Bill McCollum AP – Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum announces at a news conference that he has filed a lawsuit against …

By John Dorschner, The Miami Herald John Dorschner, The Miami Herald – Wed Mar 24, 3:36 pm ET

The lawsuit against the health care overhaul filed Tuesday by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is focused on a provision that has long been advocated by conservatives, big business and the insurance industry.

The lawsuit by McCollum, a candidate for governor, and 12 other attorneys general, focuses on the provision that virtually all Americans will need to have health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

The lawsuit calls this an "unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals." It states the Constitution doesn't authorize such a mandate, the proposed tax penalty is unlawful and is an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states."

"The truth is this is a Republican idea," said Linda Quick , president of the South Florida Hospital and Health care Association. She said she first heard the concept of the "individual mandate" in a Miami speech in the early 1990s by Sen. John McCain , a conservative Republican from Arizona , to counter the "Hillarycare" the Clintons were proposing.

McCain did not embrace the concept during his 2008 election campaign, but other leading Republicans did, including Tommy Thompson , secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush .

Seeking to deradicalize the idea during a symposium in Orlando in September 2008 , Thompson said, "Just like people are required to have car insurance, they could be required to have health insurance."

Among the other Republicans who had embraced the idea was Mitt Romney , who as governor of Massachusetts crafted a huge reform by requiring almost all citizens to have coverage.

"Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate," Romney wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2006. "But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian."

Romney was referring to the federal law that requires everyone to be treated in emergency rooms, regardless of their ability to pay.

During his presidential election campaign, Barack Obama was opposed to an individual mandate, preferring instead strong requirements that employers be required to provide coverage. "I'm not sure how ready the country is politically to accept the overall mandate," Irwin Redlener , a Columbia University physician and adviser to Obama, told The Miami Herald during the campaign.

Still, the concept was gathering a strong momentum. The Business Roundtable, an association of chief executives of America's largest companies, supported it in the summer of 2008, thinking it much better than a broad requirement to force businesses of all sizes to offer coverage — something that could increase business costs and make them less competitive.

Others joined the bandwagon, including the liberal Service Employees International Union and the Commonwealth Fund , a nonpartisan nonprofit that studies American health care problems.

In November 2008 , just days after Obama's landslide victory, America's Health Insurance Plans , a trade group, made a stunning announcement, saying it favored universal coverage and supported a law that would stop insurers from rejecting applicants because of preexisting conditions.

"Universal coverage is within reach," the group said in a historic press release.

After being adamantly opposed to reform during the Clinton years, AHIP said it had changed its mind — based on one condition: Any reform plan had to require that all individuals have insurance or pay stiff penalties.

AHIP's reasoning was simple: Many of the uninsured are healthy and under age 35. They either have jobs that don't offer insurance or they didn't pay for insurance because they were certain they wouldn't get sick.

Having this group in an insurance pool spreads risk. Without an individual mandate requiring them to get insurance, Americans could wait until they got sick and then sign up for insurance — a trend that would mean only sick people would be paying premiums while running up huge bills. In this scenario, healthy people would have no need to buy insurance — a financially disastrous situation for insurance companies.

The Obama administration saw that the mandate was the only way to get a reform package passed and it became a foundation of the legislation, along with subsidies for those who couldn't afford coverage.

On Monday, the day after it was passed, McCollum was ready with a press release: "The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty."

Interesting.

Hmm. No opinion? Just regurgitation of a story you found somewhere? Wow. I'm impressed.

I said that it was interesting. I didn't realize that the idea started in the early 90's.

Hmmm....I see that you have no opinion about the article.

If the health law is unconstituional, then so I Social Security. Run that by your parents or grandparents and see how well it's received. McCollum is clearly wrong. Completely socialized medicine, as practiced by all first world countries other than the US, has proven to be a boon to those countries and their citizens. It will save money for everyone in the long run while proving that all Americans enjoy the right to life--their own. The Republican party clearly has no problem with killing Americans already living. Their behavior is obscene.

I have many opinions about it - but I'm not the one who posted it.
Surely you have 'some' thought about what it says besides one word ... ?
'Interesting' ...
Then again ... maybe not ... ?

I agree. If the HC bill is unconstitutional then so is Medicare and Social Security.

who knows why people change their minds,,,sometimes the one presenting the idea makes ALL the difference in who agrees with it though....in any case its human to change ones mind,,I am expecting, before this is through, many more minds will continue to change(on both sides)

This is a common misrepresentation.

The difference ( and it's a BIG difference ) is that Social Security, while making you pay into it for your working lifetime, DOES NOT REQUIRE you to purchase anything to get it.

