The legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) are moving toward a final decision by the US Supreme Court.
The Thomas More Law Center has filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare.
According to the appeal petition, “Review is necessary to establish a meaningful limitation on congressional power under the Commerce Clause….If the Act [the PPACA] is understood to fall within Congress’s Commerce Clause authority, the federal government will have absolute and unfettered power to create complex regulatory schemes to fix every perceived problem imaginable and to do so by ordering private citizens to engage in affirmative acts, under penalty of law….”
Specifically, the petition asks the Supreme Court to rule on the following questions:
1. Does Congress have authority under the Commerce Clause to require private citizens to purchase and maintain “minimum essential” health insurance coverage under penalty of federal law?
2. Is the individual mandate provision of the ACA unconstitutional as applied to petitioners who are without health insurance?
A Thomas More Law Center press release noted that the Obama administration will now have 30 days to file a response, and the Law Center will then have approximately ten days to file a reply. The case will subsequently be submitted for a decision by the Justices as to whether the petition should be granted. The Law Center predicts that “if granted, the case will in all likelihood be briefed, argued, and decided in this upcoming term, with a decision rendered prior to the Court recessing next summer.”
Small business owners are fighting back against the massive regulations which the PPACA requires of them. The NFIB is joining a coalition of small business groups to expose the cost involved to comply with the PPACA. Their tactic will be to explain to the public the expenses involved in complying with the PPACA and how these costs hinder small businesses from retaining existing or hiring new employees. With the economy, and specifically job creation, a high priority for most Americans and claimed as such by many politicians, this could be a significant campaign to help elect politicians who understand that governments can effect job growth through reducing regulations. I wish them success in this venture.
Individual states are asking for, and receiving waivers exempting them from complying with mandates required within the PPACA. The Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) has now issued five waivers from the medical loss ratio (MLR) requirements of the PPACA. In March, CCIIO issued its first waiver to Maine, and through July 2011 has issued waivers to New Hampshire, Nevada, Kentucky, and Iowa. A waiver request from North Dakota has been denied. Waiver determinations are still pending for Louisiana, Guam ( really, GUAM?), Kansas, Delaware, Indiana, Florida, and Georgia.
Question: What do the five states that have received waivers have the North Dakota does not have, so that the CCIIO rejected their waiver request? Answer will be provided next week.
MLR is calculated as the cost of health care services provided as a percentage of premium revenues. In general, the higher the MLR, the more an insurer spends on claims reimbursements and the less it spends on administration and marketing, or retains as profit. The ACA established an 80% MLR beginning in 2011. The states that were granted waivers are allowed to have MLR’s ranging from 60-75%. Makes me wonder why the PPACA was passed in the first place, if so many waivers are being granted to so many states and companies who claim that they cannot the standards set by the law. But then, I try to be logical.
The Healthcare Reform Bill was passed, in part, because there was an immediate need to provide health insurance for the millions of Americans who were unable to get coverage because of pre-existing conditions. At least that’s what the politicians in Washington told us. The reality appears to show that the politicians were either lying or ignorant of the facts. I’m not sure which one is worse, lack of character or incompetence.
Since insurance companies have been mandated to cover all pre-existing conditions for children by the Healthcare Reform Bill s grand total of 8,026 individuals have signed up for the program. A far cry from the hundreds of thousands of children that the politicians said needed the Healthcare Reform Bill to allow them to obtain health insurance.
Requiring health insurance companies to cover persons with pre-existing conditions is not insurance it is socialism. A financially prudent person would not buy health insurance before they had any health problems if they were guaranteed to be able to buy healthcare insurance after developing a health problem. The cost of the healthcare provided under a policy purchased after a health condition has developed will be spread over the entire pool of policy holders. There is no risk management involved in this scenario, just cost sharing. The only way to keep premiums for pre-existing conditions affordable for anyone is to shift some of the cost to healthy people who are required to buy health insurance. This is not insurance it is cost sharing-socialism
The insurance company should have a very good idea of the cost of treating any pre-existing condition. They have a diagnosis and can extrapolate the average cost of treatment over a lifetime. In any rational situation the premiums for covering a pre-existing condition should be the cost of treatment plus an administrative fee. The insurance company would have to charge a premium higher than the actual cost of treatment or it will be out of business very quickly. No rational person would buy health insurance for a pre-existing condition, if the insurance company priced the insurance premiums for the coverage of pre-existing conditions according to free market conditions.
