Regional news: 
Health care law ruled unconstitutional, and rightfully so
Tony Ondrusek is founder and publisher of Insurance & Financial Advisor and IFAwebnews.com.
Unfortunately, the ruling today by a Virginia federal judge that the individual mandate portion of the federal health reform law is unconstitutional will be viewed through a political lens instead of the legal lens, through which it must be examined.
In essence, the ruling means that at least one judge agrees with many state attorneys general that requiring every American to either purchase health insurance or pay a fine is not legal, and not a right that the federal government is granted by the U.S. Constitution.
Judge Henry E. Hudson, who ruled that the law violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, was appointed by former President George W. Bush. And already, nearly every mainstream newspaper and website is quick to point that out, saying that his ruling is “partisan” (New York Times), “sympathetic to the state’s case” (Associated Press), and going so far as calling him in essence a Republican operative.
His appointment by a Republican judge is being played high in the stories (in journalism, that means that it is really, really important).
But while many of the stories mention that judges in Florida and Michigan have upheld the law, few mention that those judges were appointed by Democratic presidents. It appears that the “mainstream” media is already setting the stage for arguing that rulings against the law are for political purposes, and not based on law.
Regardless, the law IS unconstitutional. Some Democrats have argued that even though the law treads lightly on Constitutional law, a national health care “crisis” should be enough for any judge to not stop implementation. But in a word, they are “wrong.”
9 Responses
- Chris Says:
December 13th, 2010 at 2:39 pmCorrect me if I’m wrong but those earlier rulings did not address the individual mandate, did they?
Of course the media will hyperventilate. It’s what they do and who they are. The Supremes will ultimately decide this anyway. Guess the media is getting warmed up for the ultimate rebuke.
- JC Says:
December 14th, 2010 at 11:35 amThe major problem with PPACA is that is was neither efficent in how it proposed to provide coverage for the uninsured nor was it sensible in terms of its use of funding. The emphasis of PPACA was on forcing people to be covered and not on setting up a system that would effectively provide care for the largest number of people while at the same time controlling the ever spiraling costs of care. I have thought through a program which does not mandate coverage; provides a means for everyone to have care; provides a reasonable means to control cost; and does not force people to use any medical care they do not want.
- FS Says:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:41 pmI am wondering if the health care reform act can continue without the individual mandate? I think it can.Insurance companies would be harmed through anti-selection as the no pre-existing conditions exclusion will still be in force. That provision would favor single payor government control. I wonder what others think about this matter?
- Tony Ondrusek Says:
December 14th, 2010 at 8:31 pmFred, if you want French health care, or Canadian health care, then yes, “it can” continue, as you state. But the law won’t harm insurance companies; it will put them out of business. If you think that government control of your health and your health care is desirable, then I suggest you change your citizenship to one of the aforementioned countries.
- hanpton Says:
December 14th, 2010 at 9:29 pmWe are already paying for the uninsured. Hospitals must care for them. Hospitals and attending physicians are uncompensated so the cost is passed on to the insured in higher premiums. The only answer to increasing health cost is to get everyone, including the healthy young, into the insurance pool. This is not a legal issue, it is a financial issue and I am tired of paying hospital and physician bills for deadbeats.
Health reform bill is good medicine, good business and smart legislation.
- Tony Ondrusek Says:
December 15th, 2010 at 8:12 amHanpton,
Irresponsible statements such as those you have made in your comment is one of the reasons for our current predicament. To state, “The only answer to increasing health cost [sic] is to get everyone…into the insurance pool.”
Wow. It’s almost impossible to respond to a statement like that when your comment is rife with inconsistencies and hypocrisies.
You write that you are “tired of paying hospital and physician bills for deadbeats.” So, if we have a law that forces everyone to buy health insurance, there will no longer be deadbeats who don’t have insurance? Um, have you ever wondered why you are forced to pay for “uninsured” motorist coverage with your auto insurance policy? It’s because despite the fact that the law requires everyone who owns a vehicle to carry liability insurance, there are actually many who don’t. Can you believe that?! Some people don’t follow the law! But if there is a law that forces everyone to have health insurance, Hanpton, at least, is certain that everyone will follow the law, and that will be the end of deadbeats.
You are correct that hospitals and doctors pass along the cost of care for the uninsured to the insured, thus raising premiums. One thing that you either intentionally omitted or are just uninformed about is that this care is primarily for ER visits. That means that every uninsured person who uses the ER as their primary care physician passes along those enormous and excessive costs to the insured. Every time they visit the ER for a cold, or a backache, or a fever, or a bruise, everyone’s costs go up. So what does Hanpton suggest? Instead of dealing with people using the ER irresponsibly, he/she suggests that we simply shift the money around so that EVERYONE pays for that irresponsible behavior! So now, instead of dealing with the problem, we are simply finding a new way to pay for the problem. Bravo! That should work just fine!
How about this? How about, instead of finding ways to shift the money around and make more people pay for the care, we actually do something about the costs? In your scenario, the costs stay exactly the same. The same number of people (actually, more, under Obamacare) will use the ER irresponsibly, the same number of people will have unnecessary tests, the same number of people will remain unhealthy and obese and smoke and eat unhealthy foods and have heart attacks and drink excessively, etc., etc. Instead, why don’t we treat the problems?
How about creating clinics where the uninsured (or anyone, for that matter) can get primary care at a reasonable cost (or no cost) instead of expensive ER visits? How about revanmping tort laws so that doctors won’t be forced to order millions of unnecessary tests that cost billions of dollars each year? How about creating wellness programs that not only teach better health, but that also have incentives (such as monetary, which have been proven to work) to lower the need for care? Taken together, these could lower health insurance premiums by nearly half! Can you imagine the savings, let alone the quality of life for Americans?Unfortunately, Obamacare does nothing to address any of the root causes of high health care costs, such as those stated above. Nothing. Not one thing dealing with “health” itself is addressed in the law. Instead, it focuses entirely on the PAYMENT of health care costs. But nothing on LOWERING those costs. We were sold a bill of goods that sounded good, “This law will ensure that everyone has health insurance.” But what they hid from the public is that it does nothing to lower costs, in fact, it will actually increase costs. Even the president’s own advisors and consultants state that as fact.
But making America healthy and addressing the delivery of health care (ER and unnecessary tests) and lowering the need and ultimately the cost of health care is the simple answer. The logical answer. It addresses the root causes. It doesn’t just shift the money around. Which is why politicians and those who think like you will never embrace it.
It’s sort of like the ridiculous notion of buying carbon credits. You know, the notion that if you use a gas-guzzling SUV, you should be able to “buy” credits that will allegedly be used to maybe plant a tree in South America, or something like that. Yeah, that’s a good idea.
Better yet, whey don’t we decrease consumption? You know, use less gas. Use public transportation when available. Turn the thermostat down in the winter. Walk instead of driving. Buy energy-efficient appliances. Explore wind power and solar power.
But in Hanpton’s world, it is better to simply shift some money around (use the SUV and keep the heat up, but send some money elsewhere) but do absolutely nothing to address the problem.
My dear Hanpton, you have repeated a phrase that politicians for decades have used without abandon and which has contributed to this mess: “Throw money at the problem and ignore the root causes, and let’s hope that it goes away.” Unfortunately, your mantra is a prescription for continued pain, not good medicine as you suggest.
- Chris Says:
December 15th, 2010 at 12:53 pmI am wondering if the health care reform act can continue without the individual mandate?
It’s called the public option, as Tony pointed out. That’s pretty much plan B when this thing fails (in the courts, the states, public opinion etc) as currently conceived.
To my #1 about the prior court rulings, it seems they did address the mandate and affirmed it. Watch the Florida ruling due next.
- Eric Says:
December 20th, 2010 at 11:16 amTony, couldn’t agree more in your response to hanpton. Until “costs” in the delivery system are addressed and the targeted areas that you suggest are an excellent beginning frame of reference we can all expect to see America’s health care system deliver care akin to the standards seen in the UK, Canada and other countries with similare models. Tort reform, cost transparency, alternative care delivery models to indigents other than ER services would go a long way towards addressing spiraling costs that eventually will destroy our health care delivery system, regardless if Obamacare had never been passed.
It is interesting to note, that in their haste to pass the PPACA, Congress in their ever so intelligent approach to tackling any major issue, failed to include a “severalty clause”. So, when the Supreme Court takes up this case, if upheld the entire PPACA is fated to the dust bin of history.
Maybe then the American Public could demand a fair, balanced and reasoned approach to managing the spiraling out-of-control cost trend while enusuring that the medical services delivery model is not impaired beyond repair which is the road we as a country are travelling down.
- Yikes! Says:
December 20th, 2010 at 12:01 pmThis Tony Ondrusek’s comment is as needlessly inflammatory and partisan as Judge Hudson’s opinion! Yikes! Too bad rhetoric replaced reason in every comment on this page. Frankly, if the SCOTUS finds ACA’s individual mandate unconstitutional, then so be it — but to replace constitutional analysis with fatheaded oversimplifications and “Obamacare” rhetoric is to retire one’s credibility, Tony.
