Insurelane Insurance Blog

You’re allowed to exclude a driver from your auto insurance policy in most states and you’re allowed to reinstate the person at a later date if you wish and the insurer agrees. Once you name somebody as a driver exclusion they’ll remain ineligible to drive your car on the insurance policy until you ask the insurance company to lift the exclusion or until the company informs you that they’re stopping the exclusion.

An exclusion allows you to name somebody you don’t want driving your car or a specific vehicle on your policy, for whatever reason. However, in rare instances you may have to name the driver exclusion each time you renew the policy. An excluded driver won’t be covered at all under your policy if they drive your vehicle.

The most common reason people name an excluded driver is because they have a bad driving record and if they live in your home your rates could possibly be higher because the insurer assumes they have easy access to your vehicle. They’re usually considered to be high-risk drivers because of their poor driving record. In some cases, the insurance company may even ask you to exclude a driver in your household.

Each policy is different, but in general, the excluded driver remains as an endorsement on the policy for the life of it. It’s something you should look into though just in case your policy requires you to name the exclusion each time it’s renewed. If the driver exclusion is ongoing you can change your coverage and add another auto to it without having to request an exclusion because it’s still the same policy.

If, for some reason you’d like to allow the person to drive your car and be included in the policy you just need to contact the insurance carrier and ask them to remove the exclusion. Also, if the person lives in your home and moves out you can ask the insurer to discontinue the exclusion.

Allowing an excluded driver to operate your vehicle could be very expensive if they’re involved in an accident. Even if they didn’t cause the accident they may not be allowed to claim for damages to the vehicle in some states.

With the Super Bowl coming up on Feb. 5, hosts of parties need to make sure they don’t allow their guests to drink too much and drive or they could be legally liable for them in some states. According to an article by marketwatch.com, the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.) said hosts need to know their local laws.

It’s unfortunate, but Super Bowl Sunday has traditionally been one of the worst days on the road in America due to impaired drivers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said that 31 per cent of all traffic fatalities in 2010 were caused by impaired-driving. However, that figure rose to 48 per cent on Super Bowl Sunday.

The NHTSA said that males between the ages of 21 and 34 make up the Super Bowl’s core audience and are the most likely to try and drive while they’re intoxicated as well as driving without their seatbelts and over the speed limit. The I.I.I. said party hosts are morally and sometimes legally responsible for the actions of their guests if they serve them alcohol and it could cost them thousands of dollars.

The legal term is known as social host liability and the laws concerning it vary quite a bit from state to state. Some states don’t have a law concerning it and others may limit the liability to any injuries that take place on the property of the host. However, some laws say the host is liable for injuries that take place anywhere. In total, 37 of the states have some type of law in place that says hosts who serve liquor to guests are liable up to a specific amount.

The I.I.I. recommends that you fully understand the liability laws in your state and find out what your homeowners insurance does and doesn’t cover concerning this issue. Many homeowners’ insurance plans provide a limited amount of liquor liability coverage. If you’re hosting a party it’s recommended that designated drivers are available for guests.

There’s been a recent onslaught of fake auto accidents in Florida to scam money from insurance companies. It stems from the minimum $10,000 personal injury protection (PIP) coverage that all Florida drivers are required to carry. The $10,000 is to be used for personal medical treatment no matter who caused the accident. However, there have been numerous fake accidents recently and this has resulted in higher auto insurance rates for the entire state.

Many people, including Governor Rick Scott, are seeking new laws to help stop the fraud. Scott is asking residents to support House Bill 119 to put a halt to things. The bill would place a maximum cap on attorney fees and would force doctors to answer questions under oath regarding medical care given to supposed accident victims. In addition, anyone hurt in a crash would have to seek medical treatment from a hospital emergency room no more than 72 hours after the incident.

The purpose of the bill is to prevent fraud and forcing victims to seek treatment at a hospital should be able to do that. This is because much of the fraud is being carried out by several doctors and clinics that are in cahoots with the alleged victims. According to an article in the Miami Herald, most of the staged accidents occur when a car stops suddenly on the road and the car behind them bumps into it.

