Fourteen states have filed legal action contesting the constitutionality of the health reform bill. Is it all a lot of bluster? Or can they actually put up a legal roadblock to ObamaCare? It all rests on one provision in the Constitution.
The facts:
Twelve state attorneys general, all of whom are Republican, have joined Florida in filing suits to block the healthcare bill on the grounds that its requirement that everyone have health insurance is unconstitutional. Four state legislatures have already passed laws blocking the bill. And Virginia’s Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell signed a bill making it illegal for the federal government to require Americans to purchase health insurance.
(The 12 states that joined Florida in the suits are Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota and Washington.)
All of the suits pound on the same two points:
- The health reform package exceeds Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce and violates states’ sovereignty. If individuals choose not to purchase health insurance, they are therefore not engaging in any economic activity subject to federal regulation.
- The government cannot compel the purchase of any goods or services.
Additionally, Florida is challenging the provisions that:
- states must expand their Medicaid programs
- states must take on additional administrative burdens involved in implementing the health reform law, such as monitoring compliance by consumers and operating health insurance exchanges, and
- tax the uninsured and force some to enroll in Medicaid.
The key Constitutional provision
So what’s the likelihood that any of the suits can stand up in federal court or even make it to the to the U.S. Supreme Court? That depends on which legal scholar you ask, but generally success or failure of the suits rests on the interpretation of what’s known as “the Commerce Clause” of the Constitution.
The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power “to regulate commerce . . . among the several states.” Historically, commerce referred to merchandise, not insurance contracts. That’s why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states. But the Supreme Court has allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of interstate economic activities that don’t involve merchandise.
Here’s the difference, however, between health reform and other types of commerce: Health reform seeks to regulate not only economic activity, but also economic inactivity. No one’s sure that Congress can use its power over commerce to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. As one legal scholar has pointed out, it’s the difference between offering “cash for clunkers” and mandating that everyone buy a GM-made vehicle.
Whether the courts will see it that way is anyone’s guess.
BusinessBrief.com delivers the latest business news once a week to the inboxes of over 180,000 executives.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to BusinessBrief!
advertisement
Tags: commerce clause, health reform, Obamacare
April 15th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
THE RIDGEWOOD SAVINGS BANK OF NEW YORK, HAS MANDATED THAT I CARRY “FLOOD INSURANCE” AS REQUESTED BY “F.E.M.A”.
I HAVE REFUSED ON THE BASIS THAT THE REQUEST IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I AWAIT SOME RESULTS FROM THOSE STATES INSTITUTING LITAGATION AGAINST “OBAMA-CAR”.
IF THE BANK ORDERS A FLOOD POLICY, I WILL INSTITUTE “SMALL CLAIMS COURT” SUMMONS AGAINST THE BANK, ASKING THE COURT TO SET ASIDE ANY JUDGEMENT PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE FLORIDA LITAGATION
April 15th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
How is it that the military draft (an implied deadly enterprise) is considered constititional
while a mandate for health is not. What kind of crazy joke is that.
April 15th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Seriously Tad?
April 15th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
To Robert Theodore:
Not the same thing at all. Your business with the bank, for a mortgage I presume, makes this requirement a contractual condition. If you do not choose to enter a mortgage contract with Ridgewood, you are not then subject to the requirement for flood insurance. The problem with Obamacare is that it imposes a requirement to purchase insurance on all citizens without rights to choose or regardless of their desire to not participate. The citizen is then subjected to the regulations that govern the conduct of their healthcare. Liberty is thus severely restricted in one swoop of Obama’s pen.
April 15th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
To Tad:
While it might be a worthwhile debate to consider the merits of the draft, your comparison to Obamacare is not at all relevant. The military draft is NOT a commercial enterprise. It is NOT a transaction. It falls under the constitutional authority of the government to provide for the common defense. This is clearly and unassailably a constitutional obligation of the government, while universal healthcare is most definitely NOT found in the constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. And, neither FDR nor Obama had, nor have, the authority to re-write the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.
