Opinion

Alison Frankel

Meet the Massachusetts man who teed up the healthcare challenge

By Alison Frankel
April 2, 2012

George Fountas, an out-of-work accountant from Lynn, Massachusetts, profoundly mistrusts the healthcare system. Get him started, and he’ll reel off stories about how death rates decline when doctors go on strike and burial societies are the biggest fans of hospitals. Before 2007, according to Fountas, he had never paid a penny for healthcare coverage. He saw no reason why he should start, despite a then-new law in Massachusetts that said he’d be subject to a fine if he refused to join a health insurance plan. He refused to join a health plan, and refused to report that information on his 2007 tax return.

Fountas has no more regard for lawyers than doctors — “I’m kind of antisocial,” he told me — but he’s a U.S. Constitution buff. So instead of simply surrendering his $60 tax refund to the state as a penalty for failing to comply with the new law (and also giving up the right to claim a personal tax exemption worth about $219), Fountas filed a complaint in Essex County Superior Court claiming that the Massachusetts mandate violated his due process rights under both the state and federal constitutions.

Fountas’ amended suit was a scant five pages, but it raised some of the same fundamental questions that the U.S. Supreme Court weighed last week in an unprecedented three days of oral arguments on President Barack Obama’s nationwide healthcare law. Does a legislative body have the power to compel an individual to purchase health insurance? And does it have the power to impose a penalty on anyone who refuses to comply with that directive?

Here’s what Fountas said in his 2007 complaint:

It is [my] belief that any laws passed by the state government to punish [me] for observing a principle described in the Constitution of the Commonwealth as ‘absolutely necessary to preserve the advantage of liberty and to maintain a free government’ are contrary to that Constitution and are therefore null and void… Punishing residents who observe a principle stated in such forceful language can in no way be taken as an observance of that principle by agents of those same residents.

Arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court centered on whether Congress exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause when it passed the nationwide healthcare mandate, rather than on the due process arguments Fountas put forth and the state Supreme Court ultimately rejected. The Commerce Clause obviously has no bearing on the power of the Massachusetts state legislature, so even if the justices strike down the nationwide law, the Massachusetts mandate is expected to remain in place. That could create quite an interesting political conundrum for Mitt Romney, who signed the Massachusetts mandate into law. Fountas said he’ll be glad to see Romney held accountable for the Massachusetts law. “He’s a white Obama,” he said.

Nevertheless, as we wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the fate of the nationwide law, it’s worth considering what happened with Fountas’ case, which was the first to test the Massachusetts mandate. In February 2009, Essex County Superior Court Judge Kathe Tuttman dismissed Fountas’ suit against the commissioner of the state revenue department. The judge concluded that the Massachusetts legislature was within its rights when it enacted a requirement that residents purchase health insurance:

As a rational basis of fact can reasonably be conceived to sustain it, the Act is a proper exercise of [the legislature's] police power. Because proper exercises of police power do not offend either the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights or the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Fountas’s claims … must be dismissed.

Tuttman also found that the cost of compliance with the healthcare mandate was too minimal to be considered an unconstitutional “taking” under the Fifth Amendment, and that the penalty imposed on Fountas for failing to comply was not excessive under the Eighth Amendment.

Fountas was convinced he’d been unfairly denied his right to a jury trial. “Under Massachusetts law, they are required to provide me a trial by jury in a dispute over my property,” he said. By the time his original suit was dismissed, he said, the state had “seized money from my bank account,” to pay his fine. He argued the seized money was his property, and appealed the dismissal of his suit. “I put a number of questions to the appeals court,” Fountas said. “The appeals court refused to answer.

Fountas made his own 15-minute argument at the Appeals Court of Massachusetts. (I was surprised that he hadn’t received offers of counsel from public interest groups opposed to healthcare mandates, but he said the only lawyer who reached out to him was a Californian interested in the U.S. constitutional issues; I tried to track down that lawyer but couldn’t find him.) In March 2010, a three-judge appellate panel affirmed the dismissal of Fountas’ suit, without adding any analysis to Tuttman’s consideration of the state and federal constitutional questions. The two-page opinion by Judge James McHugh did address Fountas’ assertion that he was due a jury trial. The right to a jury applies only when facts are disputed, which they weren’t in Fountas’ case, the judge said. In dismissing the complaint, the appeals court said, the superior court judge simply applied the law.

