In a recent article published in the Los Angeles Times, a federal appeals court in Virginia rejects two challenges to President Obama's healthcare law. The current administration believes that the healthcare law will be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court who plans to decide the constitutionality of the law in 2012; meanwhile, Republicans assert that government cannot force individuals to purchase private products. In addition, if individuals do not purchase healthcare insurance coverage, they receive a pecuniary penalty that increases yearly. Citing the Anti-Injunction Act, the Virginia-based court argues that judges cannot decide on a case involving tax before it has been collected.
Even though the Virginia-based court struck down the challenges, other opponents of the healthcare law fervently deny the government's bold attempts to gain regulatory power of the healthcare industry. When Virginia Attorney General, Cuccinelli, filed a suit in U.S. District Court last year, a judge "declared the individual mandate unprecedented and unconstitutional." However, in a second decision by the appeals court, the court threw out the suit claiming that Cuccinelli had no standing because he was not personally affected by the outcome of the case. The question here, I think, is whether the government has the power to impose healthcare coverage to all citizens, and I would be interested to see what others think on this issue.
Cheers,
Chris Ayers
Link to the LA Times article: http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-heathcare-ruling-20110909,0,3821769.story
I think mandated healthcare coverage falls into the category of "financial responsibility" laws, as is mandated car insurance.
ReplyDeletePer FindLaw, "In every state, drivers are required to demonstrate the ability to pay up to a certain amount to cover their liability if they are involved in a motor vehicle accident." Most states require proof of insurance, which means that state governments require drivers to purchase this private product. How is this any different from the federal government requiring us to purchase health insurance?
There are a couple differences between mandatory auto insurance and federally mandated healthcare.
ReplyDeleteNo state government requires that all people obtain a driver's license and drive a car by law. Driving a vehicle is a privilege and is done voluntarily. Therefore, if someone chooses to drive a car, they are consciously making a decision to choose to pay for mandatory auto insurance --if you wish to drive legally that is. (It's also important to note that only drivers need this insurance, not the passengers since they are not the ones choosing to drive.)
The controversy surrounding the healthcare issue is that the federal government is requiring EVERYONE living in this country buy health insurance. However, the difference between mandatory auto insurance and health insurance lies in the fact that 'living' is not a voluntary 'choice' like driving a car is. Mandatory auto insurance is not really mandatory to everyone in the sense that it cannot be completely avoided. Someone can avoid paying mandatory auto insurance by not driving; but the argument is not the same for health insurance. If it were, then the only way to avoid paying federally mandated health insurance is by not... living.
Federally mandated health insurance is a unique issue in that, in essence, there is zero choice involved with purchasing it, which makes it different than mandatory auto insurance.
Just as nobody is forced to drive, nobody is forced to receive medical treatment. But if someone does choose to receive treatment, they should be required to pay for the treatment that they receive. This parallels how drivers are required to pay for the damage they create in a car accident. You don't expect to crash your car. But if you do, you must to be able to pay for the damage you inflict. You don't expect to need medical treatment. But if you do choose to receive it, you must be able to pay for it.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the New England Journal of Medicine, "the mandate would not apply to dependents, persons receiving Medicare or Medicaid, military families, persons living overseas, persons with religious objections, or persons who already get health insurance from their employers under a qualified plan." The people not described here are currently being paid for with taxpayer money. With this mandate, either an individual chooses to purchase medical insurance or they are taxed 2.5% of their adjusted gross income, which would pay for what the medical care would cost taxpayers currently. In effect, people have the choice of whether or not they would like to purchase medical insurance or pay an extra tax. Drivers technically don't need auto insurance, but if they get caught driving without it they pay a fine, which is essentially a tax. Adding a tax sure isn't unconstitutional, so constitutionality should not be a question here.