Popular World Health News

Recently, a federal judge in Michigan ruled that the federal health care reform legislation, passed by Congress, there is unconstitutional. The decision was taken by the judge in the U.S. District Court George Caram Steeh in court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The case was brought by a conservative organization called the Thomas More Law Center and several individuals. (Collectively called the plaintiffs.)

The plaintiffs made the following demands:

– that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution did not give Congress the authority to approve

health care reform bill (called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

-. The penalty for those who choose not to obtain health insurance is an unconstitutional tax

-. that the law violates the rights of the state in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

-. The law also violates the free exercise clause and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution offering the same protection and due process

– The federal government has never sought to regulate inactivity (such as the option of not getting health insurance). If allowed to do so in this case, he said, would establish the authority of Congress to regulate all aspects of our lives, including our decision to take no. Action

The plaintiffs also complained that the money would have to pay a fine, if they choose not to obtain health insurance, you probably go to the federal government’s general fund and then used to pay for abortions. They called for health care reform legislation is declared unconstitutional and the government prohibits the use of it.

The federal government (called the defendant) said that the applicants are entitled to lodge a complaint before the judge. He said the plaintiffs would have to demonstrate a clear and damage insurance reform bill of health could not do anything to avoid. The government said the defendants could avoid damage to the penalty for not obtaining health insurance by purchasing insurance or obtaining employment with an employer who provides insurance for its employees.

The government said the possibility of damage to the law does not justify granting legal status to the plaintiffs, when the damage is not federal law itself, but of personal choice of the applicant such as choosing not to obtain insurance.

The judge denied plaintiff’s request for the following reasons.

– The purpose of the Health Reform Act is within the powers of the federal government to follow. The judge said the goal is to reduce the total cost of insurance by requiring participation.

“Without the provision of minimum coverage, there would be no incentive for some individuals when buying health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times,” said the judge.

“As a result, individuals would be more costly in the insurance system would be less expensive and beyond,” said Steeh. “In turn, this could exacerbate the current problems with the changes in costs and lead to even higher premiums.”

The judge also ruled that:

-. Minimum health insurance coverage requirement of the law is a reasonable means to achieve the objective of the legislation

-. The purpose of this, and this requirement for insurance are within the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution

-. Congress has the power to impose a penalty on those who choose not to obtain health insurance

The judge also rejected the applicants’ request to enforce a court order prohibiting the act of health care reform until the appeal process has been completed.

This decision is likely to be appealed. In addition, other claims against the health reform bill have been brought before the federal courts. The issue is likely to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. So we’ll await the final decision on the legislation.

You can see a copy of the judge’s decision Caram Steeh by clicking the link at the bottom of this breaking news. Then scroll through the results page and click the link at the bottom of the web version of this breaking news.

Here is the link to begin the process: http://www.calcomui.org/nwsflsh101110.html

Boyce Hinman

California Communities United Institute