Judge Henry E. Hudson of the Federal District Court of Richmond, Va., ruled against a key provision in the health care law Monday. Americans cannot be required to obtain health care insurance, he ruled, because doing so would violate their right not to participate.
In his 42-page opinion, Judge Hudson wrote, “Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”
Judge Hudson is the third district court judge to reach a determination on the merits in one of the two dozen lawsuits challenging the health care law. The other judges, in Detroit and Lynchburg, Va., upheld the law.
Lawyers estimate it will take two years for these conflicting opinions — plus however many more may come down — to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A story about the decision written by Kevin Sack of the New York Times notes that partisan politics is playing a significant role in the court cases. Judge Hudson, for example, has long played an active part in Republican politics in Virginia and was appointed to his present judgeship by President George W. Bush.
“Thus far,” Sack reported, “judges appointed by Republican presidents have ruled consistently against the Obama administration, while Democratic appointees have found for it. That has reinforced the notion — fueled by the White House — that the lawsuits are as much a political assault as a constitutional one. … all but one of the 20 attorneys general and governors who filed a similar case in Pensacola, Fla., are Republicans.”
The United States is, it would seem, only sometimes a nation of laws rather than of men.
THE DECISION to write a health care law that left the health insurance industry in charge of delivering health care to those not served by Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration or some other government agency is the cause of this breakdown.
Health insurance companies rightly argue that they cannot be required to cover people with pre-existing conditions or be denied the right to limit how much care can be given to any particular person, or be told how much they can charge persons who use an extraordinary amount of medical care unless the law also requires healthy people to carry policies.
It is because the American system has allowed the industry to discriminate against those who use a lot of expensive health care, that health insurance providers are among the most profitable businesses in the economy. It is also the reason why health care costs cause more personal bankruptcies than any other factor and one of the reasons why the United States is the only rich nation on earth in which health care is not provided to all citizens.
The court decision against the health care law probably does point out a serious flaw: The law lets the health insurance industry continue to impose a layer of costs on the delivery of health care that keeps U.S. health care costs almost twice as high as those in any other nation.
The success of the Medicare program demonstrates that health care can be delivered to the segment of the U.S. population that uses the most health care per individual without the expensive mediation of a private insurance company — or passel of companies.
Should the law be repealed? Only if it is instantly replaced by a law providing care for every American, which is paid for through taxation. There are, literally, dozens of models Congress can follow to reach that goal. Medicare is the one closest at hand.
If Medicare can be provided to those over 65, then it can be provided to all. No solution to America’s health care problem is more obvious.
— Emerson Lynn, jr.
