Individual Mandate Constitutional?

by Amanda Griffin-Johnson Yesterday in Michigan, U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh ruled that the individual mandate in the new health care legislation is constitutional because it does not constitute “an improperly apportioned direct tax.” While the legal battle is far from over, portions of his ruling are quite telling. The Hill reports: Steeh also notes that, without...

by Amanda Griffin-Johnson

Yesterday in Michigan, U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh ruled that the individual mandate in the new health care legislation is constitutional because it does not constitute “an improperly apportioned direct tax.” While the legal battle is far from over, portions of his ruling are quite telling. The Hill reports:

Steeh also notes that, without the individual mandate — and because the new law bans insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions — consumers would have every incentive to wait until they get sick to buy coverage.

“In turn, this would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums,” Steeh wrote. “The prospect of driving the insurance market into extinction led Congress to find that the minimum coverage provision was essential to the larger regulatory scheme of the Act.”

Regulations are creating bad incentives that only more regulations can solve? Maybe we should rethink the legislation rather than continue down a vicious circle of increasing regulation.