The driver and/or passengers in the lead car then immediately visit a doctor or clinic for treatment, which isn’t actually given since it isn’t needed and a claim for $10,000 in put in, which is then split by the doctor and driver, and possibly a lawyer. It’s believed that some clinics recruit drivers to take part in the scam and are walking way from fake accidents and injuries with thousands of insurance dollars. The state of Florida said PIP claims have risen by 275 per cent over the past five years.

The cost of the $10,000 PIP insurance is often higher than the price of $100,000 worth of liability coverage for drivers. The Senate has also introduced a bill to deal with the problem of fake accidents. This one requires the police to fill out more detailed reports while attending accident scenes. It also calls for the creation of a task force to deal with the fraud and for tighter regulation of clinics. This bill hasn’t been taken up yet by any committees though.

It’s expected that there will be changes to both bills, but many feel there will eventually be some type of laws that passes which will see insurance rates come down.

The grounding of the Costa Concordia cruise ship could end up being the costliest marine disaster in history, at least for the insurance companies. Because of this, Ole Wikborg, the International Union of Marine Insurance’s president, said that operators of passenger ships need to improve their safety standards as well as the training provided to crew members to prevent this type of thing from taking place again.

Speaking to reporters at a London press conference, Wikborg said some of these issues have been brought up and discussed in the past, such as the competence of the crew, stability issues, safe navigation methods, and the evacuation procedures. He added that the insurance industry feels it’s time the regulations regarding shipping were changed or improved.

There were more than 4,000 total passengers and crew on the Costa Concordia when it ran aground off the coast of Italy and killed at least 16 people on January 13. Shipping experts and insurance analysts said it may cost as much as $1 billion to the insurers. If that figure is true, it’ll be costlier than the cleanup of the huge oil spill that took place in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez crashed in Alaska.

According to an article by Business Insurance, the International Maritime Organization said the safety rules for these passenger vessels need to be looked at closely, but it’s believes that not all shipping executives are on board with this idea and aren’t in a hurry to change things. The biggest concerns are regarding the quality of training that some of the crew are given, especially those who work in the hospitality and entertainment areas of cruise ships. It was reported that about 66 per cent of the crew on the Costa Concordia worked in these departments.

Wikborg said the crash of the Concordia doesn’t guarantee that shipping insurance costs will rise since it might not affect many underwriters. If this is the case, then there won’t be any incentive for the entire market to tighten things up. However, some analysts and underwriters have said that the Concordia disaster could mean the marine insurance industry will lose money for the year even though 2012 has just started and this will force insurance companies to raise their rates.

Lawmakers in Arizona are considering legislation that would enable dog owners to let their pets run free as long as the animals are insured to cover any damage they may do. Sen. Lori Klein, R-Anthem, drafted the idea and said currently dogs need to be on leashes when in public, but if the owners had coverage up to a minimum of $50,000 then they wouldn’t need to be leashed. She reasoned that if the dogs are well-behaved and insured there’s no reason they couldn’t be let loose.

According to an article by the East Valley Tribune, Klein doesn’t like the current laws which force dogs to be leashed even while sitting in their owners’ unfenced front yards. However, her idea didn’t go down too well with animal-control and law-enforcement officers at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Government Reform. Senator Frank Antenori also had his doubts about the idea.

Klein said she feels the current laws for off-leash dogs are being enforced too aggressively. She believes if the owner has insurance on the dog to cover for damages and injuries then the owner is responsible enough to let the animal off its leash. She argued that if a dog is under proper control then it should be allowed to play in a park.

Mark Cousins of the Phoenix police said insuring the pets doesn’t equate to public safety. He said the best way to ensure safety is to prevent harm from happening, not to compensate for damage after the fact. He said the current leash laws protect the public and the animals. He added that good dogs and under-control dogs can suddenly become uncontrolled at any time.

The Maricopa County Animal Care and Control department also said the proposal has holes in it. It said that bad dog owners simply have to buy an insurance policy and can then let their pets out the front door to roam at large without taking care of them properly. The animal control organization also said there’s no legal definition of “trained and under control” and it would simply be too hard to prove if an animal is properly trained.

In addition, opponents to the measure asked if dog owners would have to carry insurance policies with them or would control officers have to follow the owner home to see proof of insurance. It appears Klein is barking up the wrong tree with this proposal and most Arizona residents would be surprised if it became law.

