Health Insurance law survives challenge

BLUF: US District court judge rules the individual mandate is a constitutional method of the government to control costs.

I will check out the actual decision as soon as i have a chance but according to the story it seems the judge found that absent the mandate some people would wait until they were sick and then get insurance (duh).

If that is an accurate then I have a philosophical problem with it. In short it penalizes one group (those who dont buy insurance) in order to deter another group. It presumes that all people who dont buy insurance will engage in the conduct they want to dissuade.

Also it was never really in doubt why the government made the individual mandate, but rather can the government regulate non-activity. The story kind of glosses over the logic supporting the decision, whch is another reason I can’t wait to read the full decision.

Story is here.

Advertisements

Class action lawsuit, with a twist

And maybe a backflip too.

As many of you (okay the three of you who have found this blog) may be aware the United States recently passed a rather long series of laws, regulations, restrictions, and other named things relating to the health insurance industry.

Very little in that law actually had to do with health care, it was really about the health insurance, so I refuse to call it a health care law just as I would refuse to call a law about speeding a tire life longevity¬†law, just because it might affect tire life¬†doesn’t mean that is what it is about. Continue reading