Courant.com Blogs -- Sports - News - Entertainment - Lifestyle - Opinion

Florida Ruling On Federal Healthcare Reform Was Judicial Overreach, Governor Malloy Says

| | Comments (5)


A federal judge's ruling in Florida that federal health reform is unconstitutional isn't likely to change day to day operations for insurers, hospitals and many states.

"It's still the law of the land," William Hoagland, vice president of public policy at CIGNA Corp. told the Associated Press. "We'll continue to proceed with its requirements, and (the ruling) will not slow that down. We have no other choice until this thing is resolved one way or the other." 

Here's the full AP story.

Governor Dannel P. Malloy responded to the court decision, saying he believes this is a "clear case of judicial overreach" by U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson in Florida.

"We need to figure out ways to make healthcare more affordable and accessible to people, but the way to do that is not by scrapping the entire law and starting all over again," Malloy said. "As I've said before, the rising cost of healthcare is a major detriment to job creation here in Connecticut, and I commit to resolving open SustiNet issues with all parties at the table on behalf of Connecticut residents and businesses."

SustiNet is state-sponsored, quasi-governmental health insurance approved by the legislature in 2009 and intended to be up and running by 2012. It is intended to cover state employees, but will also be available to municipalities, employers and individuals. For more on SustiNet, see the final report here, (page 20 has a timeline and pages 4, 5 have an explanation): 

5 Comments

Kinda ironic that Malloy thinks this ruling is an over-reach. How about Obama's whole healthcare plan? That's not an over-reach? That's all the current administration and federal government know how to do...OVER-REACH. TSA screenings, cash-for-clunkers, bailouts and on and on...

Maryland state requires all automobile owners to have auto insurance. Why can't the federal government require health insurance?

Emem writes: "Maryland state requires all automobile owners to have auto insurance. Why can't the federal government require health insurance?"

You're comparing apples to oranges. Registering a vehicle for road use is not in any way a constitutional right, nor any other kind of legal right. It is a "privilege" granted by a state. If an individual chooses to afford himself of that privilege and drive a car on state roads and highways, then - and only then - can a state compel that individual to carry liability insurance (not to mention, require the individual to be licensed). In such case, it is the individual himself who chooses to act in such a way (registering a vehicle) so as to allow the state to force him to carry auto liability insurance. If the individual doesn't want to be compelled to carry auto insurance, then he can simply chose not to drive, essentially "opting out" of the requirement.

Contrast that with Obamacare, where an individual who chooses to do NOTHING except mind his own business and peacefully go on with his life, is nonetheless compelled by the federal government to purchase health insurance or risk facing stiff IRS penalties and harassment. There is no way for an individual to "opt out" of Obamacare. And that, in a nutshell, is why the legislation is fatally flawed in a constitutional sense.

"It's still the law of the land," William Hoagland, vice president of public policy at CIGNA Corp. told the Associated Press. "We'll continue to proceed with its requirements, and (the ruling) will not slow that down. We have no other choice until this thing is resolved one way or the other."

NO, it's not the law of the land. Obamacare was struck down in its entirety by a federal judge who ruled it unconstitutional. Until and unless the federal govt. moves for - and is granted - a stay of execution of the judge's decision pending an appeal, then the legislation is null and void.

As far as I know, several states have already stopped implementing Obamacare in light of the judge's decision, and there are sure to be more to follow.

I think Mr. Hoagland ought to consult with his legal department on this one.

I think that Cigna is too big for the britches. They are denying peoples' claims even if it means that someone could die without a procedure. Who are they to decide who lives and who dies. I learned recently from my doctors office that Cigna approved a patient for the same procedure that I am being denyed for. The reason they gave me was that the procedure was considered not fda approved and considered experimental if that is the case why was the other person approved and I was not. What is wrong? Is the ceo afraid he will not get his cool 12 million dollars if he approves me. I am not done.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Matthew Sturdevant is the insurance reporter at The Hartford Courant. He grew up in East Aurora, N.Y., a small village near Buffalo. He started his journalism career in 1999 ... read more

About   |   Email  |  Business News
Archives

-- ADVERTISEMENT --

Business Midday Get daily business news sent directly to your inbox weekdays at 1 p.m.



SEE A SAMPLE   |   SIGN IN
After signing in, click on your username at the top left of this screen and then on "My Newsletter Subscriptions."

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL
Enter your email address: