Federal Judge Rules Parts of Obamacare Unconstitutional

[Obama 2012 1,714]

----------

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

(CNN) -- A Virginia federal judge on Monday found a key part of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care reform law unconstitutional -- setting the stage for a protracted legal struggle likely to wind up in the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson struck down the "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014. The Justice Department is expected to challenge the judge's findings in a federal appeals court.

Hudson's opinion contradicts other court rulings finding the mandate constitutionally permissible.

"An individual's personal decision to purchase -- or decline purchase -- (of) health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach" of the U.S. Constitution," Hudson wrote. "No specifically constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance."

A federal judge in Virginia earlier this month had ruled in favor of the administration over the purchase requirement issue, mirroring conclusions reached by a judge in Michigan.

Hudson's ruling raised strong doubts about the government's authority to mandate the purchase of insurance coverage for individuals and employers.

Virginia officials had argued that the Constitution's Commerce Clause does not give the government the authority to force Americans to purchase a commercial product -- like health insurance -- that they may not want or need. They equated such a requirement to a burdensome regulation of "inactivity."

Virginia is one of the few states in the country with a specific law saying residents cannot be forced to buy insurance.

"I am gratified we prevailed," said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a conservative Republican elected in 2009. "This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution."

Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March, after promoting Democratic-led health reform efforts for months after taking office. The law is widely considered to be the signature legislative accomplishment of the president's first two years in office.

Among other things, the measure was designed to help millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans receive adequate and affordable health care through a series of government-imposed mandates and subsidies. The federal government stated in court briefs that 45 million Americans last year were without health insurance, roughly 15 percent of the country's population.

Critics have equated the measure to socialized medicine, fearing that a bloated government bureaucracy will result in higher taxes and diminished health care services. About two dozen challenges have been filed in federal courts nationwide.

On November 8, the Supreme Court rejected the first constitutional challenge to the health care reform effort, resisting a California conservative group's appeal. The justices refused to get involved at a relatively early stage of the legal process.

The high court rarely accepts cases before they have been thoroughly reviewed by lower courts.

Legal experts say they expect several of the larger issues in the health care debate to ultimately end up before the Supreme Court. A review from the high court may not happen, however, for at least a year or two.

The highest-profile lawsuit may come from Florida. State officials there have objected not only to the individual coverage mandate, but also to a requirement forcing states to expand Medicaid. Florida's litigation is supported by 19 other states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Health care reform -- a top Democratic priority since the Truman administration -- passed the current Congress in a series of virtual party-line votes. Opponent derisively labeled the measure "Obamacare." Republican leaders -- who captured the House of Representatives in the midterm elections -- have vowed to overturn or severely trim the law.

The 63-year-old Hudson was named to the bench in 2002 by former President George W. Bush. He is a former state and federal prosecutor.

"While this court's decision may set the initial judicial course of this case, it will certainly not be the final word," Hudson wrote in October.

The case decided Monday is Virginia v. Sebelius (3:10-cv-00188).

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This isn't going to stand. Without a health insurance mandate, there cannot be any guarantee for coverage. So, if a health insurance mandate is deemed unconsitutional, then those opting out of coverage at any point in time would lose their entitlement under the current law to receive coverage when they need it. In other words, if you feel ionvincible today, good luck to you tomorrow when you get sick. Can't pay your way? Go dig your grave. I am tired of paying for those fcuking free-riders.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

This isn't going to stand. Without a health insurance mandate, there cannot be any guarantee for coverage. So, if a health insurance mandate is deemed unconsitutional, then those opting out of coverage at any point in time would lose their entitlement under the current law to receive coverage when they need it. In other words, if you feel ionvincible today, good luck to you tomorrow when you get sick. Can't pay your way? Go dig your grave. I am tired of paying for those fcuking free-riders.

If it doesn't stand, then we've lost 'the land of the free.'

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If it doesn't stand, then we've lost 'the land of the free.'

Not even close.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Not even close.

If this stands, then you're giving the government a free open-book pass to tell you what to buy and when to buy it under the guise of economic reasoning.

The auto industry is failing again? You MUST buy a GM car or you will be "fined."

A slippery slope is one you wet and slowly freeze over with bullshit reasoning.

[mawilson 2,133]

This isn't going to stand. Without a health insurance mandate, there cannot be any guarantee for coverage. So, if a health insurance mandate is deemed unconsitutional, then those opting out of coverage at any point in time would lose their entitlement under the current law to receive coverage when they need it. In other words, if you feel ionvincible today, good luck to you tomorrow when you get sick. Can't pay your way? Go dig your grave. I am tired of paying for those fcuking free-riders.

The individual mandate is unconstitutional, but there are other ways federal funds can be used to provide coverage for the uninsured.

Medicare for all, for example. Raise the Medicare tax to pay for it, problem solved.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If this stands, then you're giving the government a free open-book pass to tell you what to buy and when to buy it under the guise of economic reasoning.

The auto industry is failing again? You MUST buy a GM car or you will be "fined."

A slippery slope is one you wet and slowly freeze over with bullshit reasoning.

I see why you'd want to talk about bullshite reasoning - you're the expert on that one. The analogy you offer is right down that road.

The individual mandate is unconstitutional, but there are other ways federal funds can be used to provide coverage for the uninsured.

Medicare for all, for example. Raise the Medicare tax to pay for it, problem solved.

Single payer as the result of these lawsuits? I like it.

[TBoneTX 43,058]

The two quoted sentences from Judge Hudson's ruling say it all, simply and elegantly.

In a perfect world, Congressmen and Senators (and Presidents) would be prosecuted for passing, signing, or even proposing any legislation that violates their purportedly sworn oaths to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States," or whatever the oath's exact wording.

[mawilson 2,133]

The two quoted sentences from Judge Hudson's ruling say it all, simply and elegantly.

In a perfect world, Congressmen and Senators (and Presidents) would be prosecuted for passing, signing, or even proposing any legislation that violates their purportedly sworn oaths to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States," or whatever the oath's exact wording.

Most of what they do in Washington all day long is unconstitutional. Are TSA pat-downs constitutional? Hell no.

[TBoneTX 43,058]

Most of what they do in Washington all day long is unconstitutional. Are TSA pat-downs constitutional? Hell no.

100% agreed, si man. In a perfect world, I would station a police officer at every TSA grope-point and arrest every TSA agent for molestation (or appropriate charge). Then, we'd see how long the, uh, hands-on attention would last. Civil lawsuits (violation of Fourth Amendment rights) could then follow.

In regard to the behavior of Washington, one could almost blame the Founding Fathers, who envisioned a government by regular citizens who would serve in office and then return to their regular lives. A better Third Amendment (than the currently irrelevant one) would be: "Upon civil and criminal penalty and removal from office, Congress and its members shall propose no law contrary to the strict construction of this Constitution or its Bill of Rights, si man. Furthermore, no law or regulation decreed by an unelected bureaucrat or appointee shall infringe upon the rights of the People, no man."

Another nice thought would have been "All laws and regulations passed by the Congress shall immediately and completely affect members of Congress as said laws affect the People, si man."

[Captain Oates 910]

I think we should be able to chose whether we want the US Military to protect us - and opt out of all taxes that goes to the military (they spend more than than ALL other countries combined)

I understand that I am on my own if the North Koreans invade and take over West of the Rockies

Same for the Police - why should I have to buy all my own guns and then have double cover from those guys..

Also the fire dept - I will buy my own hose and extinguisher

food stamps - I will forage the sage brush

Diseases ? I don't get out that much so I will take my chances

I will pay for the roads but there isn't much more I should be paying for

If I want to walk around giving horrible diseases to people then it's their responsibility to get their shots at Walmart

In the words of Margaret Thatcher - there is no such thing as society

What do I care if people are laid in the gutter screaming in pain and dying ? we can't do a free magic like jesus so if they wants saving they had better start saving.

Just because it's a christian country does not mean we should care for each other or form social systems to help everyone - because that is socialism

jesus would not have helped anyone who was stupid enough not to have bought insurance

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I think we should be able to chose whether we want the US Military to protect us - and opt out of all taxes that goes to the military (they spend more than than ALL other countries combined)

I understand that I am on my own if the North Koreans invade and take over West of the Rockies

Same for the Police - why should I have to buy all my own guns and then have double cover from those guys..

Also the fire dept - I will buy my own hose and extinguisher

food stamps - I will forage the sage brush

Diseases ? I don't get out that much so I will take my chances

I will pay for the roads but there isn't much more I should be paying for

If I want to walk around giving horrible diseases to people then it's their responsibility to get their shots at Walmart

In the words of Margaret Thatcher - there is no such thing as society

What do I care if people are laid in the gutter screaming in pain and dying ? we can't do a free magic like jesus so if they wants saving they had better start saving.

Just because it's a christian country does not mean we should care for each other or form social systems to help everyone - because that is socialism

jesus would not have helped anyone who was stupid enough not to have bought insurance

your argument would have held merit if it weren't for the fact it fails miserably with the first two points. As those are constitutional.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Basically if the mandate doesn't hold up, hospitals should be allowed to turn people away who can not pay. You can't have it both ways.....

[mawilson 2,133]

Basically if the mandate doesn't hold up, hospitals should be allowed to turn people away who can notchoose not to pay. You can't have it both ways.....

Fixed.

[Dan J 277]

Basically if the mandate doesn't hold up, hospitals should be allowed to turn people away who can not pay. You can't have it both ways.....

EMS services should also ask for a valid credit card before sending out an ambulance.