April 15th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
The Federal Government, and particularly the executive branch, is in an ugly power grab. They need to be stopped. The healthcare bill was approved against the will of the governed with those who overruled their constituents exempted from having to participate in it. That should matter too, right? Sounds like the plan for Cap & Trade and Immigration ‘Reform’ are on the same track. The current regime believes that the constitution is a ‘living document’ that should reflect their Marxist designs. Do you? If you don’t, you’d better speak up now.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Tad,
Uh, the draft?? Not since the 70′s – and you can bet your sweet ass there won’t be one under Obama. He will do everything in his power to weaken any and all defense of the US. Why else would he reduce nukes when he knows good and well Iran is almost armed? Why else would he close Gitmo and have his Muslim “Buddies” come to the US to stand trial? So they can get off with a slap and go home to plan new attacks! And don’t even get me started on the Health Care Screw Over we are all getting.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Robert… nice try, but you voluntarily entered into a contract with the bank. They require insurance to protect the asset (I assume your house) that you used to induce them into the transaction. I suspect your mortgage contract is pretty clear on this requirement. Nobody is requiring you to buy the house and if you had the cash to buy the house yourself, then you would be welcome to go without insurance. If you need the bank to buy the house, then the bank has the power to require insurance to protect their interest in the house. This has nothing to do with the constitution.
What is different with Health care legislation is that Congress has mandated that we all have to buy a service that you should (at least in the USA) have the freedom to reject.
Have fun with the bank. They may try to foreclose.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
I think Robert is one of those guys that will blame all his problems on anyone but himself….he’s the perpetual “loop hole” guy. Always looking for a way out instead of taking responsibility. Here’s the thing….if Robert WAS able to reject buying flood insurance, as soon as the river rises and ruins his property Robert will sue the bank for not insisting he carry flood insurance. I think Robert and Tad should go start their own country. Good luck gentlemen.
April 15th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
If you breathe, you must buy the Obama product
If that isn’t grounds for unconstitutionality then I do not know the Constitution.
We have never been required to buy something just because we breathe; this man is trying his best to make us into a European State; his aims are clearly progressive socialism and the sooner we get him and his Party out of power the better off we all will be.
Ballot Box Revolution in 2010!!
April 15th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Rowan for President!…well said!
April 15th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
i though we lived in a frre country! lets stop all this bickering and let the american people vote on the health care problem and at the same time lets impeach our so called leaders.
April 15th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Wow, Gary – you need to turn down your AM radio. In most respects Obama is actually a pretty moderate democrat. Left of center, to be sure, but by no means far left.
As far as the constitutionality of the health care bill, that’s anybody’s guess. The court is certainly as favorable as it ever has been and probably ever will be to be receptive to this kind of challenge. If I had to guess (I’m a lawyer, but no constitutional scholar) the healthcare bill will pass muster even with the conservative court. As unpleasent as the idea of requiring people to purchase health insurance is to some people, that kind of infringement by the government on personal freedoms certainly isn’t unprecedented. The CRA of 1964 requires restrautants, hotels, and the like to serve minorities – and that authority is grounded in the commerce clause and it was upheld by the court. The court doing an about face is certainly possible, but it would be a pretty radical shift so I don’t think it’s likely to happen.
April 15th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Sorry, Iduck….not buying it. Although it is a better argument than Robert’s, there is still choice involved by the restaurant owner…albeit, not much of a choice. He could sell his restaurant and not have to serve anyone he darn well didn’t want to.
April 15th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Like it or not some folks like the efforts made on health care reform. The awkward thing is that half the nation likes it, half the nation doesn’t (or so my basic, unofficial pole of close associates reflects).
Speaking from my own experience here in California I don’t see much of a difference between Health insurance and Auto insurance. I’m required by law to have auto insurance otherwise my car registration is revoked. Yes, my driving habits can impact (pun not intended) others who share the road with me. Yes, it’s a good idea to have auto insurance (car repairs are a whole lot more managable). However, I am a good driver who rarely has a problem when driving and I’ve never had a major accident.
Healthwise it’s much the same story. However, with regards to health care, my current state of health has the ability to impact those around me. If I drop dead because I haven’t properly seen to my health I could detrimentally impact the psyche of who ever finds me. If someone tries CPR and has an asthma attack due to stress relating to the situation I’ve impacted their health.
I think the biggest issue that folks have with manditory health care for all is A.) people know the cost of insurance and don’t want to pay it, B.) they don’t want to pay for anyone else’s coverage, and C.) the increased strain on the already overtaxed Medi-Care system makes people wonder if there is going to be enough money to cover everything. Ok, D.) people don’t like being told they have to do something even if it’s “for their own good”–they got enough of that from their parents.
So what if insurance companies are finally able to sell insurance across state lines? Each state has different standards (as witnessed by auto insurance requirements or lack there of) so there is nothing to ensure that an acceptable bar is met which will meet the needs of all the states. It also isn’t the insurance companies that are solely responsible for increased health related costs. The drug manufacturing companies charge what they can because for many there isn’t an alternative to the medicine offered at another company due to copyrights. Malpractice insurance companies, thanks to our “I’m going to sue” mentality, rake in the dough from medical providers who want to be able to remain in business if sued. All of these costs affect the cost of health care and until they are ALL regulated in some fashion costs will continue to climb until no one can afford to pay. Should the government act as a huge regulatory agency? People say no, people say yes.
Quite frankly, the problem has been identified. Trouble is no one wants to review the big picture, educate people in the big picture (leaving out personal opinions) and allow people to make educated decisions to fix the problem. The unfortunate reality is that we are all individuals with different needs which means that no one is going to be happy with everything that’s done or decided because it’s based on majority rules. That is part of being a democracy and it’s emphasized with the way our government is set up.
April 15th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Too bad the current health care bill didn’t just do what the progressive Democrats wanted in the first place: Create government-run national health care, without enabling the insurance companies, through this law, to continue profiteering from people whether ill or well. I know why Libertarians are complaining, but I really don’t understand why Republicans are squawking–this is the sort of law they wanted when they were talking health care reform. Could it be they’ve morphed into the Party of No simply to cast aspersions on the President?
April 15th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
MH – you are missing the point. This is a huge hit on States Rights. Auto Insurance laws vary from state to state. And it’s State law – not Federal Law that mandates car insurance. If California wants to mandate health insurance coverage, they are free to do that. Hawaii has already done that. And Hawaii has provided a state run health insurance program for those who don’t get it through work. I remember when that law was implemented. A lot of people lost their jobs or were reduced to part time. That may also happen to the mainland – when companies are forced to provide health insurance, they will choose to have smaller labor forces. It’s straight economics.
BTW – the Hawaii state run insurance is a mess. The program for the unionized state workers is in trouble… so now what?
and second BTW – the Hawaii state law isn’t thousands of pages long. They actually accomplished a fairly reasonable bill, if you are looking for this type of thing, without killing a million trees to print it.
Beyond those things printed in this news report – I find it especially distasteful that there were many non-health related issues that were piggy backed onto this bill without much discussion or notification. For example – the Student Loan industry was blindsided by Obama adding laws that drastically changed the way they are issued, paid back, and run. There was no deep discussion about the unintended consequences to companies that run student loans. No discussion about students who are ON govt student loan programs and who wind up wading through tons more bureaucracy and paperwork, only to receive their loans near the end of the quarter. No discussion about the INCREASE in student loan fees and interest. All this was cozily tucked into the HEALTHCARE bill. WTH?
Secondly – the enormous amount of money that changed hands between lobbyists and congressional members of both parties was staggering. Millions of dollars were poured into campaign coffers. The mind boggles. If all that money were poured into states to mitigate the costs of healthcare, we’d all be fine now. Why we don’t just tell pharma companies to limit ads to people who have the training to utilize their product instead of “Ask your doctor if this product is right for you?” Then maybe drugs wouldn’t cost so much. Of course, as a layperson, i do appreciate finding out that the drug they want me to ask about will cause my ears to explode, headaches, skin rashes, nausea, eye problems, and all my limbs will fall off. That all just keeps me eating healthy, staying away from toxic foods, and exercising!
This is NOT about healthcare. This is about control. I want some sort of reform. I am simply uneasy with a bill that was rushed through in the first 100 days of Obama’s Presidency. I find the speed of this bill, the length of the bill, the money and bribes paid out (lobbying $$$…) among other things, to be very unsettling. If it is as good as they say, why not allow a full debate of it section by section? Why not put out information about it in English – that normal humans can understand? What was the rush? What was the impetus? The mind boggles.