The ultimate outcome of requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is that no one will buy health insurance until they have a health problem. In a free market world the cost of insurance premiums for pre-existing would be more than the cost of treatment, so what would be the point of buying health insurance?
BUT, the Healthcare Reform Bill requires everyone to buy health insurance. If every American is required to buy a policy, then there should be no one who requires insurance for a pre-existing condition, since everyone will have coverage before medical conditions develop. Of course, there will be a transition period.
No matter how you look at it, the result of the Healthcare Reform Bill will be socialized medicine. In the long run, everyone will pay the same amount and will receive the same healthcare. The only way to pay for healthcare for everyone is for everyone to pay for healthcare.
If this is starting to sound ridiculous, it’s because it is. The whole Healthcare Reform Bill is ridiculous. The circular reasoning required to understand the bill, actually makes no sense.
It is one week after the historic signing by President Obama that fundamentally changes the healthcare landscape in America and the world has not ended, just as the proponents of the healthcare reform had predicted. Of course, most of the provisions of the healthcare reform bill do not take effect until 2013 or 2014. However, there are several items of concern that need to be watched over the next several months.
At least 13 (at last count) State Attorneys General has joined in a lawsuit against the Federal Government claiming that the provision that requires every American to buy healthcare is unconstitutional. This claim is based on the 10th Amendment to the US constitution. The Tenth Amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Attorneys General claim that the Federal Government does not have the power to require everyone to buy health insurance, or pay a fine. They claim that states have the power to require the purchase of insurance, not the Federal government.
To counter this requirement to purchase healthcare insurance by the Federal Government, many states (over 40 so far) are proposing statutes to exempt the state from the mandates in the Healthcare Reform Bill. Passing these types of statutes may not insulate the states’ citizens from the Reform Bill. Even if the Supreme Court decides that the Feds do not have the power to force citizens to buy insurance, the Federal Government can still force the individual states to pass laws requiring its residents to buy insurance, by threatening to withhold Federal funding for the healthcare mandates required by the Healthcare Reform Bill. This was the tactic used by the Federal Government to coerce states into adopting the 55 mph speed limits in the 70′s, by withholding Federal funds from every state that did not lower its speed limit.
The proponents of the requirement to purchase healthcare insurance claim that the Federal Government has this power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. Since insurance is sold across state lines, the Federal Government has the power to control, and thus require, the purchase of healthcare insurance.
Opponents of the requirement to buy healthcare insurance claim that commerce clause does apply in this case, because there is no commerce (goods being transported) occurring. They claim that this is a case of contract law, not commerce. They also claim that the Federal Government has no authority to require any American to perform any involuntary action with another private entity. The Government has never before tried to force its citizens to engage in any economic activity. As an American, you have every right not to engage in commerce. The penalty levied by the Healthcare Reform Bill, in essence fines you just for residing in America. By not buying insurance, in essence doing nothing, the Federal Government wants to fine you just for living. This presumption by the Government should be very troubling to every American. If the Federal Government can force you buy healthcare insurance from a private company, then what else can they force you buy? Maybe we will be required to buy a car from the government owned car companies, GM or Chrysler. Where will this line be drawn?
Both of these issues will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. These cases will be very interesting to follow over the next several months.
Further proof that the Healthcare Reform Bill is a political issue not a healthcare issue: The Student Loan Program was changed within the Healthcare Reform Bill. Private banks are no longer permitted to make government insured student loans. The government will make loans directly to students. Is this another avenue for the government to force people into government dependency? How many banking jobs in the private banking industry will be lost? How many new government jobs will be required to implement this program? How long will it be before the government only guarantees loans to public colleges, but not private colleges? How long before the loans are only available for government approved degree programs?
Just wondering.
