iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Atlanta Health Care Ruling: Obama Administration Will Not Seek Further Review From Federal Appeals Court On Health Care Law

AP    
First Posted: 09/26/11 10:17 PM ET Updated: 11/26/11 05:12 AM ET

By PETE YOST, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration has decided not to ask a federal appeals court in Atlanta for further review of a ruling striking down the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care overhaul.

The administration's decision makes it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would hear a case on the health care overhaul in the court's term starting next month, and render its verdict on the law in the midst of the 2012 presidential election campaign.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler disclosed the administration's decision. She declined to elaborate on next moves.

The Atlanta circuit ruling sided with 26 states that had sued to stop the law from taking effect. In another case, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld the individual mandate in June.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., rejected two lawsuits on technical grounds. In one, it ruled that the penalty for not buying insurance amounts to a tax and that a tax can't be challenged before it's collected. In the other, the panel said the plaintiff, the state of Virginia, lacked legal standing to file its lawsuit.

In a ruling in August, a divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta concluded Congress overstepped its authority when lawmakers passed the individual mandate provision that requires people to buy health insurance. The administration could have asked the full 11th circuit court to hear the case, potentially delaying high court review.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the fourth appeals court to deal with a case over the law, heard oral arguments last Friday but hasn't issued a ruling.

The Supreme Court is widely expected to have the final say on the law, especially now that the appeals courts that have considered the law have disagreed, and one of them has struck down a key provision.

The real question has been over timing, which has political as well as legal ramifications.

In order to hear and decide the case by late June, when the court wraps up its work until resuming in October, the justices would have to act by January to accept and schedule an appeal.

It typically takes a couple of months or more from the time an appeal is filed at the court until the justices decide whether or not to hear it.

In arguments leading up to the appeals court decision in Atlanta, the Obama administration said the legislative branch was using a "quintessential" power – its constitutional ability to regulate interstate commerce, including the health care industry – when it passed the overhaul law. Administration officials said at the time they were confident the 11th Circuit ruling would not stand.

In that August ruling, Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull said that lawmakers cannot require residents to "enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die."

In a lengthy dissent, Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus accused the majority of ignoring the "undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries." He wrote that Congress generally has the constitutional authority to create rules regulating large areas of the national economy.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
By PETE YOST, The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration has decided not to ask a federal appeals court in Atlanta for further review of a ruling striking down the centerpiece...
By PETE YOST, The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration has decided not to ask a federal appeals court in Atlanta for further review of a ruling striking down the centerpiece...
By PETE YOST, The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration has decided not to ask a federal appeals court in Atlanta for further review of a ruling striking down the centerpiece...
By PETE YOST, The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration has decided not to ask a federal appeals court in Atlanta for further review of a ruling striking down the centerpiece...
Filed by Adam Goldberg  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 837
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
photo
map1246
IT1579
01:56 PM on 09/27/2011
In Canada the wait times for MRI's, CAT scans, angioplasties, hip replacements, and knee replacements are far higher than they are in the US. In addition the cancer survival rates in Canada are lower than in the US. The Canadian healthcare system is great as long as you don't need healthcare.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
08Voter
Cry 'havoc' and let slip the dogs of war.
12:10 PM on 09/27/2011
If Democrats weren't trying to be "politically savvy" when they passed this monstrosity then they would have called the mandate precisely what they are claiming it is now...a TAX. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for those of us that value our freedom, in the actual law it is called specifically and explicitly a "PENALTY."

As noted by Judge Vinson's ruling on the case, Congress did not intend the penalty to be a tax, for the following reasons:

1.Language in earlier versions of the legislation that had described the penalty as a tax were stripped from the final version.
2.Congress relied exclusively on the Commerce Clause authority for the individual mandate and penalty.
3.The penalty was exempted from all traditional enforcement and collection methods (such as tax liens) used by the IRS.
4.There was no mention of a revenue-generating purpose for the penalty.

And as noted by other rulings on this matter, a penalty cannot be converted to a tax. "If something is a penalty, not a tax, it must be linked to an enumerated power of Congress other than the General Welfare clause, and Judge Hudson had already ruled that there was no valid link to Congress’s Commerce Clause authority."

http://www.hfma.org/Templates/Print.aspx?id=24263

Good luck.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TeamSarah4CHOICE
11:36 AM on 09/27/2011
TO: Map1246

YOU WROTE:
When Oba ma care begins, 78,000,000 Americans will lose their current healthcare coverage. Change you can count on.

ME TO YOU
You are wrong.