April 16th, 2010 at 2:49 am
GARY:
Not according to the General Counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center and her 7-page Issue Brief, which I attach here for your reading. I fear you have not taken the time to research, read & think through what you say above, you’re just buying into the angry rhetoric popular with a particular political mind set & quoting slogans:
She is very scathing about the GOP “embarrassingly weak claims….political theater and grandstanding…not genuinely constitutional arguments” and frivolous with “no constitutional merit, and waste time, money and state resources. Especially the GOP’s bold attempts in two states to block the HCR act, on the basis of “nullification”….since pursuant to the Constitution, federal law “shall be the Supreme Law of the Land” and trumps state law. These actions taken are violations of the Constitution.
Think about this. What’s interesting, is how the GOP mischaracterized Obama HCR and the budget reconciliation process (which Republican lawmakers had used MORE than Democrats in Congress!!) used to pass the final changes & morphing of the already Senate & House-approved bills, NOT the entire bill, as….”ramming an unpopular bill down the American people’s throats”. Not a single GOP State AG has run a referendum to find out if the majority of citizens in their state agree with this partisan unilateral decision to contest a law which essentially bolsters the rights of citizenry, protects the elderly, sick, poor and young from heinous abuse and exploitation by fat cat insurance providers, reduces Rx & premium prices, eventually will close the high cost/burdensome Bush Medicare Partz B & D that benefited drug & provider corporations over citizen beneficiaries? Left free, by unregulated market dynamics, insurers could charge what they wished and profit as much as they wanted and denying a fundamental right to health even to people who’d paid their premiums for years…under Bush, recission became an unprecedented issue. USA was the only industrialized nation to allow such freedom to corporations & exploitation of citizens. Hundreds of thousands of sick Americans thrown off health insurance when they most needed it, in order to protect shareholder profit? 5,000 uninsured Americans and over 1,000 uninsured children dying annually, 150,000 dying from hospital infections or treatment errors? Did Republican state AG’s ASK if they had the approval of the state’s population, or are they “ramming a partisan fruitless political publicity charade down their throats?” How “constitutional” is that? It will be debated in the future, mark my words.
Don’t forget – Obama is a Lincoln historian, US Constituion Law scholar, professor at Chicago University, deeply intelligent & intellectual, and highly unlikely to rush superficially into something that might trespass on the Constitution. Who precisely do the GOP think they’re dealing with? Or, rather, who do they want YOU to think he is and, accordingly, change your opinion and vote?…that’s more what they’re up to here.
Three fundamental provisions of Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution define Congress’ distinct powers to i) regulate interstate commerce, ii) tax and spend for the general welfare and iii) enact necessary and proper enforcement legislation. You can read her Issue Brief for yourselves.
http://www.businessbrief.com/states-contest-legality-of-health-reform-can-they-win/
A current market situation where federal/state/corporate/citizens constitutional rights/roles/responsibilities are called into scrutiny, and I wonder what your POV is, Gary – the 29 deaths at Massey’s Upper Branch Mine in WVA. Mine CEO, Don Blankenship, “bought” political power and judicial compliance, under a right-wing administration. Over 8 years, I know that Blankenship invested about $7,000,000 in congressional Republicans, $450,000 in state Republicans since 1997, $3,000,000 to get an “uncooperative” judge replaced and $1,000,000 underwriting a 2009 Labor Day Tea Party anti-Obama & HCR event. A self-professed “free-marketeer” he’s disallowed union representation, threatened miners he’d close the mines down if they joined the union. He’s had hundreds of safety violations, including recent very serious ones citing life-threatening safety issues, a criminal safety/negligence ruling for an accident where two miners were burned alive in 2006. Thanks to GOP Senator Mitch McConnell’s wife, Emily Chao, then Labor Sec….a pile of his violations/ $50 million fines were reduced to a nominal amount (but he did grace McConnell’s re-election campaign with $100,000 and in 2007, Bush invited a Massey senior exec to join the board of DOE. Ken Cuccinelli, VA AG & a Blankenship beneficiary, is currently suing the fed government over health reform and also helping Blankenship defend his lawsuit with EPA (Blankenship is #1 polluter in USA). President Obama has ordered an investigation into ALL mines with outstanding safety violations, as a result of the tragedy, especially Upper Branch, & cited Massey/Blankenship & government as both responsible and publicly stated that miners should expect both to take responsibility to protect their lives & rights with safe conditions. Blankenship said Obama “doesn’t know what he’s talking about”, GOP lawmakers have stepped in to say Obama is overreaching & “taking political advantage”. Gary – who had “constitutional rights” in all this, were they violated or protected at any time, by whom? Which individual, politician or administration staged an “ugly power grab”? Was “the will of the governed” protected? Do you believe Blankenship and GOP powers behaved improperly, would that affect how you speak about or vote for them?
