On May 18, 2011, the Federal government filed its reply brief in its appeal of the decision of the Florida lawsuit in which Judge Roger Vinson ruled ObamaCare and the individual mandate were unconstitutional.  (For previous AHEC analysis about the Florida lawsuit, go here, here, and here).

Notable from this latest brief are the following:

• DOJ is now calling the individual mandate the "minimum coverage provision."  It seems the American people know what the individual mandate is and they have rejected it so that the government has changed its rhetoric to avoid visceral public reaction.
• DOJ says that attempts to strike down the individual mandate - which for the first time represents an effort by the government to force people to engage in commerce so that individual conduct can be regulated - is radical.  Note that the power grab by the government isn't radical, the effort to limit government power is radical.
• DOJ continues to put forward the completely debunked myth that the uninsured results in "$43 billion" in cost shifting. Continuing to put this argument forward - when it is known to be false - violates the duty of attorneys under the professional rules of conduct.