“The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life”
Atlanta – Justices of the 11th Circuit of Appeals declared health care laws that will require individuals and employers to purchase insurance a blatant power grab by Congress.
Who benefits if the law comes to its full power in 2014?
In their opinion, the judges said that it's the insurance carriers who reap the major economic benefit, stating that “...medical providers, by imposing higher charges, spread and shift the unpaid costs to private insurance companies...”
(One may read the entire opinion by clicking here. Going to the trouble will provide a reader with a minor education in the constitutional law as it regards Congress's enumerated powers, and how it has evolved.)
With its 9 titles and hundreds upon hundreds of laws, the Affordable Health Care of of 2010 seeks to correct a massive scope of economic woes related to the business of treating sickness.
A long-term goal of the Democratic Party, the issue has divided the govrernment into hostile camps of left and right, conservative and liberal, in which constructionists blame progressives and economic, psychological warfare abounds.
The panel of judges noted that, “...some individuals make 'an economic and financial decision to forego health insurance coverage and attempt to self- insure, which increases financial risks to households and medical providers.' In its findings, Congress determined that the decision by the uninsured to forego insurance results in a cost-shifting scenario...in turn the unpaid costs of that health care — $43 billion in 2008 — are shifted to and spread among medical providers; thereafter medical providers, by imposing higher charges, spread and shift the unpaid costs to private insurance companies...
“In its findings, Congress also points out that national health care spending in 2009 was approximately $2.5 trillion, or 17.6% of the national economy...Thus, the $43 billion in shifted costs represents about 1.7% of total health care expenditures. Of that $2.5 trillion in national health care spending in 2009, federal, state, and local governments paid $1.1 trillion, or 44%.
“Given the 50 million uninsured, $43 billion in uncompensated costs, and $90 billion in underwriting costs, Congress determined these problems affect the national economy and interstate commerce.”
The cost to the individual consumer of health care benefits is about $1,000 per year, according to Congressional findings.
Adding millions of persons who are uninsured to the rolls of Medicaid is neither unconstitutional, nor is it “coercive,” the judges held, citing numerous cases reviewed by the Supreme Court.
“The coercion doctrine was first discussed at length by the Supreme Court in Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis. In that case, a corporation challenged the imposition of an employment tax under the newly enacted Social Security Act. Addressing the corporation’s argument that the federal government improperly coerced states into participation in the Social Security program, the Supreme Court stated:
“'The difficulty with the petitioner’s contention is that it confuses motive with coercion. Every tax is in some measure regulatory. To some extent it interposes an economic impediment to the activity taxed as compared with others not taxed. In like manner every rebate from a tax when conditioned upon conduct is in some measure a temptation. But to hold that motive or temptation is equivalent to coercion is to plunge the law in endless difficulties.' 301 U.S. at 589–90, 57 S. Ct. at 892.”
After all, the states would not share in the cost of that provision, other than by providing certain administrative functions. In 2020, the states' responsibility to bear a share of the cost of Medicaid would be capped at 20%.
A mere pittance, something no well-equipped state government can afford to forego.
By sending Obamacare on to the Supreme Court for review, the justices held that the law exceeds provisions of the interstate commerce clause by requiring individuals and employers to carry health care insurance or pay substantial penalties to the IRS.
Individuals who make more than the federal poverty wage guideline would be required to pay a penalty of $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016. Employers would be penalized from $2,000 to $3,000 per employee for failing to provide the insurance.
Though the IRS would have no enforcement power, the tax collectors could withhold any refunds individuals or business may have coming from the government to collect the penalties.
In the opinion handed down on Friday, a three-judge panel wrote, “The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life”
The circuit court answered the suit brought by 26 states, one individual and the National Federation of Independent Business by concluding that, “In sum, the individual mandate is breathtaking in its expansive scope.”
No comments:
Post a Comment