PDF Federal judge threatens health care reform
Thursday, a federal judge in Florida ruled that a law suit by 20 states could advance. The decision by the Reagan appointed judge did not rule on the merits of the arguments, only that the states had standing to proceed.
The judge dismissed most of the states’ arguments but allowed the case to proceed to present arguments on two important parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the individual mandate and the expansion of Medicaid.
At least one commentary argued that the court’s reasoning, to use the judge’s own words, used a bit of “alice-in-wonderland” logic to criticize the tax/penalty for failure to comply with the individual mandate.
By another reading, the court is dramatically overreaching. It is imposing consistency and truth demands on Congress, requiring members to articulate their political claims in the same terms that the institution articulates its constitutional claims in court. While, as the court says, there’s no precedent for upholding a tax law that was justified on the basis of a penalty, there seems to be no precedent the other way, either.
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog offers some additional comments on the Florida decision.
The Florida decision contradicts an earlier decision by a judge in the Eastern District court of Michigan. In that case the court rebuffed the argument advanced by a conservative public interest law firm that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. The court concluded that it was rational to conclude that an indivudal’s decision to not buy health insurance shifted costs to others and therefore affected interstate commerce.
The contradictory decision almost guarantees that the case will be decided by the Supreme court.
It also means that single payer advocates in Congress need to keep advancing their case in the event that the Supreme Court should decide against the Affordable Care Act.
Bad Boy Honeywell with a good guy friend
On Labor Day, I noted the lockout by Honeywell of United Steelworker members in Metropolis, IL, who were protesting the company’s efforts to eliminate their health insurance.
President Obama talked a great deal about “those who like their current insurance can keep it.”
That concept apparently does not apply when the employer saying, “Oh no you don’t” is the number one corporate donor to the Democratic campaigns. According to Mike Elk in the Huffington Post, Honeywell’s generosity to the Obama administration has been rewarded with complicity by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the hiring of replacement workers. That approval is important, as the Honeywell plant in Illinois not only handles uranium, but a number of other highly toxic chemicals.
Adding insult to injury, Obama appointed the Honeywell CEO, David Cote, to the infamous Deficit Commission. It’s not enough that Mr. Cote is taking advantage of its Washington connections to depress the wages in Obama’s home state, he wants to depress the income of all workers by threatening to cut Social Security.
A COBRA “Duh!”
Kaiser Health News reports on an Employee Benefits Research Institute study that concludes that fewer people than expected take advantage of the COBRA subsidy.
I hate to say, I told you so, but I told you so.
Most workers live paycheck to paycheck. When the paycheck stops, the first priority is food and shelter. Unless the member is very sick, even a 65% discount can be insurmountable.
We need a system that operates on a very simple principle, people will pay when they are earning money so they can have health care coverage when they are without income.
This model exists in today’s multiemployer funds and should be a model for health care reform.
The purpose of medicine is to prevent significant disease, to decrease pain and to postpone death… Technology has to support these goals-if not, it may even be counterproductive.