Read and Learn

1) September 22, 2011
"Number of Uninsured Young Adults Drops; Obama's Health Law Credited"

Read more: http://azs­tarnet.com­/news/scie­nce/health­-med-fit/a­rticle_a30­be232-6b8e­-54cf-8ae8­-2c1bc7484­cf4.html#i­xzz1ZAU7ew­lR

2) Now look, I know you are not from the USA and you don't live in the USA so let me help you comprehend what that means:

"Number of Uninsured Young Adults Drops; Obama's Health Law Credited" Means, MORE young adults HAVE health insurance as a result of Obama's Health Care Law.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cathyjs
01:00 PM on 09/27/2011
More adult children have insurance because we the parents are paying for it. We didn't need this monstrosity called obamacare to allow parents to pay for their children's insurance longer, a simple law would have been enough.

What about the pre-existing conditions part of the bill, the administration thought hundredsa of thousands of people would buy it, so far less than 2000 have.
photo
map1246
IT1579
01:28 PM on 09/27/2011
Your logic is flawed. Obama care has not yet become law. The 78,000,000 will lose their coverage once it becomes law. Additionally, the number of uninsured it at an all time high according to the census bureau. You are terminally confused, but then you drank thev Ko ol A id


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=628
11:30 AM on 09/27/2011
It's pretty simple, if you don't pay for this private service, you will be taxed. That is a fine not a tax. If you pay your taxes late you get a late fee not a late tax. It is 100% unconstitutional to force a private service upon people who cannot or are not willing to pay for it. And you all say Republicans are for big business, this would be the biggest big business decision of all time. And it would come at the expense of your constitutional rights.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TeamSarah4CHOICE
11:50 AM on 09/27/2011
um - you're wrong

If you pay a "tax" because you do not comply with the law then you pay a "tax

If you pay your taxes late - you do pay extra as you will be fined, late fee + late penalty + interest on both.

Also, yes, I do say GOP is for big business as the Individual Mandate you complain about IS, and has been the GOP Individual Mandate since 1993

SenGrassley(R) put the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate into the 2009 HealthCare Law in June 2009 when he wrote the 2009 HealthCare Law with the Gang of Six.

Because SenGrassley(R) was a co-sponsor of the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate - he - and he alone convinced the Gang of Six to put the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate into the 2009 Healthcare Bill.

BTW: Many of the Co-sponsors of the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate are still Senators today.

So, I suggest you call SenGrassley(R) and ask him why he put the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate into the 2009 Health Care Bill in June 2009.
11:54 AM on 09/27/2011
If I get a speeding ticket I pay a fine not a tax. How is that different please? PS I really don't care what happened in 1993 or 1996 or 2009 I would be against it either way. The only part of the bill that I am truly against is the mandate. I don't want insurance never have maybe one day I will but not now.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cathyjs
01:05 PM on 09/27/2011
Please point to the page and paragraph that Grassley put in the bill, also please leave a list of Republicans who signed the bill.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
allengoldchain
Freedom is never voluntarily given bythe oppressor
11:18 AM on 09/27/2011
You know who is going to not be impacted by this ridiculous law? people here illegally!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cathyjs
11:40 AM on 09/27/2011
None of us are going to be, it will be ruled unconstitutional. Ironic that our constitutional law professor president has as his signature legislation an unconstitutional bill.

obama- release your educational records, we really want to know how you could have passed law school.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TeamSarah4CHOICE
11:52 AM on 09/27/2011
cathy

Here are some facts I know you will love and embrace

1) The Individual Mandate you complain about IS, and has been the GOP Individual Mandate since 1993

2) SenGrassle­y(R) put the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate into the 2009 HealthCare Law in June 2009 when he wrote the 2009 HealthCare Law with the Gang of Six.

3) Because SenGrassle­y(R) was a co-sponsor of the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate - he - and he alone convinced the Gang of Six to put the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate into the 2009 Healthcare Bill.

BTW: Many of the Co-sponsor­s of the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate are still Senators today.