April 16th, 2010 at 7:37 am
In my opion these challenges will go nowhere. If the courts rule against the healthcare plan it would open up social security and medicare to the same type of lawsuits – as they are all programs that we are forced to be in and fund through payroll deductions.
April 16th, 2010 at 9:03 am
The States require motor cycle helmets. They also require insurance for your automobile but it is unconstitutional to require insurance for your body.
They are wasteing tax payer money with this lawsuit.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:02 am
MH
Finally a well thought out, intelligent, non-judgemental response! I agree whole heartedly.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:51 am
IDuck says “In most respects Obama is actually a pretty moderate democrat. Left of center, to be sure, but by no means far left.” Except for the fact that he was the most left voting member of the Senate during his short tenure (when he didn’t vote ‘present’) voting more to the left of Bernie Sanders, the only admitted Socialist in the Senate, you might be right. Except for the fact that he started his political career in Bill Ayres’ home you might be right. Except for the fact that he ‘worshiped’ in Rev Wright’s church for 20 years you might be right. Except for the fact that he was born to a Muslim Socialist and a globe-trotting radical mother you might be right. Except for the fact that he has sealed his college records so we can’t see what he studied or what his papers were on you might be right. Except for the fact that he is pursuing the most radical transformation of American society ever attempted in history, you might be right. Except for the fact that he runs around the globe apologizing for America’s exceptionalism you might be right. I’m not sure how people like you choose to selectively review facts, but your contention that Obama is a moderate is baseless. He projected himself as a moderate to dupe many less aware Americans to vote for him. You might as well admit it, you’ve been had.
Oh, and MH, half of the country approves of many of these things because they don’t pay for them. A full 47% don’t pay any federal income taxes. A full 47% approve of health care. Coincidence, I don’t think so. Democracy was not set up so the non-working half can vote themselves ‘raises’ on the backs of the working half. And as the government continures to grow this entitlement crowd… their chances to hold onto perpetual power and wealth just get better and better, and the America that was the envy of the world fades further and further into the rearview mirror.
Check it; there is some clause that circumvents constitutional states rights in every piece of legislation this administration forwards. You will wake up one day soon to realize that there is only the monolithic central government. It is by plan, and they count on you staying asleep.
April 16th, 2010 at 11:06 am
The thing I see missing from every one of the responses here is the admission that for health care to be a right for some, it must become the obligation of others. Are you all OK with the people who receive the new benefits being able to saddle the rest of us with the obligation to pay for it? Will you be OK with them as they realize that they can simply vote themselves raises and new benefits?
April 16th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Annemarie, these improper campaign donations sound a lot like the Fannie Mae donations to Chris Dodd and Barney Franks’ campaign contributions don’t they?
April 16th, 2010 at 11:13 am
To MH
I do not have to purchase auto insurance unless I own a car. Do you think that all those people living in NYC that ride a taxi, bus, trains & subways have auto ins??? It aint the business of the govt as to whether or not I buy health ins. It’s their business to decide if they want to pay for my health care, if I need it or if I ask for them to pay it. The president at that time should say “I find nothing in the consititution that authorizes the fed govt to take from one group of citizens to pay for something for your benefit.” That whole business of selling across state lines is another sham. I live in LA, the state, and I can call State Farm to buy auto ins and I’m going to get a quote based on my zip code and if I make the purchase I will get a LA policy with language approved by the LA state govt. I aint gonna get a TX, MO or FL policy and there is all kinds of differences in each states policy. I also will not get their rates. This whole thing is about govt control and aint gotta thing to do with health care. If health care was 1% of the economy instead of 1/6 they wouldn’t give a damn. Look at what they are trying to ram through with the financial reform legislation. They will have the authority to sieze any bank without recourse. Watch out for the oil prices going up. If we get another round of spikes and it gets up to $125 a bbl, see how quick they start action on the mean oil companies with their obscene profits. That will put the whole shebang in bed with the feds.
