Illinois Policy Institute Comments on Florida Judge’s Ruling on ObamaCare

Earlier today in Florida, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the ObamaCare's individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable from the legislation.

by Amanda Griffin-Johnson

Earlier today in Florida, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the requirement — in the federal healthcare law known as ObamaCare — for individuals to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs in this case include a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general and governors from 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. This ruling is not about healthcare reform, but rather the proper role of the federal government. Judge Vinson concluded that “Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate.” He ruled that “[b]ecause the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.”

This is now the second court decision to throw out all or part of the federal healthcare reform law on the basis of the unconstitutionality of an individual mandate. Last fall, federal judges in Michigan and Virginia upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate. While this issue will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, the decision today in Florida is a victory for individual liberty.

The federal healthcare reform continues to be unpopular with taxpayers across the country. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that 58 percent of likely voters favored repeal of the healthcare law.

Within the context of Illinois:

• ObamaCare will have real and detrimental effects;
• Illinois already faces a huge financial burden from years of irresponsible spending, including publicly funded healthcare; and,
• The additional cost to Illinois taxpayers for Medicaid expansion from ObamaCare is estimated to total $20.6 billion from 2014 to 2023. Illinois cannot afford ObamaCare.

There are better ways to provide quality healthcare to Illinois residents than heavy-handed federal regulations and massive expansions of the state and federal budgets. Patient-centered healthcare reform would:

• Begin with individual ownership of insurance policies. The tax deduction that allows employers to own your insurance should instead be given to the individual;
• Leverage Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). HSAs empower individuals to monitor their health care costs and create incentives for individuals to use only those services that are necessary;
• Allow interstate purchasing of insurance. Policies in some states are more affordable because they include fewer bells and whistles; consumers should be empowered to decide which benefits they need and what prices they are willing to pay;
• Reduce the number of mandated benefits that insurers are required to cover. Empowering consumers to choose which benefits they need is effective only if insurers are able to fill these needs;
• Reallocate the majority of Medicaid spending into simple vouchers for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. An income-based sliding scale voucher program would eliminate much of the massive bureaucracy needed to implement today’s complex and burdensome Medicaid system. It would also produce considerable cost savings;
• Eliminate unnecessary scope-of-practice laws and allow non-physician health care professionals practice to the extent of their education and training. Retail clinics have shown that increasing the provider pool safely increases competition and access to care and empowers patients to decide from whom they receive their care; and,
• Reform tort liability laws. Defensive medicine needlessly drives up medical costs and creates an adversarial relationship between doctors and patients.