So, I suggest you call SenGrassle­y(R) and ask him why he put the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate into the 2009 Health Care Bill in June 2009.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jasev01
10:51 AM on 09/27/2011
if he just attempted to move for single payer instead of trying to give the republicans their individual mandate idea which they distanced themselves from and now call Obamacare this would not have happened.
photo
map1246
IT1579
11:02 AM on 09/27/2011
It would not have passed.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jasev01
11:18 AM on 09/27/2011
but then the blame for the individual mandate would be where it belongs.  His opening position was the R's position and then it went right from there
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
allengoldchain
Freedom is never voluntarily given bythe oppressor
11:23 AM on 09/27/2011
haha oh please. if republicans were in support of individual mandate they would have been destroyed in the 2010 elections. They looked at that idea decades ago and came to the conclusion that it was unconstitutional. now mitt took the wrong direction and is paying for it.

now if Obama had talked to republicans during the debate about his mandate idea, there is no way republicans would have agreed with it. Now if Obama really wanted to use republican ideas he would never have added the mandate. that aside Obamacare was created as a means to destroy the health care industry. they threw in some policies to suck the public in and that still failed. there is a reason why Obamacare has remained very unpopular and it will be even heated topic in 2012. I hope the SCOTUS decides to overrule the Obama administration and hand them an embarrassing decision.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TeamSarah4CHOICE
11:31 AM on 09/27/2011
um - YOU FAIL HISTORY
You FAIL recent Events

1) SenGrassley(R) was a co-sponsor of the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate

2) SenGrassley(R) put the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate in the 2009 Healthcare Bill in June 2009

3) The Tea Party proved their failure regarding their own party (GOP) when they falsely blamed the Dems for SenGrassley(R) 1993 GOP Individual Mandate into the 2009 Healthcare Bill

You are proving YOUR own educational failure by not knowing who put the Individual Mandate into the 2009 HealthCare Bill.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jasev01
11:36 AM on 09/27/2011
what are you talking  about.  That is revisionist history at best.  1. Its wasn't years ago it was some of the same people still in congress. 2. it was Newt Gingrigh's plan he is running for President on the R side. 3.  It was one of the demands the R's had in this negotiations in the beginning before Obama gave it to them then they moved the goal post and the tea party said it infringed on their liberty so they changed sides.  Look it up.  

If Obama talked to the Republicans what are you talking about, this was the most debated bill in history it had all kinds of bipartisan gangs and committees and whatever else.  Again you revisionist history doens't fit the facts.  You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
photo
map1246
IT1579
10:49 AM on 09/27/2011
When Oba ma care begins, 78,000,000 Americans will lose their current healthcare coverage. Change you can count on.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jasev01
10:51 AM on 09/27/2011
how?
photo
map1246
IT1579
10:54 AM on 09/27/2011
Companies will opt out of current expensive coverages, pay the $2000 fine and save the difference.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
allengoldchain
Freedom is never voluntarily given bythe oppressor
11:27 AM on 09/27/2011
haha the system was designed to destroy the insurance industry. It was never about health care reform. But watch the liberals continue cheering for less health care coverage because that is what they are going to get.

I mean it's unbelievable how they continue to ignore the hearings that have been contrary to what this administration had promised. I mean what has this administration promised that has not negatively impacted the country? I hope liberals wake up and open their eyes becuase they won't be able to receive waivers after 2014.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TeamSarah4CHOICE
11:41 AM on 09/27/2011
I guess you can't read

You clearly missed the September 22, 2011 Headlines

"Number of Uninsured Young Adults Drops; Obama's Health Law Credited"

Read more:
http://azs­tarnet.com­/news/scie­nce/health­-med-fit/a­rticle_a30­be232-6b8e­-54cf-8ae8­-2c1bc7484­cf4.html#i­xzz1ZAU7ew­lR
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eagle17765
10:44 AM on 09/27/2011
I wonder how many Tea Party People on here voted for SenDole (R) for President in 1996?

The reason I ask is because SenDole (R) is the creator of the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate. Yep, that's right, SenDole (R) wrote the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate. Not only that, but MANY of the GOP Co-sponsors of SenDole(R) 1993 GOP Individual Mandate are still in the Senate today.

One of the Co-Sponsors to SenDole(R) 1993 GOP Individual Mandates was SenGrassley(R) who is the person who put the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate in to the 2009 Health Care Law in June 2009 when he helped write the Bill along with the Gang of Six.

For those who don't remember the 1993 GOP Individual Mandate that SenDole (R) wrote - it is here:
Text of 1993 GOP Individual Mandate (103rd Congress)
See: Section 3005
GOP Senate Bill S-1770
Title: Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993
Section 3005- Report And Recommenda­­­­­­tion On Achieving Universal Coverage

(b) (2) "INDIVIDUA­­­­­­L MANDATE (page 238)
- The Secretary shall specifical­­­­­­ly make recommenda­­­­­­tions under paragraph (1) regarding establishi­­­­­­ng a requiremen­­­­­­t that all eligible individual­­­­­­s obtain health coverage through enrollment with a qualified health plan."

