The York Daily Record is reporting that Barbara and Gregory Bachman of Etters, York County, were able to convince District Judge Christopher Connor that the mandate, which takes effect in 2014, is having an immediate financial effect upon them as they prepare to assume the eventual purchase of health insurance.
The Bachmans are self-employed, owning and operating Performance Marine and do not have health insurance. They began paying their own medical bills in 2001 when their insurance jumped from $600 to $1,200 a month.
In order for a plaintiff to force a federal court to decide a case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she has “suffered an actual or imminent injury” that a federal court can remedy, which the couple was able to do by showing that they are in need of a car but realized they can't afford the monthly payments because of looming healthcare costs.
The Bachmans, who fully intend to purchase insurance when the mandate goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2010, contend that "the immediate reduction of long-term purchasing power" is a legal injury to them "directly resulting from the unconstitutional individual mandate and penalty."
“Judge Conner's scholarly opinion determined the individual mandate to purchase health insurance starting in 2014 imposes a current economic burden on virtually every American, in that, their long-term purchasing power is necessarily immediately reduced," said the couple's attorney, Paul A. Rossi, Esq.
"Starting in 2014, the costs associated with the individual mandate forces a reduction, in real terms, of disposable income otherwise available to Americans but for the imposition of the individual mandate. Responsible individuals cannot enter into long-term purchases today – such as the purchase of a new car – without taking into account the monthly healthcare bill which they will be required to pay, on pain of penalty, every month starting January 1, 2014. As we approach 2014, more and more economic purchases will be impaired as a direct result of the individual healthcare mandate imposed under ObamaCare.”
In its motion to dismiss, the government claimed any financial problems encountered by the Bachmans were not because of the health care law but because of their "own . . . personal choice."
The judge disagreed, ruling that "the alleged (financial) injuries are fairly traceable to the individual mandate provision."
"The Bachmans have no crystal ball," Connor said. "They must engage in financial preparation and reduced spending based upon their present circumstances in light of the impending effective date of the individual mandate."
The judge will issue a separate opinion on whether the Bachmans have a "plausible claim that the individual mandate exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution."
Rossi is cautiously optimistic about the case. "The greater fear here is, as lofty as the goals are, this is an arrow that simply is not in the quiver of Congress."
He added: "If they can force you to buy health insurance, they can force you to buy a Prius. It's an incredible expansion of congressional powers beyond the Constitution."
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
PA Couple Could be First Individuals to Challenge ObamaCare Mandate
By Susan Brinkmann, OCDS
Staff Journalist
A federal judge has ruled that a couple from Central Pennsylvania have sufficient standing to challenge the controversial individual healthcare mandate in ObamaCare, making them the first individuals in the U.S. to be able to do so.
The York Daily Record is reporting that Barbara and Gregory Bachman of Etters, York County, were able to convince District Judge Christopher Connor that the mandate, which takes effect in 2014, is having an immediate financial effect upon them as they prepare to assume the eventual purchase of health insurance.
The Bachmans are self-employed, owning and operating Performance Marine and do not have health insurance. They began paying their own medical bills in 2001 when their insurance jumped from $600 to $1,200 a month.
In order for a plaintiff to force a federal court to decide a case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she has “suffered an actual or imminent injury” that a federal court can remedy, which the couple was able to do by showing that they are in need of a car but realized they can't afford the monthly payments because of looming healthcare costs.
The Bachmans, who fully intend to purchase insurance when the mandate goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2010, contend that "the immediate reduction of long-term purchasing power" is a legal injury to them "directly resulting from the unconstitutional individual mandate and penalty."
“Judge Conner's scholarly opinion determined the individual mandate to purchase health insurance starting in 2014 imposes a current economic burden on virtually every American, in that, their long-term purchasing power is necessarily immediately reduced," said the couple's attorney, Paul A. Rossi, Esq.
"Starting in 2014, the costs associated with the individual mandate forces a reduction, in real terms, of disposable income otherwise available to Americans but for the imposition of the individual mandate. Responsible individuals cannot enter into long-term purchases today – such as the purchase of a new car – without taking into account the monthly healthcare bill which they will be required to pay, on pain of penalty, every month starting January 1, 2014. As we approach 2014, more and more economic purchases will be impaired as a direct result of the individual healthcare mandate imposed under ObamaCare.”
In its motion to dismiss, the government claimed any financial problems encountered by the Bachmans were not because of the health care law but because of their "own . . . personal choice."
The judge disagreed, ruling that "the alleged (financial) injuries are fairly traceable to the individual mandate provision."
"The Bachmans have no crystal ball," Connor said. "They must engage in financial preparation and reduced spending based upon their present circumstances in light of the impending effective date of the individual mandate."
The judge will issue a separate opinion on whether the Bachmans have a "plausible claim that the individual mandate exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution."
Rossi is cautiously optimistic about the case. "The greater fear here is, as lofty as the goals are, this is an arrow that simply is not in the quiver of Congress."
He added: "If they can force you to buy health insurance, they can force you to buy a Prius. It's an incredible expansion of congressional powers beyond the Constitution."
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
The York Daily Record is reporting that Barbara and Gregory Bachman of Etters, York County, were able to convince District Judge Christopher Connor that the mandate, which takes effect in 2014, is having an immediate financial effect upon them as they prepare to assume the eventual purchase of health insurance.
The Bachmans are self-employed, owning and operating Performance Marine and do not have health insurance. They began paying their own medical bills in 2001 when their insurance jumped from $600 to $1,200 a month.
In order for a plaintiff to force a federal court to decide a case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she has “suffered an actual or imminent injury” that a federal court can remedy, which the couple was able to do by showing that they are in need of a car but realized they can't afford the monthly payments because of looming healthcare costs.
The Bachmans, who fully intend to purchase insurance when the mandate goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2010, contend that "the immediate reduction of long-term purchasing power" is a legal injury to them "directly resulting from the unconstitutional individual mandate and penalty."
“Judge Conner's scholarly opinion determined the individual mandate to purchase health insurance starting in 2014 imposes a current economic burden on virtually every American, in that, their long-term purchasing power is necessarily immediately reduced," said the couple's attorney, Paul A. Rossi, Esq.
"Starting in 2014, the costs associated with the individual mandate forces a reduction, in real terms, of disposable income otherwise available to Americans but for the imposition of the individual mandate. Responsible individuals cannot enter into long-term purchases today – such as the purchase of a new car – without taking into account the monthly healthcare bill which they will be required to pay, on pain of penalty, every month starting January 1, 2014. As we approach 2014, more and more economic purchases will be impaired as a direct result of the individual healthcare mandate imposed under ObamaCare.”
In its motion to dismiss, the government claimed any financial problems encountered by the Bachmans were not because of the health care law but because of their "own . . . personal choice."
The judge disagreed, ruling that "the alleged (financial) injuries are fairly traceable to the individual mandate provision."
"The Bachmans have no crystal ball," Connor said. "They must engage in financial preparation and reduced spending based upon their present circumstances in light of the impending effective date of the individual mandate."
The judge will issue a separate opinion on whether the Bachmans have a "plausible claim that the individual mandate exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution."
Rossi is cautiously optimistic about the case. "The greater fear here is, as lofty as the goals are, this is an arrow that simply is not in the quiver of Congress."
He added: "If they can force you to buy health insurance, they can force you to buy a Prius. It's an incredible expansion of congressional powers beyond the Constitution."
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