This health care bill makes purchasing insurance mandatory ( because if you don't you face fines or possible jail time ) which is a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

The thing is, those other countries that everyone looked at when they touted the greatness of socialized health care do not have a Constitution that is set up as ours is.

The " Well you have to buy car insurance " argument also falls short because, if you don't drive, you do not have to buy car insurance. My mom has never had a driver's license in her life. She's never owned a car, nor has she ever driven one. She is not required to pay for car insurance.

Winx. As I stated before...the Social Security system DOES require you to pay into it to get the benefits...but it, at NO point, requires you to PURCHASE anything.

THAT is the big difference in it's constitutionality.

Medicare, likewise, does not REQUIRE you to purchase anything.

Let all the young people opt out! Then we can sell them "insurance"
insurance. A product which will insure them against any losses
they may have due to lack of health insurance! At reduced rates!

THis bill would not REQUIRE purchasing either,,there is a choice to pay as a TAX or to purchase. as a means of regulating commerce,,,



HEALTHCARE IS COMMERCE...
health insurance and health care services are a significant part of the national economy,” citing various statistical bases for this conclusion, such as that national health spending is already 17.6 percent of the economy and projected to nearly double by 2019.


PAY TAX OR PURCHASE INSURANCE
The Senate bill, H.R. 3590, expressly requires U.S. citizens and legal residents to have “qualifying” health coverage – characterized as an “individual responsibility requirement” – beginning in 2014. Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of $750 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,250) per family. The penalty will be phased-in from 2014 to 2016. Alternatively, if it results in a higher amount, noncompliant individuals must pay .5 percent of household income for 2014, 1 percent for 2015, and 2 percent for 2015 and for later years. The obligation is capped in any event by the cost of the national average premium for a bronze level qualified plan for the relevant family size. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, if the lowest cost available plan option exceeds 8% of an individual‟s income, and if the individual‟s income is below the Commerce Department‟s poverty level. The Senate bill expressly provides that failure to pay the penalty cannot result in criminal liability.3


on a sidenote, although a specific private product or service hasnt been classified before as an individual responsibility , we do have tax 'penalties' on other things that are considered ,,irresponsible,,,such as early distribution of retirement funds. I think if such a thing, as when we choose to spend money WE have earned(which doesnt affect commerce at all) passed the constitutional test,,this 'tax' will definitely fare just as well. not saying for sure it will pass muster, because I dont know,,,but I do think it is not as OPEN AND SHUT a situation as either side keeps painting...

So what kind of health care will one get if they decide that paying the tax is cheaper? How will that be handled?

there is no specific change mentioned as to those who choose to remain uninsured....I would imagine hospitals would still take them or else the tax penalty would kind of be a DOUBLE whammy. The law still states that EMERGENCY rooms cant turn you away,, this bill didnt address a change to that(that I know of).

Sounds like a major problem to me....I hope they address it further...

possibly , but really only in emergency room situations which are mandatory,, those opting for the tax are still going to really struggle when they come up truly ill or sick or in an accident and need prolonged medical TREATMENT from a doctor

Im sure there are still going to be those who just wont get insurance,, but it certainly will be fewer than the number we have now who dont

I'm not so sure. There may be a lot of people who just
decide not to pay for insurance or tax and go to the ER
when they have trouble.

And, it might be as many or even more than are uninsured
now as long as they still get care on demand. This would
continue to strain our hospitals and care system.

And those who did this would have very little to lose.
Just sounds like a gigantic health and financial accident
waiting to happen. One of the reasons we need to just
bite the bullet and go whole hog into single payer....

Half measures will only perpetuate the problems...maybe
even exacerbate them.

those people will be in for a surprise as the emergency room wont TREAT those just 'having trouble'...the emergency room is REQUIRED to see you and determine if you are having a life threatening situation in which case they must treat you,, otherwise, they must make record of what they find wrong and SEND you to a doctor...


I would prefer to have access to care when Im ill or in pain or in bad health, and not just for those EMERGENCIES,,, I hope most people would feel the same when it comes to their health

but that is NOT what is happening now and is likely NOT
what will happen in the future.

people simply don't pay for insurance and then go to the ER
when they get sick enough and it is an incredible strain on
our system. the ER personnel have to deal with everybody and
it compromises the care for everyone. many of the uninsured
get hospitalized or treated superficially and discharged and
it all costs time and money. if they refuse or cannot pay
the tax then what? nothing. so, many will just forget about
the tax and the insurance. particularly younger healthier
people...and we are all still stuck footing the bill under
emergency situations with the ER clogged and staff overworked
and a vast amount of treatment in an inappropriate and very
expensive setting.

there has to be a better way of handling this without leaving
a gigantic black hole of a loophole. but i think that single
payer is very likely the best way to handle it.