So, again, I ask, how many Tea Party People on here voted FOR SenDole for President in 1996?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TeamSarah4CHOICE
11:53 AM on 09/27/2011
I notice the Teatalibaggers have not answered you - it figures.
photo
ssnt
670 Economists(6 w/ Nobel Prize) like Mitt's plan
12:37 PM on 09/27/2011
LOL, looks like you and eagle get paid per post from the same people.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cathyjs
01:27 PM on 09/27/2011
The Tea Party didn't exist in 1996, it was created after obama's election. Seems a lot of people didn't like the way obamacare was crammed down our throats and became very vocal politically where before they had been silent. In that respect we can thank obama for waking up the conservatives and opening our eyes to the huge overreach of the government.
10:32 AM on 09/27/2011
The mandate to buy protects tax payers from paying for those who get sick, have no insurance and don't pay. Only other options would be for the uninsured to be refused medical treatment unless they paid up front. That's inhumane and is never going to happen
photo
map1246
IT1579
10:47 AM on 09/27/2011
But it is humane to force those who have paid for insurance to pay for those who have not. Strange reasoning on your part.
11:03 AM on 09/27/2011
You already pay for the uninsured in your taxes. The idea is that if everyone was insured- it would cost taxpayers less.. In MA, those who can't afford to buy it and can prove that - get it for free. It's a program called MA Health. It works here.
11:35 AM on 09/27/2011
But illegals still get care and are not included in this bill. It protects hospitals, in theory, you would think they would be able to reduce their prices if this happens, but they will not they may raise the prices because they know the chance of getting stiffed is lessened. That would increase the price of your premium. And what about the people who really just don't want healthcare? I have been to the doctor 2-3 times in the last 25 years, at an average of $200 per month $60,000 - $300 for the 3 visits, I have saved myself $59,700. Why do I have to pay that now if I don't want too?
10:26 AM on 09/27/2011
Leaving health insurance up to the states would definitely please the states that won't insure you if you have a pre-existing condition. They could care less about the health and well being of their residents.
MA,ME,VT, NJ and NY have guaranteed issue - meaning you can't be denied health insurance if you have a pre-existing condition and your premiums are based solely on your age and where you live in the state. It works and people like it. I know. I live in MA and have friends in ME and NY.
Had a friend who wanted to move to CA but couldn't because she had a MINOR pre-existing condition and couldn't get affordable health insurance. She was put in their high risk pool - told she could buy their high risk health insurance for $1, 500 a month. Had another friend who married a man and planned to live in his home state of NC until she was told that her MINOR pre existing condition made her high risk and her health insurance premium would cost her $2,000 a month. They had to move to her home state of MA.
The US needs government run single payer - i.e., Medicare for all. Nothing else will work.
Vermont just passed it for their state.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
allengoldchain
Freedom is never voluntarily given bythe oppressor
11:39 AM on 09/27/2011
That is why there have been high risk pools that worked. Obamacare isn't a health care reform. It is was a tool designed to destroy the health insurance industry. But that is all going to change come 2012.
quietfortoolong2
Consumers: the REAL job creators!!
10:23 AM on 09/27/2011
Gee, maybe they should have gone w single payer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eagle17765
10:34 AM on 09/27/2011
If the Supreme Court tosses out the Individual Mandate - because the rest of the Healthcare law is great - and single payer would have to be the way to pay for it.
quietfortoolong2
Consumers: the REAL job creators!!
10:53 AM on 09/27/2011
It would be some masterful chess move, if that were to be the case. I assume you meant "then" instead of "and".
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cathyjs
11:26 AM on 09/27/2011
obamacare does not have a severability clause and during the case before Judge Vinson in Florida even the defendants ie the government said that without the mandate obamacare can not function. Note that the draft had a severability clause that was purposely left out for just this reason.

