarely within the boundaries of those powers," he added.
Obama, a Democrat, pushed for the law to help stem soaring health care costs and provide coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans.
Many Republicans have pledged to undo the law, and at least two dozen lawsuits have challenged it.
Three federal appeals courts have reviewed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
One in Atlanta voted down the individual mandate, one in Cincinnati upheld it, and one in Richmond, Virginia let it stand by rejecting challenges on jurisdictional grounds.
The Supreme Court often takes cases to resolve disputes among federal courts. Its 2011-2012 term begins next month.
Tracy Schmaler, a U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman, said after Tuesday's ruling: "We believe, as other federal appeals courts have held, that the law is constitutional."
The Pennsylvania case had been brought by a York County couple, Barbara Goudy-Bachman, 48, and Gregory Bachman, 56.
They said they dropped their health insurance coverage in 2001 because their premiums exceeded their mortgage payments, they had only limited use for such insurance, and they preferred to pay for medical costs on their own.
If appealed, Conner's ruling would be reviewed by the federal appeals court in Philadelphia.
Conner was appointed to the bench in 2002 by U.S. President George W. Bush.
The case is Goudy-Bachman et al v. Sebelius et al, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, No. 10-00763.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York and James Vicini in Washington; Editing by John Wallace and Richard Chang)
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
To my observation, the ultimate trump card of ‘progressive’ philosophy is the presentation of a person who is a candidate for the very latest lifesaving procedure and cannot afford it. This is supposed to enlighten us to the fundamental righteousness of their bent. ‘What if it was YOUR child!!!’
In this way, one can feel morally superior, justify a venomous hatred of those who ‘disagree’ and believe that the entire issue is resolved absolutely by a genuine analogy to human survival. Indeed, we all really would want every single last possible thing done to save our child.
So, we want this for ourselves? Ourselves and our children? What about their children’s children?
Okay, so why don’t we already have this? Because some people (if you can call them people) actually don’t want it! So what are we to do? Well, one thing that would convince me would be a civil explanation of HOW – even though costs have skyrocketed because of mandated coverage of the uninsured – yet more coverage of yet more uninsured is going to control costs. That would be a start. Another thing would be a civil explanation of when a person would come out the back end of preventative care (having prevented obesity, diabetes heart disease ect.) and present ‘savings’ (not later need a nursing home or any other care that costs money). That would help. Another thing that would really convince me is a description, civil or otherwise, of how ‘healthcare’ proceeds to provide quality care for all in a bankrupt America. That one would really do it for me. THEN I’d stand on the corner collecting signatures to change the constitution and allow this thing.
If everyone paid into the system it would lessen the cost. If it doesn’t then the Government should ensure it did by running some direct competition.
The Insurance companies are a huge problem, with huge salaries and huge amounts of money used to lobby, they are fat cat for profit entities who care more about $ and not about providing the service they are supposed to and the client’s health, but the program has to start somewhere.
But that is what Universal healthcare can provide. there will be more competition and constant tweaking to make it work. Your insurance costs are outrageous and they still don’t pay for all the costs of illness. That you all have put up with that for so long is insanity…
Don’t worry, if America is bankrupt (and it will be if your country votes in any republican running) people like you won’t have long to live. Those who take care of others and not just their own are well equipped to survive in groups that look after and out for one another. They may even take you in… if you get off your selfish high horse that is.
Your questions are:
“why would everyone not want insurance.” – and – “Can you afford a second mortgage on your house?” The answers are: because the government has extorted the cost of high quality care for all the chronic drug addicts and illegal alien baby factories out of the insurance premiums that I would otherwise pay only for my own coverage – and – no.
Your points are: If everyone paid into the system it would lessen the cost. – and – The Insurance companies are a huge problem, with huge salaries and huge amounts of money used to lobby, they are fat cat for profit entities who care more about $ and not about providing the service they are supposed to and the client’s health – and – They may even take you in… if you get off your selfish high horse that is.
To these points I offer for your consideration: Would the chronic drug addicts and illegal alien baby factories pay into the system enough to cover the cost of the care for themselves and dependants? – and: are the public union government bureaucracies more cost effective than private contractors? – and If they didn’t, wouldn’t that be unlawful discrimination?
Follow Reuters