Federal Judge in Florida Rules Entire Health Care Law Unconstitutional

Yesterday, a Reagan-appointee to the federal bench in Florida, Judge Roger Vinson, ruled that the entire health care reform law passed last year is unconstitutional. The right, which has had to make do with symbolic votes to repeal it in the House, immediately broke out in cheers, and the White House started the paperwork on an appeal. Ultimately, this case is going to the Supreme Court, and so, yesterday's decision is merely a single skirmish in a long war.

In his ruling, Judge Vinson echoed the reasoning in a similar case brought in Virginia, wherein the court ruled that Congress had overstepped its authority in requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance. In the Virginia case, the court merely struck down the mandate itself and left the rest of the law intact. Judge Vinson decided that the mandate cannot be separated from the rest of the law, and therefore, the entire thing was unconstitutional.

This journal is not particularly fond of the mandate. As a general proposition, one should not be forced to purchase a product or service. However, health care is a public, not a private, good because the health of Party A often hinges on the health of Party B. In this regard, health care is similar to national defense; for the nation to benefit fully from it, all must purchase it. The problem of free riders, those who consume a good without paying for it, is one of the main contributing factors to the current lousy state of hospital finances in America. As for precedent, Medicare has yet to be held unconstitutional, and it's been the law of the land since 1965.

Where Judge Vinson erred egregiously is in holding the mandate effects everything else in the bill. It is difficult to see how permitting those under 26 to say on their parents' policies is unconstitutional because the mandate is not germane to this provision. Recission, whereby an insurer can drop an insured simply for filing a claim, is banned by the law; how the mandate relates to this nefarious practice (one which is rare in other forms of insurance) is difficult to tell.

Three other courts have already ruled on the constitutionality of the act. Two have upheld it, and the Virginia case mentioned merely threw out the mandate. All of these decisions are being appealed, and it is just a matter of time before it comes to the Supreme Court. As a matter of law, one can see the mandate being thrown out by the Roberts Court, probably on a 5-4 decision. One doubts whether the entire act will suffer that fate.

That said, this is a court not dissimilar in ideological composition and behavior to the one that ruled the Florida and federal election laws as well as the constitution did not apply in Bush v. Gore. In order to get a certain political result, the rules were suspended in that case. It could well happen again.

© Copyright 2011 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.

Kensington Review Home