I can't wait to see what happens when our constitutional law president has his signature piece of legislation, the one he focused on when he should have been concentrating on the economy, is ruled unconstitutional. Can't wait to see how he spins this one.
10:11 AM on 09/27/2011
Is there still a few waivers to go around?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
allengoldchain
Freedom is never voluntarily given bythe oppressor
11:40 AM on 09/27/2011
haha
09:58 AM on 09/27/2011
In a free society, does one individual’s needs constitute another individual’s obligation to provide? The answer is no; rather, it is the duty of free individuals to decide what and whose needs appear most important to them. In a free society, the individual is of supreme importance and should not to be used as a means to society’s ends. The individual has the right to order his actions and possessions in the manner most consistent with pursuing his own happiness and values. The government needs to stay out of the peoples business...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PatrickforO
America needs a Labor Party
10:13 AM on 09/27/2011
Even in a state of anarchy, local communities would band together and take care of each other. Taking care of our most vulnerable is what makes us human. I'm all for ordering my own actions and possessions in the manner most consistent with pursuing my own values and happiness, but the Citizens United ruling has made our society into a corporate kleptocracy - where we are kept docile by a huge, invisible yet insidious propaganda apparatus while Wall Street and the big multinationals systematically rape the treasury and amass more and more of the world's wealth into fewer and fewer hands. In the face of this, you'll never get your wish ot order your actions...But it is true that once labor costs have been driven down to subsistence levels and there's no hope of social mobility for the many and high privilege for the few, you won't have to worry about the government. Your business will be defined and driven by your corporate overlords.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
allengoldchain
Freedom is never voluntarily given bythe oppressor
11:42 AM on 09/27/2011
again it is through willingness and free will. without that you just have tyranny
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eagle17765
10:14 AM on 09/27/2011
Life isn't free and there is no such thing as a "free society"
photo
decat2
"He who governs best,governs least"
10:20 AM on 09/27/2011
Not anymore thanks to our current administration !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PatrickforO
America needs a Labor Party
09:50 AM on 09/27/2011
I believe this law should be changed to extend Medicare to all Americans, because this would preserve our choice of physicians, broaden the risk pool and hold down costs because of its vast bargaining power. It would also be very good for all Americans because everyone would get a basic healthcare package that would not be tied to their job, and would be able to purchase supplemental insurance from the private sector. We could probably get healthcare down to, say 12% of our GDP, the same percent as Holland.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
2lib4oh
10:24 AM on 09/27/2011
The law in question is not about health care per say. Its about the constitutionality of health care. In particular, its about the individual mandate to purchase health care. Some see it as relating to the Supreme Court rule that the Commerce Clause authorized Congress to regulate only "interstate" business not local business.
The Court has repeatedly made clear that Congress can regulate any economic activity and even noneconomic activity where doing so is "an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eagle17765
10:38 AM on 09/27/2011
No it is not about the Constitutionality of health care - it is about the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate.

The Court has already ruled on the Constitutionality of health care when they ruled that Medicare IS Constitutional.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PatrickforO
America needs a Labor Party
11:16 AM on 09/27/2011
Well, yes, it is. Same concept as mandatory auto insurance, which could be challenged based on this ruling, if unconstitutional. Thing is, it is yet another red herring. To me, the real issue is that our government has pretty much ceased to do anything that benefits anyone but Wall Street bankers and big multinational corporations. Oh, we had the stimulus, because it was expected, and lots of if went to the private sector. They don't tell you that. Also, $245 million of it was tax cuts. Never hear that from the right wing noise machine. That's why I honestly believe the law should be revisited and replaced by a much simpler one rolling out Medicare coverage to all Americans. This would actually benefit us, and Medicare has been already declared constitutional as Eagle 1776 points out.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
yankeedoug1121
12:21 PM on 09/27/2011
12% is better than the public school employees now have to pay in florida since some have put in a govenor that got away with medicaid FRAUD. plus those employees now pay there own retirement , with low paying jobs. by the way how is it the gov gets his insurance at $30 dollars a month how?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlonzoQuijana
09:49 AM on 09/27/2011
Slippery slope. The government forces you to buy health insurance from a private company to keep health care costs down for all (regulating interstate commerce). Then what? They force you to buy broccoli and peas (Obama: "Eat your peas!")?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PatrickforO
America needs a Labor Party
10:00 AM on 09/27/2011
Well, since you're a libertarian, I can see that you don't want to be forced to buy something. Of course, you are already paying taxes, and these taxes go to pay for the biggest military the world has ever seen to the tune of $650 billion a year, and we spend $40 billion a year on the useless war on drugs, which we lost the moment it was declared. Now, if I'm going to pay taxes, I'd rather have my taxes go for policies and laws that actually help Americans, strengthen the middle class and encourage (or at least make possible) social mobility. The way it is now, we have a government of, by and for the Fortune 100, not us. Face it, we haven't seen much out of our government that actually makes our lives better in some time, with the exception of some of the stuff Dems have done.
photo
map1246
IT1579
11:03 AM on 09/27/2011
Obama care will result in less healthcare availability not more.