Analysis of a Healthcare Lawsuit Case

Analysis of a Healthcare Lawsuit Case

Introduction

The United States' infirmaries commenced as charitable administration supported by spiritual ordinances or charitable individuals/leaders, and the personnel running the infirmary was either volunteers, or the start spiritual order (Aizenmand & Goldstein, 2011). The infirmaries were historic found in the greater townships, in association with the governing body, who founded them. Currently, the state government supports the infirmaries; for yield and non yield fitness organizations; fitness indemnity companies; or the exceptional care groundwork, and certified physicians, surgeons and nurses run them. Health Care has grown from the historic philanthropic administration and is now distilled more headed for their economic objective.

This paper aims at presenting a brief description of the background and historical perspective of the healthcare lawsuit namely Florida et al v. US Department of Health and Human Services, along with the different perspective of the parties involved. The research offers a detailed analysis of the lawsuit and the consequent events that have taken place since its filing.

Reason of the Case

The US government passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) as an integral component of their scheme of the United States' 2010 changes to health care. This requires the US citizens to purchase health insurance as mandatory (Jones, 2010). This led to a lawsuit filed by the State of Florida in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida against the US Department of Health and Human Services. The lawsuit, referred to as, Florida et al v. US Department of Health and Human Services questions the validity of the act, and seeks for the annulment of the clause.

A series of op-eds were compiled by a couple of Washington lawyers, namely Lee Casey of Baker Hostetler and David B. Rivkin Jr. in The Wall Street Journal towards the end of 2009. These works discussed the constitutional status of the healthcare law (Rivkin & Casey, 2009). These op-eds gave rise to significant interest for McCollum. Joe Jacquot, deputy Attorney General for Florida, confirmed that these pieces of work became a key point of discussion and argument throughout the office of Mr. McCollum. The debate on sovereignty of the state and the mandate of an individual attracted different ideas and views about the validity of part of the law, which implied the purchase of health insurance as a requisite for all individuals.

The lawsuit, therefore, seeks to challenge the constitutional validity and effect of the “individual mandate”, as well as, the expansion of Medicaid that is seen by many as a potential threat to the already unstable and inconsistent state budgets (Zink, 2011). The individual mandate was preserved by two of the federal judges in 2010 that had been appointed by President Bill Clinton. On the contrary, the mandate was severed by one of the federal judges in Virginia, who appointment came from President George W. Bush. However, despite the revocation, the judge chose not to stop the implementation of the law.

The lawsuit caught considerable attention, both in the ...