Health Care Reform 2, Opponents 1
Health Care Reform 2, Opponents 1
Health Care Reform 2, Opponents 1
Three recent court decisions have given two, at least preliminary, victories to the supporters of federal health care reform law. In another court decision the supporters of health care reform suffered a preliminary loss.
In a case called Baldwin v. Sebelius, the US Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal health care reform law. Opponents of the law tried to persuade the Supreme Court to hear the case before it had been ruled on by lower federal appeals courts. The Supreme Court refused to do this.
The request for immediate Supreme Court review was submitted by Steve Baldwin, a former California state legislator, and the Pacific Legal Institute. This case is currently pending in the 9th US Court of Appeals.
The health care reform law mandates that everyone in the nation get health insurance or pay a penalty. However, that mandate does not become effective until 2014. Baldwin asserts that this requirement can be challenged in court now, even though it will not be enforced for over 3 years. He also asserts that Congress does not have the power, under the US Constitution, to enact this mandate. And finally, Baldwin urged that the health care reform law be suspended pending court review of these issues.
Baldwin initially brought his complaint to the US District Court in San Diego, California. But, on August 27, District Court judge Dana Sabraw issued a decision dismissing Baldwin's complaint and refusing to issue an injunction putting the reform law on hold.
Baldwin then appealed Judge Sabraw's decision to the 9th US Circuit of Appeal. However, even before Judge Sabra issued her decision in the case, Baldwin appealed directly to the US Supreme Court. He said the Supreme Court should intervene because different US District courts had issued different rulings on whether lawsuits against the reform bill are premature or can go forward. But the Supreme Court refused to take up the case.
(Note: these conflicts between federal District Courts, and even between federal Appeals Courts, happen all the time. It is usually when appeals courts issue conflicting decisions that the US Supreme Court hears a case.)
In another case, that illustrates Baldwin's point about conflicting decisions (Virginia ex rel Cuccinelli v. Sebelius), US District Court judge Henry Hudson refused to dismiss a challenge to the reform law. This case dwelled, in part, on the constitutional authority of Congress to regulate interstate Commerce.
The courts have long agreed that Congress does have this authority. However, the state of Virginia, claimed that, when a person decides to do nothing about getting health insurance, he or she is choosing not to engage in interstate commerce. The state contended that Congress, in passing the health care reform law, was seeking to regulate people's decision to do nothing and they do not have the power to do that, even under their right to regulate interstate commerce.
The federal government urged the court to dismiss the case. But, Judge Henry Hudson concluded that the arguments over health care reform: "all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulateand taxa citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce." The judge said, "Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed this issue. No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce. Given the presence of some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side's position, this Court cannot conclude at this stage that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.", Judge Hudson allowed the trial to continue".
But, the decision in another case (Thomas Law Center v. Sibelius) went the other way. In this case, Judge George Steeh, of the US District Court for the eastern district of Michigan, refused to issue an injunction stopping the enforcement of the health care reform law.
The judge noted that Congress had determined that not requiring everyone to buy health insurance would result in only sick people buying insurance. With no premiums from healthy people to cover insurance industry costs to cover sick people, all of that industry's resources would be drained and the industry would disappear. Congress enacted the mandate with the goal of preventing the destruction of that industry. The judge said it is legal for Congress to try to meet this goal and the insurance mandate is a "a reasonable means of effectuating Congress's goal".
Judge Steeh added, "Plaintiffs' claim that the minimum coverage provision of the Health Care Reform Act is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause has failed on the merits. Defendants have also succeeded in overcoming plaintiffs' challenge to the penalty provision of the Individual Mandate". So the Judge dismissed the challenge to the health care reform law.
All this confusion will eventually have to be resolved by the US Supreme Court.
You may see copies of all three court decisions, by clicking on the following link, or cutting and pasting the following link into your browser. Then scroll down to, and click on, the links at the bottom of the web based copy of this article. Here is the link to start you in this process. http://www.calcomui.org/nwsflsh111110.html
Boyce Hinman
California Communities United Institute
PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE Electronic Cigarette Brands — What Are Your Options? Back Pain During Pregnancy Body Image Blu Electronic Cigarette Review and Features Reasons Why Back Pain Can Occur Endoluminal Gastroplication: Basics regarding the Surgery for Acid Reflux Disease Finding Somebody With A People Search Online Holistic Health and The BioMat Prepare Your Lawn For The Winter How To Get Skinny Hunting for Sleeping Bag Woes Which Electronic Cigarette Company Should I Choose?