Even though many Americans have health insurance plans, a lot of them don’t take advantage of them if they’re unemployed because they still find the costs, such as deductibles and co-payments are too high. According to an article in HealthDay News, those without jobs are less likely to use prescription drugs or seek medical care than those who have jobs, even though they’re insured.

A study by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention said that having a private insurance plan didn’t mean a person was receiving good health care. It reported that unemployed people with insurance had worse mental and physical health than those who were employed. It found that many jobless people weren’t using the insurance to the fullest due to the costs they still had to pay.

The Center said having insurance is better than not having it, but people who had coverage and a job were better off. The study used data from a U.S. National Health Interview Survey that was conducted in 2009 and 2010 and it focused on people aged between 18 and 64. The report stated that 48 per cent of jobless adults were insured and 81 per cent of adults who had jobs had coverage with more unemployed people having public insurance compared to the employed.

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, who is a co-founder at the Physicians for a National Health Program, said she doesn’t believe the new health insurance reform will actually improve the situation. She said there was almost a 20 per cent drop in primary care during the recent recession because people who lost their jobs, but still had insurance, couldn’t afford to take advantage of their health care because of the high costs attached to plans in America.

She said there will be about 23 million people still without a health plan after the reforms are all implemented and that’s a good start, but it’s not going to be much help to some people if they can’t afford to get the medical attention they need. In fact, she said the health reform could make it worse for some people because some of the new policies offered will come with even costlier deductible and co-payments.

With the recent tragic accident regarding the sinking of the Costa Concordia cruise ship in Italy, many people are wondering if buying travel insurance is the right thing to do before heading out on a vacation. Travel insurance has always been a good choice if you aren’t covered through any other types of insurance plans. If you decide to take a vacation and you don’t have the proper insurance plan in place you could end up losing quite a bit of money and/or personal property.

While disasters such as a cruise ship sinking rarely happen, you just never know when they’re going to strike, especially when it comes down to human error. Passengers who had travel insurance on the Costa Concordia received benefits from their policies when the ship flipped in shallow water. Most passengers who had travel coverage had their identification documents replaced, since many of them were left on the sinking ship, and flights were also arranged for them to return home.

The typical cost for insurance on that particular cruise was approximately five to seven per cent of the cruise. The insurance covered trip cancellation and interruption along with baggage protection, medical expenses, and emergency evacuation. Luckily, more lives weren’t lost during the accident and there weren’t as many serious injuries as there could have been. But those who had insurance were sure glad they bought it before their trip.

The insured passengers on the ship will be reimbursed for medical expenses and emergency evacuation costs that they ended up having to pay. In addition, most travel insurance plans include a specified amount for dismemberment and accidental death coverage, which is usually about $10,000. Baggage claims can also be made since everybody should have most left their luggage on board the ship.

It’s unclear exactly what the cruise line will do as far as reimbursements go since many of these cruise companies ask passengers to sign long documents before they board ship that resolves them of any responsibility. However, in cases like these they are often challenged in court, especially since the captain as basically admitted fault for the mishap.

The fact is, those passengers who had travel insurance will come out of this ordeal a lot better off than those who didn’t have coverage. It’s never a bad idea to shop around for the best prices, service and coverage before taking a vacation, no matter how far you’re traveling and how you’re getting there.

The insurance business can often be a dog-eat-dog world as it’s highly competitive and quite serious. However, there is a lighter side to it sometimes and we can take a bit of a break and look into that aspect of the insurance world today.

Entertainers have been insuring themselves or at least parts of themselves for decades now. For instance, Second World War pinup girl Betty Grable had her legs insured by her movie production company for a cool million dollars. Entertainers are still in the habit of taking out huge insurance policies and of course when adding inflation into the equation some of the policies are enormous these days.

Let’s have a look at some modern-day singers and musicians to see what insurance policies they reportedly possess. Gene Simmons, the bass player for rock band Kiss and reality TV star, supposedly had his tongue insured for $1 million when the band was at its peak. Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards insured his middle finger for $1.6 million, but just on his left hand.

Jeff Beck, another famous British guitar player formerly of the Yardbirds, learned his lesson several years ago when he happened to slice off the top of his left index finger when chopping carrots in the kitchen. The finger was reattached surgically and Beck then insured each one of his fingers for $1 million, for a $10 million insurance policy.

