Legal Challenges to Health Care Reform: Justice, or Just Us Pouting?

March 25th, 2010. By Hunter West

Some lawsuits are there to right a wrong. To seek justice, and elicit compensation. 

Others are simply put out there to make noise. For posturing. 

As part of the continued opposition to the Obama health care reform bill, 14 states launched legal challenges to the health care reform, claiming that requiring Americans to purchase health care coverage flies in the face of the Constitution. 

Okay. So 13, of the 14 attorneys general who have filed lawsuits are Republican. The GOP is known to be against the long-held Democratic dream. The White House has been told not to worry, that the legal challenges are not winnable by the plaintiffs. 

And never mind that Timothy Stolzfus Jost, a professor of law at the Washington and Lee University (disclaimer: he’s a Democrat), blogs on CNN that there is no legal merit to the challenges. “…These cases are going nowhere legally,” he says. 

But beyond all that let’s look at the fundamental claim that government has no right to tell me that I HAVE to buy health insurance. 

Fine. Then why must I buy automotive insurance? The last time I checked, auto insurance was a requirement. You’re not allowed to drive a car if you are uninsured. Get caught, and you face a hefty penalty. 

Now, I’m a careful driver. I don’t take chances. And I own my car outright. I can see if I was making payments to a bank, a manufacturer or a finance company, then I might be compelled to have insurance in order to protect their investment in the case of an accident. If I default on my payments the repo comes and gets the car, and the bank sells it for as much as it can get. 

However, you have to have a vehicle to do that. If the vehicle is totaled the driver has nothing to drive and the lender has nothing to claw back, save for some other collateral that may not be appropriate anyway. Some people drive cars that are worth more than their homes, in some cases. 

For that matter, home insurance is only required if you have a mortgage on the property. The bank’s investment has to be protected. And beyond the fact that I question why ME, as the homeowner, gets to pay for the insurance to protect the bank’s investment (why doesn’t the bank foot the bill for the premium???), once the bank signs off on the mortgage and you own the house or manufactured home outright, the decision on whether or not to insure it is up to you. 

If you’re smart, with the smallest of IQ, you will insure your home AND your contents. Because hey, fire happens. If it burns to the ground and you’re not insured, you lose everything. 

But that’s a choice you get to make. 

Americans have always had choice in their health care coverage. The lucky ones have plans paid for by their employer. Failing that, the lucky ones who CAN afford to buy health insurance do. To do anything else would be an unwise roll of the dice. 

And maybe you simply can’t afford to buy health coverage… 

But if you CAN afford it, but choose not to, that’s been your right up until Tuesday. Think you’re healthy? Invincible? Nothing will ever happen to you? You’re Superman, aren’t you? We ALL think we are at some point in our lives. Okay, then why spend the $300 or so per month in premiums? 

Well now Obama says we HAVE to buy health insurance, or face a penalty if we don’t. Those who can ill afford to spend the money will get help. 

But—like auto insurance—health care coverage will be something that you MUST have. If you drive, you have to be insured. If you LIVE, you will now have to be insured. 

I suppose that’s one argument the 14 state attorneys general who have launched legal challenges can use. Americans can choose not to drive or own a car, and therefore can escape the requirement for auto insurance. But you can’t really choose NOT to LIVE (the alternative is an entirely different debate). 

Let’s go back to the automotive insurance example. I’m extremely careful behind the wheel. But accidents happen. I could have a massive coronary while behind the wheel and plow into somebody through no fault of his own. The same could befall me through no fault of MY own. Thus, eschewing insurance is not only against the law, it’s also irresponsible. 

In his blog, Professor Jost writes: “…people who can afford insurance and don’t buy it are simply being irresponsible. An auto accident or serious disease can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why should the taxpayers or health care providers have to finance the care of those who refuse to buy insurance? 

“The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. 

“The Supreme Court has long held that this authority reaches all economic activity. The court has recognized as legitimate exercises of the Commerce Power the authority of Congress to prohibit the growing of a few marijuana plants on a windowsill for personal medical use or to outlaw a doctor’s performing of a partial-birth abortion.

“Choosing whether to buy insurance or impose your health care costs on others is economic activity subject to that authority.”  

Like auto insurance, which is mandated for the protection of all who are on the road, health insurance is now (or will be) mandated for all who call America home. For the protection of all. 

It’s like a tax. It’s something we’ll just all have to get used to. 

As for the 14 legal challenges? Those lawsuits appear more as a protest, than the seeking of justice.

Tags: Health Care Reform, HRC

This was posted on Thursday, March 25th, 2010 at 10:09 am and is filed under Emerging Issues, Insurance, lawsuits . Feel free to respond, or trackback. Read our comments policy.