Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Florida; NFIB v. Sebelius; and Florida v. HHS, November 14, 2011
On Monday, November 14, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court had decided to determine the constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), proposed by President Barack Obama. The announcement was made via a brief order issued on Monday.
Oral arguments are likely to be scheduled for late February or March, with a ruling possibly as early as June. The court has blocked out five and a half hours for the oral argument.
Specifically, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear issues on two questions: whether the law’s key provision is unconstitutional, and if so, whether the entire law, with its 450 sections, must be scrapped.
The largest and broadest challenge to the act came from a joint filing from 26 states, with Florida leading the charge. It was these appeals that the Supreme Court accepted. At issue in those cases is whether the “individual mandate” section is a proper exercise of federal authority. The “individual mandate” requires nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties. The states argue that if this provision is unconstitutional, the entire law must be deemed unconstitutional.
Joining Florida in the challenge are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Virginia and Oklahoma have filed separate challenges.
The states argue that individuals cannot be forced to buy insurance, something the individual may not need or want. However, the Justice Department countered by citing 2008 figures which showed the uncompensated costs from millions of uninsured individuals who received health services was $43 billion, a cost which was then shifted to insurance companies and passed on to consumers.
So far, three federal appeals courts have found the PPACA to be constitutional, while another has said it is not, labeling it “breathtaking in its expansive scope.”
Supporters of the act claim that the law will extend insurance coverage to about 30 million Americans, and currently under some of the effective provisions, it has allowed one million more young Americans to afford health insurance, and woman to obtain mammograms and preventive services without paying anything extra out of pocket.
Opponents on the other claim that PPACA would overly burden states and small businesses, raise costs, and reduce individual choice.
One of the key players in opposing this act is the National Federation of Business.
For a copy of the announcement click here