Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Judge in Thomas More Law Center's suit rules Congress can require health insurance

Reprints

DETROIT—Congress can require individuals to buy health insurance starting in 2014 as one of the provisions of health care reform legislation enacted in March, a judge ruled Thursday in dismissing part of the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Thomas More Law Center's federal lawsuit.

The nonprofit Christian legal advocacy group filed a lawsuit on behalf of four uninsured Michigan residents who objected to the individual mandate provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as an unconstitutional tax.

But U.S. District Court Judge George Steeh in Detroit dismissed two of the center's six legal claims Thursday involving the individual mandates, finding in part they are a reasonable use of Congress' power under the commerce clause.

“(The uninsured plaintiffs) have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings, who do not oppose medical services on religious grounds, they cannot opt out of this market. (Instead they) have made a choice regarding the method of payment for the services they expect to receive...,” Judge Steeh's ruling states.

“How participants in the health care services market pay for such services has a documented impact on interstate commerce. Obviously, this market reality forms the rational basis for Congressional action designed to reduce the number of uninsureds.”

The health care reform bill requires individuals to obtain health care insurance coverage or pay a penalty, beginning in 2014.

It also prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing medical conditions, setting eligibility rules based on medical factors or claims experience, or rescinding coverage other than for fraud or misrepresentation.

The Detroit lawsuit is one of several challenging the constitutionality of the requirement to buy a policy in the recent act.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox joined a slate of mostly-Republican attorneys general of other states in a federal lawsuit in Pensacola, Fla. challenging the same provision of the act earlier this year.

This story was reported originally by Crain's Detroit Business, a sister publication of Business Insurance.