There is a slightly new twist in the Appeals Court process in a new ruling regarding the legality of the PPACA.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a new ruling says, Congress has the authority to make people take action to buy health coverage because the health care market is different from most other markets, according to a 3-member panel at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Appeals Court rulings thus far remind me of the curvy Lombard Street in San Francisco with just as many twists and turns. The 3-member 6th Circuit Court of Appeals panel has decided in Thomas More Law Center vs. Barack Obama (Case Number 10-2388) to uphold a determination that the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) is constitutionally sound.
PPACA supporters say the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the health insurance market.
The plaintiffs in the Thomas More case have argued that Congress has no authority to make them buy health coverage.
The 6th Circuit has held that Congress does have the authority to require the purchase of health coverage in ruling, "Congress may regulate economic activity, even if wholly intrastate, that substantially affects interstate commerce," U.S. Circuit Judge Boyce Martin writes in an opinion for the 6th Circuit majority. "Congress may also regulate even non-economic intrastate activity if doing so is essential to a larger scheme that regulates economic activity.... Congress had a rational basis for concluding that, in the aggregate, the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care substantially affects interstate commerce.
Opinion
Ok, I understand the logic in that last statement, the uninsured do cost those with insurance a lot of money in extra premium and health care expenditures. But, is that enough to justify the lengthy, meandering argument of allowing the purchase mandate. If it can't be argued simply, then does it have appropriate functionality. Again, the image of Lombard Street reappears in my mind.
Comments
While I appreciate the simplicity argument, since when is public health policy simple? Wait – since when is public policy simple? This is one of the times when I appreciate that we elect people to study and vote on complex issues like this as our representatives. It takes a complex understanding of the impact of health care financing on inter- and intrastate economic activity to make an informed decision. Kudos to the 6th circuit for upholding this decision. Funding health care is NOT the same as purchasing a widget.
Thank you for putting this issue into perspective. Thee nature of health insurance is that the larger the pool of healthy insured people the lower the cost for everyone covered and the more funds available to cover claims. This is why we need to require everyone to buy health insurance. Many states New York included require car owners to buy collision insurance so that if thy are in an accident they and the other driver may recover part of their losses. One can make the argument that many diseases are communicable and carrying Health Insurance shows they are doing their part to be responsible to all of society in the event of illness. Many state that they should not have to buy health insurance if they can afford to pay their own medical bills without coverage. This just seems like more irresponsibility and greed on behalf of those whose true desire is to evade ther responsibility to rest of society.
Wow. Times like these I’m happy to have not attended law school as in the past 100 years or so logic seems to have replaced by political agendas designed by the likes of a nutty professor such as Woodrow Wilson and a lackluster hack lawyer such as FDR. ['Read New Deal or Raw Deal' for the truth about his reputation as an attorney] The slippery slope of wacky logic began with the political pressure of FDR upon supreme court justices so that he could replace them with justices that supported his policies that included farm subsidies. There will always be social agendas that sound good for overall society and certainly the individual should bow and make way for the greater good lest he be called greedy and selfish right? The USSR felt the same way. No. This type of thinking usually leads to tyranny.