American pop Singer Mariah Carey reportedly has her legs insured for a grand total of a billion dollars. The premiums on this must be sky high. If anybody asked British singer Tom Jones, “What’s new pussycat?” he could tell them he’s taken a $7 million insurance policy out on his fur, I mean chest hair.

According to an article by tonedeaf.com.au, American singer/actress Jennifer Lopez has a policy that’s worth between $27 million and $1 billion to cover her rear end. Another singer/actress, Dolly Parton, has supposedly insured each one of her breasts for $300,000.

Singers Rod Stewart and Bruce Springsteen both realize their careers would be over without their voices so they’ve each taken a $6 million insurance policy out on their vocal chords. Stewart underwent surgery for throat cancer back in 2000, so it was probably a good idea on his part.

Bono, singer for Irish rock group U2, was thankful he had an insurance policy since the band’s 2010 tour had to be postponed due to the front man’s back injury. It cost his insurance carrier about $17.5 million.

Many people who are owed life insurance benefits may find it harder to collect what’s owed to them in the future. This is because the Death Master File, which is put together by the SSA (Social Security Administration), will be harder for the public to access.

The file lists most Americans who have passed away during the past 75 years and includes personal information such as Social Security numbers and ZIP codes. Insurance companies used this list to find out if any of their policyholders had died and would then pay out the benefits to the beneficiary. At least that’s what they were supposed to do.

According to an article by insure.com, insurance regulators in California, New York, and Florida recently said that many insurance providers hadn’t been using the file and beneficiaries were faced with the task of hunting them down to receive the money that was rightfully owed to them. Kevin McCarty, the Florida Insurance Commissioner, said insurance companies had $1 billion of beneficiaries’ money and could have easily paid it out if they checked with the Death Master File.

But it may even be harder for beneficiaries to collect now since the SSA started protecting this file on Nov. 1, 2011 and the majority of it can now be accessed by federal agencies only. This means the insurance companies and public won’t have access to the list of most recent deaths. The SSA said the system was changed because it isn’t allowed to publish death records it receives from the states. But this seems odd to many people since the file has been around since about 1980 and it surely didn’t take 30 years to find out they were doing something wrong.

It’s believed the file may be harder to access now because criminals were using it to gain personal information that could be used in illegal scams, such as falsely claiming deceased children as dependents. However, insurance regulators say the insurance companies should still be using the Death Master File even if it’s just a partial list now.

It’s recommended that if you have a life insurance policy you should make sure the beneficiaries know about it and where it’s located. And if you ever move, you should make sure the insurance company has your new address.

America’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was extended for five more months at the end of 2011 just before it was about to expire. Supporters of the program are hoping it’s just the first step in a more permanent extension. President Obama signed the bill into law on Dec. 23 and the insurance program will now be set to expire again on May 31, 2012.

The program’s supporters would have preferred to see the NFIP given a new five-year lease on life and it would have been if a House measure was passed in 2011. Still, they see a five-month extension as better than nothing and feel it can be used as a launching pad for their long-range goals.

One of the reasons all of the recent extensions have been relatively short ones is because the Senate and the House have been debating for years whether or not the NFIP should also have to offer coverage for windstorms along with the flood insurance. However, at this moment in time, it appears that the windstorm insurance issue has been put on the back burner.

According to an article by BusinessInsurance.com, Tom Santos of the American Insurance Association said a five-month extension offers some breathing room since some of the previous extensions were for just a month at a time. He feels this will enable the association to focus on getting a longer-term bill passed.

The five-year bill to reauthorize the NFIP has been passed by the House as well as the Senate Banking Committee, but it still has to pass through the Senate and many insurance experts feel now is the time to do it. Santos said the next move is to get floor time from the Senate leadership so it can consider the measure from the Senate Banking Committee. He added that the House measure garnered 406 votes while the Senate Banking Committee bill was passed by a voice vote.

It’s believed the issues that separate the House and Senate, such as mapping standards and deductibles, are basically just technical and those gaps such should be able to be bridged with a little work. Ironically, the NFIP extension expires on May 31, and the Atlantic hurricane season starts the very next day.

According to the numbers, health insurance companies have been reaping record profits ever since President Obama’s health care reform act was announced. This comes after private insurers complained the new legislation would drive them out of business. However, it’s hard to see how companies would suffer if more people are purchasing their products.

