A federal judge ruled that Gregory and Barbara Bachman have standing to contest the law's 'individual mandate.'
Federal judge rules York County couple can challenge federal health care law
Daily Record/Sunday News
A York County couple's claim that the federal health care reform law, which is to take effect in 2014, has an immediate financial effect on them gives them standing to challenge the "individual mandate" requiring them to purchase health insurance in three years, a federal judge has ruled.
In an order signed Monday, U.S. Middle District Court Judge Christopher C. Conner rejected the government's motion to dismiss the suit filed April 12 by Gregory Bachman and Barbara Goudy-Bachman of Etters.
According to the lawsuit, the Bachmans are self-employed, owning and operating Performance Marine in Newberry Township, and do not have health insurance. Since 2001, when their premiums jumped from $600 a month to more than $1,200, they have paid their own medical costs and do not have any outstanding medical bills.
They intend to buy insurance when it becomes mandatory on Jan. 1, 2014. But, according to their complaint, "the immediate reduction of long-term purchasing power" is a legal injury to them "directly resulting from the unconstitutional individual mandate and penalty."
On March 27, they began shopping for a new automobile. Their $450-a-month disposable income only allowed them to afford a five-year financing plan.
Four days earlier, President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with "the lofty goals . . . to mend the nation's broken health care system and curtail the spiraling costs of health care, to provide affordable health insurance and to reduce the number of uninsured individuals," Conner stated in his order.
The "individual mandate" of the law requires citizens to purchase health insurance or be financially penalized through their income tax returns.
The Bachmans, who declined to comment for this story, contend that mandate means their disposable income must be directed toward insurance premiums instead of a new car.
Their attorney, Paul A. Rossi, said their complaint is different from other litigants who have challenged the individual mandate in that they intend to comply with the law when it goes into effect.
"They are law-abiding citizens," Rossi said. "Other plaintiffs in other states have said they are not going to buy insurance and therefore will be subject to having a penalty imposed on them."
Rossi said those complaints have been rejected by the courts because the penalty is to be imposed in the future, forcing the court to "speculate" an "injury" - the penalty - will occur.
"The Bachmans understand they have to make financial plans now," Rossi said. "Their injury is that they have to change their economic plans today."
Conner determined the Bachmans have standing to challenge the individual mandate because their decision not to buy a new automobile "in anticipation of future budgetary needs" is a direct result of "a law with budgetary implications in 2014."
The judge noted the law is now under attack by Republicans but explained "it is not the court's role to speculate on pending legislation."
In its motion to dismiss, the government claimed any financial problems encountered by the Bachmans were not because of the health care law but because of their "own . . . personal choice."
Conner disagreed, ruling "the alleged (financial) injuries are fairly traceable to the individual mandate provision."
"The Bachmans have no crystal ball," Conner said. "They must engage in financial preparation and reduced spending based upon their present circumstances in light of the impending effective date of the individual mandate."
Conner held the Bachmans' complaint "plausibly sets forth" an unwanted financial burden that is "the direct result of the individual mandate."
Conner said he will issue a separate opinion on whether the Bachmans have a "plausible claim that the individual mandate exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution."
Rossi said the federal court in Virginia, ruling on a similar challenge, determined the plaintiffs' case has merit to go forward.
"We are cautiously optimistic," Rossi said. "The greater fear here is, as lofty as the goals are, this is an arrow that simply is not in the quiver of Congress.
"If they can force you to buy health insurance, they can force you to buy a Prius. It's an incredible expansion of congressional powers beyond the Constitution."
At a glance
The complaint: Gregory Bachman and his wife, Barbara Goudy-Bachman, of Etters, are challenging the "individual mandate" of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that will require them to purchase health care insurance as of Jan. 1, 2014. The Bachmans contend the mandate has a financial effect on them today, preventing them from buying a new car. Their lawsuit is filed against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.
The ruling: Federal Judge Christopher C. Conner ruled Monday the couple has standing to challenge the individual mandate because the financial burden affecting the Bachmans "are fairly traceable to the individual mandate provision."
Next: Conner said he will issue another opinion on the Bachmans' argument the individual mandate exceeds Congress's authority under the constitution's Commerce Clause. The Bachmans' attorney, Paul A. Rossi, said they "are cautiously optimistic" of a ruling in their favor.
No comments:
Post a Comment