document: Federal court tosses NH man 's health overhaul suit CONCORD , N.H. - A federal court has thrown out a New Hampshire man 's lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the government 's health care overhaul , saying he lacked standing to sue because his Medicare coverage will automatically satisfy the law 's insurance mandate . Harold Peterson , 80 , of Nashua , sued President Barack Obama and Congress last year objecting mainly to the law 's requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance . While similar lawsuits have been filed around the country , Peterson 's case appears to have been the first brought by a Medicare recipient , according to U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Laplante , who dismissed the lawsuit Wednesday . Laplante acknowledged that the law , and the insurance mandate in particular , '' `` may raise interesting constitutional issues , '' '' but said Peterson had no standing to challenge it because he did not plausibly explain how the mandate would harm him . '' `` As the defendants note , Medicare coverage automatically satisfies the Act 's health insurance mandate . So Peterson will not have to incur any financial burdens , or indeed do anything at all , to satisfy the mandate . The federal government will satisfy it for him , '' '' the court wrote . Peterson , who works as a real estate consultant and represented himself in court , said Friday that he disagrees with that reasoning because he believes the law could end up reducing Medicare benefits . '' `` The fact that you have Medicare does n't make a difference because Medicare is being impacted as well , '' '' he said . The court pointed out that the law expressly states that none of its provisions shall result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits for those covered by Medicare , the government health program for people over age 65 . While that does n't necessarily guarantee the intended results , Peterson 's speculation that the law may end up causing benefit reductions was n't enough to allow the case to continue , the judge wrote . The court also rejected Peterson 's claim that the law has caused his supplemental private health insurance premiums to rise . In order for him to sue on those grounds , he would have had to show that a ruling in his favor would have reversed that harm . But since his private insurer was n't part of the lawsuit , declaring the law unconstitutional would not have ensured that his premiums would go down . Despite the ruling , Peterson said he will continue to highlight what he views as a constitutional crisis . '' `` I decided to file it because I , as well as a lot of other people , are getting tired of the fact that our legislators and other government people are completely ignoring the Constitution , '' '' he said .
doc_bio_tags: B O O O O O B O O B O O O O B O O O O O B I O O B B O B O O B O B O O O O O O O O O O O B O O B B O O O B O O B I O O O O B O O B I I O B O O O O O O O O B O O O B O B B O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O B B O O O B I I I I I O O B O B O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O B O O O O B B O O O B O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O B B O B O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O B I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B B O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O B O O B O O B O B O O B B B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O B O O O O O O B B B B B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O B O O O O O O O O O