A recent Bloomberg Government report said more private insurers are now involved in the managing of public health insurance programs and the five biggest publicly-traded companies made more money in the first three quarters of 2011 than any other three-quarter period in the past 10 years. According to the report, the average company’s operating margin rose to 8.65 per cent last year compared to 6.9 per cent during the 18 months before Obama’s reform legislation was passed.

Even though insurers argued it would be costly for them to follow the new laws, such as insuring children who have pre-existing conditions, profits are rising. According to an article by the National Journal, a lot of the profits are the result of investing in public programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.

The insurers are offering customers of these programs managed-care plans and it was reported that more than 40 per cent of their revenue now comes from this. Combined, the top four insurers saw their Medicaid revenue double in 2011 to $4.11 billion from 2 billion. But in the 18 months since the health law was passed the growth on their commercial revenue was just three per cent.

The recent moves by some of America’s top private insurers leads one to believe that they feel the new health care laws will be implemented fully in the near future even though they are being challenged in the courts. The insurers feel more and more Americans will be leaning toward purchasing managed-care health programs. Some insurance analysts say private companies are making a lot of money by moving in on the public health programs, but this outsourcing isn’t going to save the tax payers money.

For instance the Congressional Budget Office figures show that Medicare Advantage plans cost the tax payers 10 per cent more than the traditional Medicare plan.

Beginning this year, the American government will be adding on a fee to peoples’ health insurance plans that will be used to fund research to discover which medical procedures, tests, treatments, and drugs are the most effective. The research is a part of President Obama's new health care legislation and will try to determine if new prescription medications are any better than less expensive older generic types.

However, according to an article by SFGate.com, many people are suspicious of the new research fee since they view it as a tax and could become an issue in this election year. The research will be performed by a new governmental agency which was formed by Congress called The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The government has already started funding the institute and starting in 2012 there will be a $1 insurance fee per person that will go towards the research. However, the Treasury Department said that the fee might not be collected until 2013, but insurance companies would still owe the government the money that is to be collected in 2012. During the second year of the program, the fee will double to $2 per insured person. After that, the rate will be adjusted according to the rate of inflation.

Kathryn Nix, who is an insurance analyst with Heritage Foundation wonders if the results of the research will be used to make insurance coverage determinations. However, Dr. Joe Selby, who is the institute’s director, said his organization won’t make the decisions since that will be the job of doctors and patients. Selby said the institute isn’t a policy-making organization and its job is to simply carry out research and make the findings of it available.

Some representatives of the insurance industry feel that policyholders could be encouraged to visit doctors and hospitals which provide the most effective methods of treatment and those who go elsewhere may have to pay higher co-payments, such as people do now when they pay extra charges for buying non-preferred drugs. The article states that several major insurance companies are doing their own research, but the government-funded studies are seen as more credible.

At the moment, drug companies just have to prove that their new medications are more effective than sugar pills to gain governmental marketing approval. They don’t have to show that the medication is better than a competing brand.

Many American states have handed the government Medicaid program to private insurance companies over the past decade or so as a way to improve health care and reduce costs. It’s estimated that about 30 million Medicaid patients, which represents about half of the total, are looked after by private managed-care plans. However, according to an article by USA Today, Connecticut has decided to run the show itself.

Starting Jan. 1, 2012, Connecticut is going to take Medicaid plans back from private insurers and will take over financial responsibility. This is because state officials said the private companies weren’t providing better care and lower costs. In America, about 27 million Medicaid participants are looked after by managed-care plans and they represent $150 billion of the total Medicaid spending of $400 billion.

While Connecticut is taking Medicaid plans out of the hands of private insurers, many other states such as California, Texas, and Florida, are requesting that more residents join managed-care plans. Officials in numerous states are keeping their eyes on Connecticut to see how everything pans out. According to a Connecticut health care consultant, there are a lot of people against profit-making health care companies and this move is welcomed by them.

Ironically, Connecticut is known as the insurance capital of the world and about 2.1 per cent of the state’s population work in the insurance industry. Oklahoma was the first state to get rid of its private, for-profit Medicaid plans back in 2005 and it’s been reported that officials there are happy with the results. Oklahoma reported that Medicaid members there were happy with the cost and quality of their health care and the cost has risen just 1.2 per cent annually over the past five years.