The govt isn’t the answer. Where are their successes? We are heading off into the same ditch that Europe went into. The market can correct things. Some things fail and usually they should.
April 16th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Sorry, Iduck….not buying it. Although it is a better argument than Robert’s, there is still choice involved by the restaurant owner…albeit, not much of a choice. He could sell his restaurant and not have to serve anyone he darn well didn’t want to.
____________________________________________
People can choose not to buy healthcare and elect to pay a tax instead.
April 16th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
All,
I doubt ANY of you would care to see the results if you were to drop your mandated automobile insurance, hit another vehicle or get pulled over for speeding and THEN live with the consequences.
Sure, we don’t have to drive so we don’t have to have insurance. We also don’t have to rely on the rest of our fellow Americans to subsidize our health care when we do need it and we haven’t got it.
Who among us is confident they have the enormous financial resources available today and will have tomorrow to ensure they get the care the want, need and deserve if they are hurt or become ill through no fault of their own. I doubt very FEW naysayers in America have the financial resources to weather a single family illness such as cancer without seeking the aid of others.
I have personally assisted in raising tens of thousands of dollars for a SINGLE operation for a SINGLE child who did not have medical insurance. The sad story is it was too little too late.
Regardless we are all “ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL”
So why don’t we start acting like it!!!!
April 20th, 2010 at 10:06 am
I’m not going to go into all of the pros/cons of the healthcare reform bill.
The question I would like answered is this: If this new healthcare reform bill is so wonderful and helpful then why are government officials exempt from having to implement the bill for themselves? This should be a huge red alert for every citizen in the U.S.
I have read articles from other countries who have implemented this type of healthcare and most have been screaming for the United States to fight this bill. Have we listened to those who have experienced this type of healthcare? No, as usual, we have not.
Until we start fighting for the good of the American citizen, then we deserve everything we get.
April 20th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
In my humble opinion, government mandated/funded healthcare is for everyone or no one. If no one then end all government funded/subsidized health care: Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Educator, Prison worker, elected official.
If everyone, then everyone.
April 20th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Consider this: The Republicans are implacable foes of a single payer system, seeking instead to maintain the present balkanized system of dozens of insurers, offering hundreds of plans, involving thousands of forms–all adding unnecessary overhead that helps to propel the cost of insurance beyond the affordability level of 35 million Americans. So what do the Republicans do when coverage is mandated for those 35 million citizens in need? They oppose it, on Constitutional grounds. (And they seem, to me, to have a strong legal case.) Now for the punch line: Our (Washington State) Republican Attorney General has explained that he (and, presumably, other Republican attorneys general) would not oppose a single payer system on Constitutional grounds, because a single payer system would apply to everyone. If the Republican attorneys general are successful in the courts, then the ONLY choice will be between either a single payer system or the status quo.
And please, spare me the arguments that people have the “right” to opt out of insurance, and that those who work shouldn’t have to subsidize insurance for those who don’t–plenty of patients demand treatment in the E.R. after exercising their right to remain uninsured, so you and I are already subsidizing their care, just as we’re already subsidizing the E.R. care of uninsured patients among the 35 million that Obamacare seeks to insure.
Privatized health insurance enables me, the Human Resources guy, to try to put a positive spin on the annual double-digit premium increases on the high deductible plans that are so popular with our staff–notwithstanding the fact that this Employer is contractually obligated to sustain 75% of the Employee’s premium. Talk about expense burden on employers. Let’s get employers out of the business of providing health insurance plans.
Finally, I’d like to see Democrats stand up to the lawyers’ lobby that opposes tort reform and stop ignoring the cost impact of unlimited damages for medical malpractice.