You are on page 1of 4

Sagar Patel

United States Constitutional Law I


Professor Wollenburg
April 2nd, 2012

FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES DEP. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

The case of State of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
serves as one of the most significant cases in current time. The state of Florida adjoined by 26
other states and interest groups, argue the implementation of Obamacare. Comprised of The
Patient Protection and Affordable Act, Obamacare dictates health insurances as a national
requirement. While excluding a selective few, The Patient xfhE7
Y_[^KmRkK/wb4`=Er[)j>O0E}@;*Zv.$
tzJ< .qK2*3}zd[0tMNQ[}:"B~eU^$
5`i>rET.<kY!PI0q
$[*rR7'>.+F"?X2]

Protection and Affordable Act makes the purchase of health

insurance from private insurance companies compulsory. The statue is designed for uninsured
persons, approximately 50 million, who are receiving medical care but have limited finances. The
cost of healthcare is shifted to the rest of the public that has financial stability in order to
accommodate unprivileuHqe+.?d kZ #^Munz++9HEA1(-

S!ZP1Wyt"^xK ,v-t>h}XfGrj

nXf|{h}

"05YYB--~0"qU|
b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b
6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b
6*b6*b6*b6*b6* t12 y7nd#M
vXAi=aPn<gD%
23A:G/'-gvX'&E"~_ ZyAw*
6iF>=MrPA=
UzO%[Aggo7$e
l)%~|=Hu&yT0^j
"Sw

"5z~_ok~_5MNA

FK~EF=G+
X
b"frV,,Uu{xG;u&W
F*}oGc6j
%e]dnY2o~`tWXJ}V^_Y^|<~/SXiR}NVz|m8Vr~}SW.Y"q9}R
[w>}cas[\I",$~szkm/u++,]-P
h-xr yN_+ $Cy 47G=-}iGaeXSx<i>
wqX4WX-4I8~=:a|-
+d5D<Hmki$c7;Y..pTzO|>"&j
3Gq-\%{yo>T}+%#[hXOoMr
Mand7 1\yp]Ss>

.^B@:miRy> xfhE7
Y_[^KmRkK/wb4`=Er[)j>O0E}@;*Zv.$
tzJ<.qK2*3}zd[0tMNQ[}:"B~eU^$
5`i>rET.<kY!PI0q
$[*rR7'>.+F"?X2]

XGv"?Icw{?!\[^"ZTCjRiG"q3M#qfx|

RpXbXiV4z,aGqn"
W|Umv1bVe#J8'iO
'@qa^~YpOzzq-KhSHa?i>4:I
*Ma
2rN?-HT=R
[[{UBH?_4Y
ged sector. Further, the statute is targeted at the large number of uninsured Americans who
choose not to buy into healthcare. This creates a balance system by assisting the unfortunate by
mandating healthcare federally. Since majority of AmericansQw, 8{9x??
?P q4^ <F-9=8"5iN?T$ c(5psGc'%-D~#
SK}Tz9L qcmpy"lkQc8|
yu9KL.9.8 FE)wQVSlRib3r=
%_Li473<"}V y""S?.I\@$
Gx9plJwf{q{LkZFgy|8!
K#qGW`1qbsJW}Fo|i!$/@%!d;O?
will be required to purchase healthcare, there will be more funds to disburse. However, the
unconstitutionality factor comes into play as Americans are forced into buying healthcare
insurance, unwillingly. Under the individual mandate proviNmmOI

![*""
sion, each American who fails to comply with the statue will be penalized by the federal
government. Each individual who does not buy into a healthcare policy would be legally accessed
a fee in their tax returns, regulated by the Internal Revenue Service. This statue is quite different
from other statutes because is not only "forcing" the public to buy into a program but r
kZ#^Munz++9HEA1(-S!ZP1Wyt"^xK
,v-t>h}Xf-Grj

nXf|{h}

"05YYB--~0"qU|
b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b
6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b6*b
6*b6*b6*b6*b6* t12 y7nd
ather accessing a fee on anyone who fails to comply. The commerce clause allows Congress to
control healthcare and insurance. The argument is the uninsured sector is financially the insured
sector since they are not able to pay it. This is where "cost szkm/u++,]-P
h-xr yN_+ $Cy 47G=-}iGaeXSx<i>
wqX4WX-4I8~=:a|-
+d5D<Hmki$c7;Y..pTzshifting" occurs as the
insured sector is funding a group of uninsured, while others who are financially stable and
uninsured are avoiding such costs.

You might also like