Federal Judge Upholds Constitutionality of Health-Care Law

[^_^ 5,021]

A federal judge in Detroit Thursday afternoon rejected a request for a preliminary injunction to halt the health-care overhaul signed into law by President Obama back in March.

In his 20-page opinion, Judge George Caram Steeh upheld the constitutionality of the law, finding that Congress possesses the authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to require that every American purchase health insurance.

...

Steeh’s analysis under the Commerce Clause was broken into two parts. First, he found that the economic decisions that the Act regulates as to how to pay for health care services affect the interstate health care market. He wrote:

... decisions to forego insurance coverage in preference to attempting to pay for health care out of pocket drive up the cost of insurance. The costs of caring for the uninsured who prove unable to pay are shifted to health care providers, to the insured population in the form of higher premiums, to governments, and to taxpayers. ... These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance.

Next Steeh found that the individual mandate, the provision that requires everyone to have health coverage, was essential to the act’s larger goal of regulating “the interstate business of health insurance.” He wrote:

Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times. As a result, the most costly individuals would be in the insurance system and the least costly would be outside it. In turn, this would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums. The prospect of driving the insurance market into extinction led Congress to find that the minimum coverage provision was essential to the larger regulatory scheme of the Act.

Steeh, nominated to the bench by Bill Clinton in 1997, is the first to rule on the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/10/07/federal-judge-upholds-constitutionality-of-health-care-law/

[^_^ 5,021]

Excerpt from the actual ruling:

The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. Indeed, the opposite is nearly always true. The question is how participants in the health care market pay for medical expenses - through insurance, or through an attempt to pay out of pocket with a backstop of uncompensated care funded by third parties. This phenomenon of cost shifting is what makes the health care market unique. Far from “inactivity,” by choosing to forgo insurance plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars, $43 billion in 2008, onto other market participants. As this cost-shifting is exactly what the Health Care Reform Act was enacted to address, there is no need for metaphysical gymnastics of the sort proscribed by Lopez.

Edited October 8, 2010 by \

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Steeh, nominated to the bench by Bill Clinton in 1997, is the first to rule on the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

the judge should be thrown off the bench.

any moron who thinks you can force someone to buy a product when they don't interact in any form of commerce whatsoever is an idiot. Congress can tell you that you must buy a loaf of bread a week then. you must buy a tv. you must buy internet service. you must buy a gps to track your every move.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

the judge should be thrown off the bench.

any moron who thinks you can force someone to buy a product when they don't interact in any form of commerce whatsoever is an idiot. Congress can tell you that you must buy a loaf of bread a week then. you must buy a tv. you must buy internet service. you must buy a gps to track your every move.

You must not be on food stamps yet.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You must not be on food stamps yet.

I think yet is the key word here.

By the time these pieces of ####### get through with the country, we'll all have to be on food stamps as it's not 'fair' that some people have to be on food stamps while others get to buy whatever they want. It's not fair at all that someone can buy organic bread and someone else can't afford it, so we'll have to have new and improved food stand for everyone and lines to stand in to get them that will be shoved down our throat by the commerce clause.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Excerpt from the actual ruling:

The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. Indeed, the opposite is nearly always true. The question is how participants in the health care market pay for medical expenses - through insurance, or through an attempt to pay out of pocket with a backstop of uncompensated care funded by third parties. This phenomenon of cost shifting is what makes the health care market unique. Far from “inactivity,” by choosing to forgo insurance plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars, $43 billion in 2008, onto other market participants. As this cost-shifting is exactly what the Health Care Reform Act was enacted to address, there is no need for metaphysical gymnastics of the sort proscribed by Lopez.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

you do enjoy dictatorships don't you?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

you do enjoy dictatorships don't you?

[Peikko 1,575]

Excerpt from the actual ruling:

The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. Indeed, the opposite is nearly always true. The question is how participants in the health care market pay for medical expenses - through insurance, or through an attempt to pay out of pocket with a backstop of uncompensated care funded by third parties. This phenomenon of cost shifting is what makes the health care market unique. Far from “inactivity,” by choosing to forgo insurance plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars, $43 billion in 2008, onto other market participants. As this cost-shifting is exactly what the Health Care Reform Act was enacted to address, there is no need for metaphysical gymnastics of the sort proscribed by Lopez.

Pretty accurate. Of course there are those who do not really understand the concepts because they are so hung up on the 'free choice' rhetoric because that's oh so meaningful when it comes to health.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Pretty accurate. Of course there are those who do not really understand the concepts because they are so hung up on the 'free choice' rhetoric because that's oh so meaningful when it comes to health.

so you agree that if it's decided that all men should rape a woman or vise versa to get them pregnant to increase the population to sell more baby forumla, that it's ok.

screw free choice as long as the market is allegedly helped in one way or another.

All I have to say is situations like this are why we have the second amendment.

[Peikko 1,575]

so you agree that if it's decided that all men should rape a woman or vise versa to get them pregnant to increase the population to sell more baby forumla, that it's ok.

screw free choice as long as the market is allegedly helped in one way or another.

All I have to say is situations like this are why we have the second amendment.

How your first sentence is relevant to anything at all, let alone something I posted is beyond me.

Riddle me this, oh Paul - those trapped miners in Chile, how much do you think should be spent to get them rescued, per person? How much is it reasonable for a private company to spend in order to save a man's life, hmm?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

How your first sentence is relevant to anything at all, let alone something I posted is beyond me.

Riddle me this, oh Paul - those trapped miners in Chile, how much do you think should be spent to get them rescued, per person? How much is it reasonable for a private company to spend in order to save a man's life, hmm?

as much time as those who choose to rescue them feel like spending.

[Heracles 417]

Riddle me this, oh Paul - those trapped miners in Chile, how much do you think should be spent to get them rescued, per person? How much is it reasonable for a private company to spend in order to save a man's life, hmm?

Pleeeeeeeease, we all know the cave collapsed because of the government. Paul continue....

The private sector would have these guys out in 2 days max. The private sector on its own, no expense spared, would have ensured these people have sections and air pockets for such disasters. Look at the awesome job the private sector did with the recent gulf spill, or Enron or the yet another financial crisis.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Heracles

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Pleeeeeeeease, we all know the cave collapsed because of the government. Paul continue....

The private sector would have these guys out in 2 days max. The private sector on its own, no expense spared, would have ensured these people have sections and air pockets for such disasters. Look at the awesome job the private sector did with the recent gulf spill, or Enron or the yet another financial crisis.

look at the awesome job the government did in enforcing regulations that caused the gulf oil spill to happen. This pendalum swings both ways.