This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Oct. 4, 2012 - The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court decision to dismiss Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act.
The Republican officeholder, who is seeking re-election Nov. 6, filed a federal suit against President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement in 2010, taking particular aim at the mandate requiring most Americans to buy health insurance.
A lower federal court earlier threw out the suit, stating that Kinder didn’t have standing because he has health insurance.
Warrensburg native Samantha Hill was also part of the lawsuit, arguing that she shouldn’t be required by the mandate to purchase coverage with some features she doesn't need or want.
Kinder appealed the ruling to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. And on Thursday, that court issued a decision stating “that the district court correctly ruled that Hill and Kinder lacked standing to sue, and we therefore affirm on that basis.”
“As we read the amended complaint, Hill allegedly was injured because she 'desires to obtain only high-deductible ‘major medical’ or ‘catastrophic’ health insurance coverage … and the Act denies her the option of purchasing this coverage,'” the decision states.
“But Hill is eligible to purchase a 'catastrophic plan' under [the ACA], because she will be under the age of 30 when the Act goes into effect. The only injury that Hill alleges in her complaint — that the Act requires her to make a shared responsibility payment if she does not purchase catastrophic coverage that she does not want — will thus not occur.”
The decision goes onto say that “nowhere in the amended complaint does Kinder assert that he will be uninsured or lack 'minimum essential coverage' when this portion of the Act takes effect in January 2014.”
“He therefore did not allege that the Act’s individual mandate or minimum coverage provisions would injure him,” the decision states.
While the case was under appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that act’s individual mandate was constitutional. Thursday’s decision makes reference to that, noting that the government “responded that if the plaintiffs have standing, then the judgment should be affirmed based on” the U.S. Supreme Court decision.”
"After the Court’s decision, we asked the parties to supplement their briefs with a statement of position on this appeal in light of Sebelius," the decision states. "Hill and Kinder continue to pursue their appeal, although it is unclear what relief they now seek. The amended complaint asked the court to declare provisions of the Act unconstitutional and to enjoin the defendants from enforcing those sections against the plaintiffs. The supplemental brief filed by Hill and Kinder in light of Sebelius does not specifically urge those remedies or any other that we can readily discern."
In a statement to the Beacon, Kinder said he was “disappointed the Eighth Circuit chose to defer my challenge rather than address its merits.”
“This battle is not over,” Kinder said. “I am studying other options to continue to fight ObamaCare on behalf of Missourians who overwhelmingly oppose the federal government’s intruding in our healthcare decisions.”
During a highly charged primary earlier this year, both Kinder and state Sen. Brad Lager, R-Savannah, accused each other of not opposing the federal health care law enough. In commercials, Kinder showcased the suit as an example of his antagonism toward the measure.
Kinder narrowly defeated Lager, and now faces former state Auditor Susan Montee, a Democrat, in the general election.
