U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Obamacare

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 1, 2011
All Rights Reserved.                                         

        President Barack Obama received judicial confirmation regarding the constitutionality of his March 23, 2010 landmark health care reform legislation.  Fought tooth-and-nail by Republicans in Congress, the White House received the most recent confirmation by a three-Judge panel in the U.S. 6th Court of Appeals in Cincinnati that the government can require U.S. citizens to carry minimum levels of health insurance.  Conservatives argued on behalf of The Thomas More Law Center that the bill was unconstitutional because it placed an undue financial burden on citizens, warning that the federal law was too broad and could lead to more mandates.  When Sen. Joe Lieberman nixed the Medicare-for-all option Oct. 28, 2009, it left the White House no choice for national health care other than mandating health insurance.  Obama preferred the Medicare-for-all option.

            Conservatives objected to Obamacare largely on the basis of cost but, more importantly, on the principle that health care is a privilege not a right.  In legislating national health insurance, Democrats believe, like other Western democracies, that health care is a right.  When Medicare was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, Republicans raised the same objections, especially the idea the government should foot the health care bill for the elderly and disabled.  Medicare’s critics claimed that it would trash the world’s best health care system, turning the care into the same mediocrity seen in socialized countries.  Despite its waste, fraud and mismanagement, Medicare remains one of the government’s crown jewels, the other being Social Security.  Medicare didn’t lower medical standards or herd patients into government clinics but instead provided quality, accessible medical care.

            Obama’s compromise health care legislation provided standardized health coverage for every American, built on the federal health insurance program, providing uniform health coverage, deductibles and co-payments.  Barack waned to give all Americans access to the same health plan given to federal employees.  Like Medicare, the essential feature prevented the government from excluding anyone from coverage, a unfair loophole for insurance companies in today’s market.  Under Barack’s plan, no citizen would be excluded for a so-called pre-existing condition, something routinely done by insurance companies to minimize risk and maximize profits.  Democrats’ national insurance plan was driven by soaring medical costs and incalculable costs to the government to cover the uninsured.  Upholding Obamacare paves the way for the plan’s 2014 rollout.

            Under Obamacare, employers will be able to buy coverage from large discounted purchasing pools, offering better coverage at lower costs.  Unlike Medicare where the government takes an automatic payroll deduction, national health insurance will have a more uniform price tag across regions of the country.  If the government can mandate deductions for Medicare, they can mandate the same for Obama’s national insurance plan.  Following Medicare’s pricing model, national health insurance will have recommended costs for various medical procedures based on national regions.  Like health plans sponsored by the American Association of Retired People [AARP], scheduled fees reduce insurance company exposure.  While more people are expected to use benefits, the average costs of various medical procedures will drop significantly, limiting insurance company risk exposure.

            Obamacare attempts to end the distinction between individual and group health insurance.  With group plans, there’s no proof of insurability and now exclusions or rate  hikes for pre-existing conditions.  Instead of excluding conditions to manage risk, risk is better managed by expanding the applicant pool, scheduling fees and increasing numbers of applicants.  Cincinnati’s 6th Court of Appeals found no problem with requiring citizens to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.  “Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act’s larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance,” said Judge Boyce F. Martin, a Carter-administration appointee writing for the 2-1 majority opinion.  While there was one dissenting vote, the panel concluded that Obamacare was constitutional.

              Instead of trying to defeat Obamacare on a technicality, opponents should reconsider the merits of making standardized coverage available to all American.  It’s doubtful that a full appellate court would reverse the three-judge panel commissioned with the task of determining its constitutionality.  Forcing insurance companies to end the unfair ban on pre-existing conditions enables hard-working taxpayers to have a modicum of insurance coverage.  Since the insurance works through the private health care system, there’s no risk of herding patients into socialist-like government clinics.  Providing strict guidelines about deductibles, co-payments and waiting periods gives patients better coverage and more predictability.  While more court challenges no doubt lie ahead, today’s ruling shows that there’s nothing unconstitutional about expecting folks to carry medical insurance.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.