Information Center Health

Sometime after January 3rd when Scott Walker became governor, Wisconsin to challenge the constitutionality of federal legislation to reform the health system.

Wisconsin Attorney General JB Van Hollen has not decided whether the state will join the complaint filed in Florida by 20 other states, the National Federation of Independent Business and two uninsured, or file its own trial .

"This work is in progress," Van Hollen said. "I was questioned not only my staff but also staff the office and the AG of Florida and Virginia AG's office."

Joining the lawsuit filed by the Prosecutor of Virginia would be more difficult, because in any case, contains the legal issues relating to state law.

Van Hollen expect to make a decision next month or so.

The key question is whether the legal challenges the federal government can require people to buy health insurance for them or not. This requirement is considered essential for health insurers to cover people with preexisting health problems.

Wisconsin to participate in legal challenges to the law makes a promise for Walker campaign, while the state participates in the event history will almost certainly be resolved by the Supreme Court.

"It's the biggest dispute of constitutional law in the country, and undoubtedly the most ambitious has the effect," said Andrew Coan, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

More than 20 different challenges to the law, including claims made by conservative groups and individuals were filed in federal courts across the country. And most legal experts agree that both parties raise valid questions.

"This case could be decided either way without dropping any of the Supreme Court case law existing," said Coan.

So far, federal judges dismissed two trials - one filed in Virginia by Liberty University, founded by Jerry Farwell, and other documents filed in Michigan, as Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm which focuses on the defense of religious freedom of Christians, family values ​​and other issues.

But federal judges in Florida and Virginia have refused requests from the federal government to reject the indictment states.

Van Hollen, a Republican, wanted to challenge the law on health care immediately after being adopted, but needed the approval of Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle - and the governor in signing the letter said it would not happen.

"The State of Wisconsin will not in court for denying health care for tens of thousands," Doyle wrote in March.

The state also found that the law would save $ 745 million in Wisconsin $ 980 million from January 2014 to June 2019, the federal government takes a larger share of the cost of Medicare residents with limited incomes .

But Van Hollen said Wisconsin should sue to protect the balance of power between the federal government and states.

"This is a matter to be resolved one way or another," he said.

If people do not need to buy health insurance, they can wait until you are sick to buy it. Health insurers on a regular basis can not be compared to buying home insurance when your house is on fire.

Grants

The law subsidizes health for individuals and families of low or moderate incomes to buy insurance if they do not get health economic benefits from an employer. The law specifically states that people who do not buy insurance - by choice or necessity - hospitals and doctors in the saddle with large outstanding bills that increase costs for people with insurance.

This is one reason why the so-called requirements of individual responsibility.

But the uninsured population includes disproportionately on people in their 20s and 30s. Many of them could afford to buy insurance. Economists call "free riders". They also tend to be healthy - and their bonuses are necessary to offset the cost of health insurance for people who are sick.

People with health problems who do not receive health benefits from an employer are effectively excluded from the insurance market in many states, because health insurers do not cover. The change is one of the main provisions of the new law.

May require that people have health insurance, Massachusetts is not so now. And the right of the federal government to regulate the insurance industry is clear. The question is whether that law also gives the right to require people to buy health insurance.

Opponents say the federal government has never approved a law requiring citizens to buy a private product or service or pay a fine.

Congress passed a law requiring that people care to buy health insurance, opponents argue, is no different from requiring people to buy vitamins or join a gym.

Ilya Shapiro, a senior research fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, a liberal think tank in Washington, DC, said no limits in principle on the federal government could exist if the law health care is left to stand.

Economic activity

The legal arguments of the hinge, at least to some extent if you decide not to purchase health insurance is an economic activity.

Here's why:

Since the 1940s, the Supreme Court has broad powers to regulate interstate commerce under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

These powers, however, is limited to economic activities.

Necessary, according to the Constitution and the right section, it also gives Congress the authority to adjust the settings to regulate interstate commerce.

Justice Department says that the decision not to purchase health insurance is a financial decision affects the entire health system. It also argues that everyone, even if people are healthy, is a part of the healthcare market.

However, Shapiro and other opponents argue that the reasoning would lead to a government of unlimited powers.

"It is an economic decision, one way or another," he said.

Opponents argue that requiring people to buy health insurance regulates economic inactivity.

To Coan, a law professor at the University of Washington, this is not the key issue in this case.

"If Congress should regulate the idle to its effective regulation of trade, necessary and proper clause gives power," said Coan. "This is how I would like to discuss it."

Federal judges in cases brought by the Thomas More Law Center and Liberty University agreed.

But Shapiro noted that there are "many, many questions still."

Lawsuits raise other issues - such as in complex tax matters - but most legal experts have said the most important issues related to the mandate to purchase health insurance.

No one expects that the issue must be resolved until 2012 at the earliest.

To decide what to do

Van Hollen must now decide how to proceed.

Joining with other states would cause Florida to Wisconsin less control over the direction of the case.

The case of Florida may be too far from Wisconsin to intervene.

The State may also introduce a friend of the court. This would give more flexibility in their arguments. You can also make your own judgments.

"We can not decide on a more detailed analysis, we take a slightly different road legal, or talk with them," Van Hollen said. "It 'to take account of the different and, once again we have a little' time to discover what are the priority."

The cost of challenging the law due to the fact that a case of managing his staff and how the proceeds of the state.

Van Hollen acknowledged people have asked what is the difference between the results in Wisconsin could be issued with a number of lawsuits already filed. But he said that a number of parts to give greater legal position of authority.

"I think it makes a difference," he said.