Florida Stopping Implementation of PPACA (Health Reform)

This is a follow-up to the previous post, District Court Judge Roger Vinson Just Said No, Too!  As a result of the recent federal court ruling, by U.S District Judge Roger Vinson, which declared PPACA or at least the Individual Mandate to be unconstitutional, Florida has stopped the implementation of the law.  Florida Governor Rick Scott said, "We're not going to spend a lot of time and money with regard to trying to get ready to implement that until we know exactly what is going to happen and I hope and believe that either it will be declared unconstitutional or it will be repealed.  Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty stated, "PPACA, a major component of the federal Affordable Care Act package, is not now in effect in Florida."  In addition McCarty said that he told the director of HHS (Health and Human Services) Office of the Consumer Information and Oversight, that Florida would not be spending any of the funds it had been allocated to implement the insurance exchange program. 

Since there were 25 other states that also were part of the lawsuit, I wonder how many of them will make decisions, at the state level, to stop implementation until a final determination has been made?  Final determinations could take as long as two years. 

District Court Judge Roger Vinson Just Said No, Too!

On January 31, 2011 District Court Judge Roger Vinson declared the "Individual Mandate" of the PPACA (Health Reform) unconstitutional.  Vinson stated, "because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be void."  So the count is 2-2.  Judges in Michigan and Virginia, both democrat appointees, have ruled the Health Reform constitutional and Judges in Virginia and now Florida, both republican appointees,  have ruled, at least the individual mandate, as unconstitutional.  The Department of Justice is going to appeal the decision which was filed in March of 2010 by Florida but then 25 other states joined the suit.  The case will ultimately be heard in the Supreme Court which could take up to two years. 

As it stands now, in 2014, if someone doesn't purchase health insurance they will pay a fine of $95 per year or 1% of income whichever is greater and by 2017 amount goes to $695 or 2.5% of income to a maximum of 3X the individual penalty.  In addition, if you earn up to $14,000 you get coverage for free, up to $44,000 and it's subsidized.  Big freaking deal!  Since it's guaranteed issue, I'll take my chances and get coverage when I'm sick. 

Non-payers will receive a notice from the IRS.  If they don’t pay, the IRS will take it from their tax refund in the future.  If they continue to not pay the fine, they will not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalties.  The secretary cannot file a notice of lien or file a levy on any property.  As stated in a previous post, this penalty has no teeth! 

So my question is what do the democrats do if the individual mandate is ultimately and finally deemed to be unconstitutional?  Do they allow each state to individually allow the reform?  If so, I'm thinking every sick person and their mother will flock to that state for guaranteed issue health care coverage with crushing claims that will make the coverage unaffordable for everyone else.  Or do they come back with a plan that doesn't create a penalty for not having coverage, but just increase taxes and give it to everyone?

Interestingly, some republicans and democrats are trying to come up with ideas that wouldn't require people to carry coverage but would encourage.  For example, people would be given a deadline to enroll and if that deadline is missed, they would have to satisfy long waiting periods.  Or people who apply late and are eligible for tax credits could be penalized by reducing their subsidies.  (sounds like a penalty to me)

Wouldn't it be great if healthy people paid less for coverage, sick people paid a bit more and for those who are truly unable to afford it, given help?  Instead of throwing all this money at bigger government to wrangle this thing, use it to help those who need it the most. 

Virginia, Judge Hudson, Just Said No!!.....To The Individual Mandate

In Virginia, U.S District Court Judge Henry Hudson stated in a 42 page opinion that "Neither the Supreme Court nor any 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". 

In other words, Judge Hudson, a 2002 republican appointee from former President George W. Bush, was the first federal Judge to "Just Say No" to the Individual Mandate.  However, two other Judges from Virginia and Michigan have upheld the law.  Both of these Judges are Democrat appointees. 

According to incoming Speaker of the House, John Boehner, "Cash-strapped states should carefully weigh the benefits of investing time and resources in Obamacare's implementation now that its central mandate (Individual Mandate) has been ruled unconstitutional.

So what does this mean?  Well since Judge Hudson only ruled against the Individual Mandate it means that the Federal Government can go ahead with setting up the rest of the legislation. And it seems that the White House isn't going to be eager to have this pushed to the Supreme Court where Republicans hold a 5-4 majority.  It could take as long as two years for it to finally arrive.

Also, this could mean that if the Individual Mandate is taken off the table, we are pretty much where we are now, except, all coverage will be guaranteed issue, which is "no questions asked health insurance".  Therefore, most of the people who get coverage will be the ones who need it.  And, as the health reform law is set-up, they will be able to get it any time they want, so why pay for it now when they don't need it?  Moreover, if only the people who need coverage are getting it, there will be huge adverse selection issues.  In turn, premiums will skyrocket and we could be in much, much worse shape than we are now. 

In addition, there is also a lawsuit that has been filed in Florida that has 20 states backing it and being heard by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson.  The lawsuit states that the $2.5 Trillion  Health Care reform pushed through by the Obama Administration violates state government rights and would force huge spending requirements on already cash-strapped state governments.  The case is set to be heard on Thursday, December 16, 2010.