Clean Sweep Live Auction on Wed. May 1st. Click to view the full inventory

DOTmed Home MRI Oncology Ultrasound Molecular Imaging X-Ray Cardiology Health IT Business Affairs
News Home Parts & Service Operating Room CT Women's Health Proton Therapy Endoscopy HTMs Pediatrics
Endroit courant :
> This Story

Ouverture ou Registre to rate this News Story
Forward Printable StoryPrint Send us your Comments




More Industry Headlines

Rural hospitals require better 'end of support' equipment solutions Sometimes replacing equipment is simply not an option

Philips Medical Systems sues ex-employee over alleged secrets theft Suit claims X-ray tube trade secrets were stolen before erasing hard drive

New 'roadmap' paves the way for AI innovations in radiology Aims to advance foundational AI research for imaging

Peeling back the Medicare Advantage onion Understanding the high growth rate of MA plan coverage

FDA finds duodenoscope contamination risk still too high Up to 5.4 percent of properly collected samples has 'high concern' organisms

Israeli researchers develop first 3D heart from patient's biological materials A first — complete with blood vessels, ventricles and cells

Air medical transportation: How a 15-minute ride may cost $30,000, and how we can change it Reducing sky-high transport expenses

Using comic illustrations to support patient understanding of cardiac catheterization Making patients more satisfied, less anxious and more informed

X-ray sheds new light on ancient mummy The Everhart Museum in PA tapped Geisinger Radiology for help

Breaking barriers in Alzheimer’s disease with focused ultrasound Researchers at Sunnybrook in Toronto are closing the therapeutic gap

Mich. le juge confirme « le mandat individuel »

par Astrid Fiano , DOTmed News Writer
On Thursday, federal Judge George Caram Steeh ruled partly in favor of the Obama administration in the Thomas More Law Center's suit challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Center had asked for a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the ACA's provision regarding the individual mandate, which would require citizens to purchase health insurance or face a penalty. Judge Steeh denied that request in his decision.

In addition to denying the injunction, Steeh also dismissed two of the plaintiffs' claims, that the minimum coverage provision of the ACA is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, and the plaintiffs' challenge to the tax penalty provision of the individual mandate.

Story Continues Below Advertisement

RaySafe helps you avoid unnecessary radiation

RaySafe solutions are designed to minimize the need for user interaction, bringing unprecedented simplicity & usability to the X-ray room. We're committed to establishing a radiation safety culture wherever technicians & medical staff encounter radiation.

Although the plaintiffs had argued the penalty went beyond the constitutional limits on taxes, Steeh said that those limits relate to taxation generally for the purposes of raising revenue. The ACA's provision did not fit that description. He explained that the minimum coverage provision has the goal of increasing the number of the insured and decreasing the cost of health insurance by requiring individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage. The judge ruled that the penalty imposed if an individual fails to do so is "incidental" to the purposes of the ACA, and therefore, the plaintiffs' claim that the penalty was an unconstitutional, improperly apportioned direct tax was without merit.

Steeh also stated that the mandate provision was appropriate in the context of the Commerce Clause, as the plaintiffs' choice to forgo insurance is an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, which would collectively shift money and costs onto other market participants. "How participants in the health care services market pay for such services has a documented impact on interstate commerce," Steeh said. "Obviously, this market reality forms the rational basis for congressional action designed to reduce the number of uninsureds."

Steeh did agree that the plaintiffs "have a right to a court determination of the constitutional authority of Congress to enact the statute in the first place." The plaintiffs still have four other claims under the First, Fifth and 10th Amendments to be litigated.

The original lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Michigan in March, challenged the constitutionality of the ACA saying the law "imposes unprecedented governmental mandates that restrict the personal and economic freedoms of American citizens in violation of the Constitution." The plaintiffs in the case are the center and four citizens who said they do not have health insurance and object to being compelled to purchase insurance under the ACA.


Développez la notoriété de votre marque
Enchères + Ventes Privées
Obtenir le meilleur prix
Acheter des équipement / pièces
Trouver le meilleur prix
Infos du jour
Lire Les dernières nouvelles
Consulter tous les utilisateurs DOTmed
Éthique concernant DOTmed
Voir notre programme d'éthique
L'or partie le programme de fournisseur
Recevoir des demandes PH
Programme de marchand de service d'or
Recevoir des demandes
Fournisseurs de soins de santé
Voir tous les outils des HCP (abréviation pour les professionnels de la santé)
Les travaux/Formation
Trouver / combler un poste
Parts Hunter +EasyPay
Obtenir des devis de pièces
Certification Récentes
Voir les utilisateurs récemment certifiés
Evaluation Récentes
Voir les utilisateurs récemment certifiés
Central de location
Louer de l’équipement à moindre prix
Vendre des équipements / pièces
Obtenir le maximum d'argent
Service le forum de techniciens
Trouver de l'aide et des conseils
Simple demande de propositions
Obtenir des devis pour des appareils
Expo Virtuelle
Trouver des services d'appareils
L'Access et l'utilisation de cet emplacement est sujet aux modalités et aux conditions du notre de nos MENTIONS LEGALES & DONNEES PERSONELLES
Propriété de et classe des propriétaires DOTmedà .com, inc. Copyright ©2001-2019 DOTmed.com, Inc.