We will write a custom Research Paper on Healthcare Lawsuit Case specifically for you
301 certified writers online
List the title and case citation in a proper legal format.
MEAD V. HOLDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
303 U.S. 444:
Describe the facts of the legal case chosen
According to plaintiffs in the case mentioned above, the amendment of the health care and education reconciliation act is unconstitutional. This act was enacted to enable the majority of Americans to access health care at a cheaper and affordable cost. On their part, the plaintiffs argue that contributing a minimum amount of cash for a health insurance policy whose failure could result in a cash penalty is unconstitutional. According to the act, the minimum amount is to be paid by each citizen to the Health Insurance Company to cater to health programs for the citizens (Hopkins, 2012). On the other hand, failure to contribute the minimum amount could result in a penalty of one U.S. dollar. Further, the plaintiffs argue that by paying the health insurance fund, they will not cope with their personal medical care. Further, the plaintiffs argue that they are in good health and would not require to have a medical cover because it is possible for them to cater to the medical bill if a need arises. Additionally, they argue that they do not qualify for the exemption of the affordable care act (ACA) and hence they may be required to pay for health beginning the year 2014.
Consequently, none of the plaintiffs qualify for Medicaid and they have further stated that even if they were qualified for it, they would not take it. In view of this, the plaintiffs believe that the federal government does not have the power to force anyone to pay for the policy or even impose a penalty for non-compliance (Hopkins, 2012). Additionally, they argue that by the year 2020, they could have a hard time paying for the policy because this may call for an adjustment of their fiscal policy which may affect their spending. Further, the plaintiffs argue that the policy contradicts their religious beliefs because they believe that God is the provider of all their needs. Additionally, they argue that this could mean that they will have to ask God to provide an extra financial back up in order for them to cater for the medical cover.
Describe the issues of the legal case
The United States passed a law that requires every citizen to take a medical cover failure to which one could be entitled a penalty. In connection to this, the plaintiffs went to the court to seek for amendment of the law because they find this unconstitutional. The plaintiffs argue that the cover could make them go against their religious beliefs. Connectively, they believe that God is the sole provider of everything. Connectively, it means that they have to pledge to God so that he could give them extra cash to cater for the cover that they had not budgeted for. Additionally, they have been paying for their personal medical checkup and could not like to deviate from the norm (Hopkins, 2012). In general, they argue that they are in a position to take care of their medical issues without having the cover. Further, the plaintiffs argue that
they will be required to adjust their fiscal policies in order to cater for the medical cover. The plaintiffs argue that they are in good health and could not hesitate to pay for their personal medical bill if happened to be sick.
Describe the holdings of the legal case
The court ruled out that the plaintiffs do not particularly specify which payments they make from their own pocket that could not be covered under the medical insurance fund. According to the court, they ought to have specified this so as to support their claims (Hyatt & Hopkins, 2011). Further, the court resolved that the complaint must give facts that could make the defendant more liable. The court argued that the plaintiffs must have been injured in a fact and there should have been a
relationship between the injury and the conduct. The court argued that by the year 2014, the case would have shifted to another direction which in turn could affect the ruling. Further, the judge argued that there are always pre-enforcement challenges that are found in almost every case. In his view, if the enforcement was perfect when there could be no complaints from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have clearly stated that the expected injuries could take place by the year 2014. The court views this as certain and not based on mere speculations and hence it adds value to the plaintiff’s evidence. Due to the fact that the plaintiffs have really proved to the court that the injury is to occur in the year 2014, which is a relatively short period, the court has put that into consideration while making its ruling. Other than future financial injury, the plaintiffs have proved to the court that they will have to adjust their spending and do away with some charitable donation to afford the health insurance fund.
Additionally, the court has also put into consideration the fact that the policy is meant for the good of the citizens and therefore the plaintiffs have not shown clearly why they should not contribute to the health insurance fund.
Describe the reason for the legal case
The plaintiffs are seeking the amendment of the law that demands every citizen in the U.S. to take a medical insurance cover so that the government can be able to cater for medical funds relating to all the citizens (Hyatt & Hopkins, 2011). In addition, the plaintiffs are not willing to pay the medical insurance cover because they find this unconstitutional. They have taken the case to the court since they want the law to be amended.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
Discuss the main points of the legal case
The main points in this legal case are for the plaintiffs to prove to the court that in fact by imposing the law on every citizen to pay the medical insurance fund is unconstitutional. Further, they have to prove to the court that the imposition of the policy could inconvenience them especially financially. Additionally, they also have to prove to the court beyond a reasonable doubt that they could undergo financial injury both at present and in the future. They should also prove how the law could affect them religiously. On the side of the defendant, they should show that the policy is constitutional and prove to the court that it is actually meant to improve the well-being of the citizens and does not infringe citizens’ right (Hyatt & Hopkins, 2011). The judge on his part has to look at the evidence brought before the court by the two parties and decide which evidence holds water.
Hopkins, B. R. (2012). Tax-exempt organizations and constitutional law: Nonprofit law as shaped by the U.S. Supreme Court. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hyatt, T. K., & Hopkins, B. R. (2011). The law of tax-exempt healthcare organizations. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.