A provision of the new health reform law requiring individuals to buy health insurance does not violate the Constitution, a federal judge in Michigan ruled Thursday.
The conservative Thomas More Law Center and four individuals had sued the White House over the mandate, arguing that it violates the commerce clause of the Constitution.
But Detroit-based U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh on Thursday disagreed, finding that the mandate does not constitute "an improperly apportioned direct tax."
"The minimum coverage provision of the Health Care Reform Act contains two provisions aimed at the same goal," Steeh wrote. "Congress intended to increase the number of insureds and decrease the cost of health insurance by requiring individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage or face a penalty for failing to do so.
Answer by Anonymous at 10:06 PM on Oct. 7, 2010
I'll admit I'm not educated enough about the Constitution to say either way but, honestly I don't like the mandate.
Answer by Friday at 10:24 PM on Oct. 7, 2010
Here's the way I look at it (and yes, I know it's a "me" oriented answer, but it's my opinion, none the less). The patriot act caused me some headache in extra paperwork but did not cost me extra cash. BUT, the new mandate has already caused our insurance rates to go up and benefits where hubby works to go down for the majority while increasing things for a minority ("milking" room).
Answer by scout_mom at 10:30 PM on Oct. 7, 2010
Answer by urkiddingright at 11:35 PM on Oct. 7, 2010
Answer by art.diva at 12:09 AM on Oct. 8, 2010
Answer by agentwanda at 12:55 AM on Oct. 8, 2010
Answer by lovinangels at 1:11 AM on Oct. 8, 2010
It's far from over, there are appeals and other lawsuits, and then it will all end up at the Supreme Court.
Answer by Natesmom507 at 4:11 AM on Oct. 8, 2010
Answer by Carpy at 5:11 AM on Oct. 8, 2010
Posts with Most Replies