In 2011, Connecticut’s Medicaid managed-care operations were worth over $800 million to several private companies. Critics of the managed-care Medicaid plans are hoping more states will follow Connecticut's lead and seek out alternatives. An advocacy group representing the poor, known as The New Haven Legal Assistance Association, said managed-care Medicaid sees too much money and too many resources going toward profits and administration.

The group said a report in 2009 showed that Connecticut overpaid insurers by close to $50 million per year, which represented six per cent of total expenses. Other states said the plans weren’t spending enough money on health services and some of the doctors that belonged to networks wouldn’t accept patients who were on Medicaid.

The article said many doctors in Connecticut are also happy with the state’s decision as they had to follow a different set of rules for the different plans. In addition, they also said there were delays in payments and they had difficulty referring some patients to specialists.

The best way to protect yourself and others while driving is to make sure you have an adequate amount of auto insurance and keep the policy certificate in your vehicle. Of course, there are still some places where auto insurance isn’t required by law, but those days may soon be coming to an end as more and more states are requiring drivers to possess a minimum amount of insurance.

Keeping a copy of your policy in the car will enable you to prove that you have insurance. However, in some states such as Virginia, it’s law to have auto insurance, but it’s not the law to prove it. According to an article by the republic.com, this has been causing some confusion in the state as drivers have received tickets for not being able to prove insurance.

Some Virginia motorists have been fined and charged court costs after failing to show local police proof of insurance after being pulled over during traffic stops. Virginia state law requires drivers to possess liability insurance for their auto or to pay $500 to the Department of Motor Vehicles for driving without it. If you don’t have the insurance policy or haven’t paid the $500 fee you can be fined up to $500 for a misdemeanor. However, the law doesn’t state that motorists have to carry proof of insurance with them.

Still, some Virginia officers have been ticketing drivers for an offense that doesn’t exist. Local court records have shown that police officers have written out several tickets regarding no proof of insurance and this has resulted in fines of $100 for some motorists plus court costs of $10. The obvious solution to the problem would be for the state to require drivers to carry proof of auto insurance while driving or proof that they’ve paid the $500 fee for an uninsured vehicle.

It was reported that the General Assembly considered such a mandate a minimum of three times in the past, but never passed it. You should always know what the auto insurance requirements and laws are in your area, but you can also save a lot of hassle by always carrying proof of insurance with you every time you drive.

The Supreme Court recently announced that it has set aside a week in March to listen to arguments over the constitutionality of the new health insurance legislation as it wants to settle the issue before the presidential elections in 2012. The court said it will listen to arguments concerning the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from March 26 to 28.

According to an article by the Associated Press, the court time means there should be a final decision on the controversial health care law by Independence Day as President Obama campaigns for re-election. The new legislation has been strongly opposed by all of the president’s potential GOP opponents. The Republicans claimed that the new law was unconstitutional before the president signed it in March 2010.

In March, the justices will listen to over five hours of debates on the new health care law. The last time the Supreme Court set aside that much time for an issue was in 2003. The arguments will start on Mon. March 26 and decide whether or not court action is actually premature since nobody has paid a fine for not participating in the health care overhaul.

American law typically doesn’t allow any court challenges concerning things such as taxes until they have been paid. An appeals court in Richmond, Va., made a ruling earlier in 2011 which said the fines for not buying insurance wouldn’t be paid before the federal income tax returns need to be sent in by April 2015, meaning it’s too early for the court to rule.

The next day of arguments will deal with whether Congress has the authority to require Americans to buy health insurance in 2014 or be fined. The White House said it’s well within its power to enforce the law while opponents of it say Congress is overstepping its authority with the mandate. So far, just one of four appellate courts have ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional.

The last day of Supreme Court time will deal with arguments regarding whether the remainder of the health care law can be put into effect if the health insurance mandate is ruled to be unconstitutional. In addition, discussions will be held over whether the new law has gone too far by coercing individual states to join in on the legislation by threatening to cut off federal money. Opponents to the law say it should all be scrapped if the individual insurance mandate is ruled unconstitutional, while the government says most of the legislation should still be allowed to function.