In April 2010, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied Fountas’s request for review, leaving the two lower-court rulings as the final word on Fountas’s constitutional arguments.

Fountas, meanwhile, still fervently believes that the state law violates his rights. He hasn’t joined a healthcare plan, but said he wasn’t penalized because in the last few years he didn’t earn enough money to have to file a tax return. (That’s how the state tracks residents’ compliance with the healthcare law.) “Every judge who was involved with my case should be in prison,” Fountas told me. “They put up obstacles to interfere with my due process rights.”

Fountas said he didn’t follow last week’s U.S. Supreme Court arguments closely, but he’s rooting for the Obama law to be tossed. I asked whether he was disappointed the federal case turns on a constitutional argument other than his Fifth and Eighth amendment assertions. “No,” he said. “I’ll be happy if they get rid of it for any reason altogether.”

For more of my posts, please go to Thomson Reuters News & Insight

Follow me on Twitter

 

Comments
7 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Mr. Fountas need not worry excessively, eventually the monstrous overbearing oversized Federal government will be scaled back either by the ballot, fiscal collapse, a revolution or a combination of the latter two. Then again it could be a peaceful breakup whereby the socialist states like Massachusetts simply go their own way and agree to quit tyrannizing the heartland in which case Mr. Fountas would have to immigrate to be rid of his oppression. He’d be welcome in Texas.

Posted by Truth_Teller | Report as abusive
 

Mr. Fountas need not worry excessively, eventually the monstrous overbearing oversized Federal government will be scaled back either by the ballot, fiscal collapse, a revolution or a combination of the latter two. Then again it could be a peaceful breakup whereby the socialist states like Massachusetts simply go their own way and agree to quit tyrannizing the heartland in which case Mr. Fountas would have to immigrate to be rid of his oppression. He’d be welcome in Texas.

Posted by Truth_Teller | Report as abusive
 

Mr. Fountas need not worry excessively, eventually the monstrous overbearing oversized Federal government will be scaled back either by the ballot, fiscal collapse, a revolution or a combination of the latter two. Then again it could be a peaceful breakup whereby the socialist states like Massachusetts simply go their own way and agree to quit tyrannizing the heartland in which case Mr. Fountas would have to immigrate to be rid of his oppression. He’d be welcome in Texas.

Posted by Truth_Teller | Report as abusive
 

Mr. Fountas need not worry excessively, eventually the monstrous overbearing oversized Federal government will be scaled back either by the ballot, fiscal collapse, a revolution or a combination of the latter two. Then again it could be a peaceful breakup whereby the socialist states like Massachusetts simply go their own way and agree to quit tyrannizing the heartland in which case Mr. Fountas would have to immigrate to be rid of his oppression. He’d be welcome in Texas.

Posted by Truth_Teller | Report as abusive
 

@ truth_teller – do you have a problem with submissions? really one time is quite enough. i guess in tx they let people die outside of hospitals if they don’t have money or health insurance, correct? as mr fountas is obviously destitute i find it hard to believe you as a right-winger support his right to ignore the law. would you be so welcoming if he were on welfare, which it sounds like he surely could be? would he be so welcome in tx then?

Posted by jcfl | Report as abusive
 

The basic reality of people like MR. Fountas is that when they have a medical emergency they rush to the emergency room of a city hospital to get expert medical care. Often these emergencies would not happen if the person had regularly seen a doctor for annual check ups or when initial symptoms started. This is a proven fact for many, many emergency medical situations.

Who picks up the bill when people like Mr. Fountas have no funds to pay for the emergency care (which by the way is one of the most expensive units in any hospital)? It is the local citizens who the city/town that maintain the hospital.

The reality is the cities like Atlanta which underwrites Grady Hospital (the big city hospital in downtown Atlanta) are paying for the healthcare of people living outside Atlanta who come to Grady’s emergency room since their local rural area has no healthcare facility.

Republicans and the Right talk about keeping the government out of our healthcare, but they certainly are ready to let the cities and urban counties take care of the uninsured at the local taxpayers’ expense.

Posted by Acetracy | Report as abusive
 

Without everyone carrying health insurance costs will continue to spiral upwards. As costs rise more and more people opt out of coverage as it becomes a financial burden. They become the uninsured and their medical costs are paid by everyone with insurance coverage. The pool of insured continues to shrink and those with insurance must carry more and more of the burden. Is it constitutional for me to expect others to pay more because I don’t pay anything??

Posted by abkisa | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •