by laura padgett

Well, if you look around the country, there are about fifteen legal changes heading for the courts, arguing the healthcare reform brought in by the Democrats under President Obama is unconstitutional. One of the most common reasons claimed is that no US law can force people to buy insurance. Pausing there for a moment, you will immediately be thinking of auto insurance which, in all but three states, is mandatory. But there is a difference. You have an element of free choice. If you decide to buy a vehicle, then it is mandatory to carry liability coverage. Applying that to health, you cannot choose whether to fall ill so have no choice but to buy insurance or else suffer the consequences.

Except, as the millions of those who currently have no insurance will tell you, if you go to an emergency room, you can get treatment. Should you be unable to pay, the hospital and the state pick up the bill. The hospital passes on this loss to those who are insured. The state pays its share out of the taxes it collects. So the system we have now forces the current insurance companies and taxpayers to pay for treating the uninsured. That is why the healthcare reform is fair because it forces more of those who currently freeload to buy insurance. Except, before we can get to forcing people to buy insurance, we have to have a court tell us this is constitutional. Well, a federal judge in Michigan has done just that. The ,000 question has been whether the Commerce Clause entitles Congress to mandate citizens to buy a commercial product.

As set up, the majority of adults will be required to buy insurance from 2014. Removing one of the barriers put in place by the insurance industry, no company will be allowed to deny you coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition. The test a judge has to apply is whether your decision not to buy insurance has a real effect on interstate commerce. You may say everyone has the right to decide to pay for their own medical treatment out of their own pockets. But experience shows most of those who cannot afford the current policies, cannot afford to pay for their treatment. So, looking at this across, the country, the decision not to buy puts up the premium rates for everyone that does buy. It also diverts tax revenue from other essential public purposes. The judge therefore had no hesitation in saying the changes requiring adults to buy individual health insurance were constitutional. There is no doubt this issue will go all the way to the Supreme Court. Both sides have too much to lose and will appeal until there is a final decision. No matter what you currently think of this issue, there are four years left for this to be resolved. In theory, this law will either be neutral, i.e. health insurance premiums will stay the same, or because the number of people insured will rise, the premium rates could actually fall. No matter what the theory says, we still wait for the final Supreme Court ruling. Should be here within two years.

Find More The Constitution Articles