Federal Judge Henry Hudson from Virginia said Healthcare Law Uncontitutional

[still_one]

Source: Bloomberg

Indicates violation of interstate comerence

No link yet.

[midnight]

1. I hope it is those mandates to purchase healthcare....

[still_one]

2. That is exactly it. From one Federal Judge in Virginia. No link yet just comment from Bloomberg

[Creative]

12. I'm sure it is. It's one thing to regulate commerce,

it's quite another to force someone to engage in commerce against their will.

[RoccoR5955]

101. Right, yet we are all required to purchase auto insurance.

How does that figure? Is auto insurance also unconstitutional?

[Myrina]

110. We are not 'forced' to purchase auto insurance ... you can opt to not drive.

The health insurance mandate applies to everyone, everywhere, just because they're alive. Different.

[christx30]

119. You could just opt to not breathe.

I did it once for a week. But I couldn't have made it without gum.

[RoccoR5955]

133. Couldn't you just opt out of life too? n/t

[Creative]

143. If I choose not to engage in the commerce of driving, I am not required to

purchase automobile insurance. I do have a choice.

Under HCR, I did not.

[Green_Lantern]

146. so then if you get sick do you sign a waiver saying you

Won't go to the ER?

If you don't buy insurance and have a heart attack should paramedics ignore your call?

I don't think anyone "opts out" more like they get a free ride.

PS: This doesn't apply to people who are qualified for state assistance.

[Creative]

149. If I do those things and I don't have insurance, send me the bill. Why should medical care

be treated differently from other services? (I don't understand)

Let's take your point regarding public assistance a bit further. Perhaps you will find those "free riders" you are looking for there.

[Green_Lantern]

150. wow...that's an odd argument for a progressive..

That health care should be treated the same as other goods and services.

Isn't health care a public good like education.

What if you need emergency heart surgery...how much do you think that costs?

You'll pay it out of pocket?

[Creative]

151. "Public good...?" That's sounds too much like "public restroom."

And I prefer to go in private.

Seriously, there are no doubt issues with health care that demand attention. However, abandoning the Constitution is not the answer.

[Green_Lantern]

153. that's what conservatives said about Medicare...

The health reform bill isn't abandoning the Constitution and secondly the Constitution shouldn't shackle govt. from serving the people.

[Creative]

155. On the contrary, the Constitution was written to prevent the people from being forced

into serving the government.

And that is precisely what this legislation attempted to do. Fortunately, unlike many, this judge appears to have actually read the Constitution.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
~George Washington

[Green_Lantern]

156. who cares what Washington supposedly said...

It is a bad analogy considering we use fire or forms of fire for just about everything.

The govt. forces people to pay into Medicare so why not into high risk insurance pools?

I'm more of a social democrat than so I don't really believe limited govt. as an end itself.

[Creative]

157. Medicare was enacted by means of a tax. If you cannot see the difference

between taxes and forced commerce, it is no wonder that you believe in unlimited power for the government.

[Green_Lantern]

158. I never said I supported unlimited power for govt.

I said I don't believe limited govt. is an end in itself. For instance forcing businesses to serve minorities is more important than limited govt.

This health reform doesn't send in govt. agents to force you to buy insurance, you're simply taxed for not having it.

The mortgage deduction on income tax arguably forces people to buy homes because if you don't own a house I can guarantee you'll be hit hard on taxes.

[Creative]

161. Not taxed, but fined. Thus, anyone in non-compliance would have been

classified as a criminal. Furthermore, what do you think the government would do if you declined to pay the fine?

[Green_Lantern]

168. what will the govt. do if you don't pay taxes?

People rarely go to jail over fines and secondly not paying fines doesn't really make you a felonious criminal.

Also the part of the Constitution I mentioned has been interpreted as using taxes as punitive. For instance this case---http://supreme.justia.com/us/72/462/

Congress taxed the business owner for not getting a license.

[christx30]

165. What if you

don't want to participate? What if you don't want to pay a bunch of money to an insurance company just to get nothing back from it? Shouldn't it be your choice, as it is your money that is being spent? Who are you to tell me what I have to do with the money that I work for?
Let people decide for themselves what they want to do about their own health care. If I don't want to participate, I won't.

[Green_Lantern]

167. does that also apply to Medicare?

The govt. takes money from people and uses it to pay for Medicare.

Secondly with the new health reform insurance companies are required to spend at least 80 cents of every dollar on actual healthcare or reimburse you.

The problem with "people deciding about health care" is that emergency care has driven up health care because when people without insurance get sick or injured they still go to the er.

[RoccoR5955]

160. And if that bill bankrupts you, and you cannot pay it all, who ends up paying?

The rest of us, that's who. People who cannot afford health care, and are given care gratis, by whatever means, are merely shifting the cost on to those of us who do pay.
Believe me when I say that we should have universal health care. I would rather have it. This is too much a give away to the insurance companies, but it does have the possibility of lowering the insurance premiums that many of us pay, and have been going up rather quickly in the past few years.

[Creative]

162. I understand, like the previous poster, you see those who do not have insurance as

getting a "free ride." Well, as it turns out, many people in Massachusetts, which also forces people to buy insurance, have figured out how to beat the system.

During the week of April 5, 2010, the Boston Globe reported that more than a thousand people in Massachusetts had "gamed" the mandate/penalty provision of the law since implementation by choosing to be insured only a few months a year, typically when in need of a specific medical procedure. On the average, the Globe reported, these part-time enrolees were paying $1200–$1600 in premiums over a few months and receiving $10,000 or more in healthcare services before again dropping coverage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

[RoccoR5955]

163. Many People... 4% are many people?

I don't think so.

Also, there's no citation in the text in the Wikipedia entry that you cut and pasted.
You should be aware that just because someone puts something on Wikipedia, does not make it true.

[Creative]

164. Thanks, but I am aware--this was indeed reported by the Globe.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/04/04/short_term_customers_boosting_health_costs/

[RoccoR5955]

166. You know, I just read your post again, and you are wrong.

I do not see those who do not have insurance as getting a free ride. As I said in my original post, I would rather there be universal health care, but this may bring down costs for all. Yes, it's a bailout for the insurance companies, but it's what it is.

I have been broke, and had to go to the emergency room. Though I tried to get Medicaid, I was denied, and had to pay a small amount each month, until it was paid up. It would have cost me less to have insurance. Granted it was quite a few years ago, when things were less expensive, but while I had to go through some tough financial times, I had to pay for an x-ray, and some pain meds as well. And you never know when you might get hurt, and need the service.

[lovuian]

114. Bingo

You knew this was the plan all along ...this bill was Bogus

[Fool Count]

124. That one is very easy to circumvent.

Just impose a healthcare tax by some special formula on everybody, and then, after he/she purchases
health insurance, return the collected tax with tax refund. If someone doesn't want to buy insurance,
use his tax to get him some generic coverage. Constitutionality of federal taxes appears to be firmly
established by the courts, is it not?

[harun]

23. The only people who want the mandates are the Health Insurance Companies.

I can't wait to hear the Supreme's arguments on this one. The Corpo-fascist's on the court will want side with the Health Insurers but will have to do one heck of a song and dance to do it.

[Green_Lantern]

48. no they just need to refer to the Constitution

Congress has power to lay taxes.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

63. I hope they buy them dinner first.

[Creative]

68. This was not a tax. If was forced commerce.

[BarryMeNot]

69. They could do another Bush vs Gore

declaring that their decision will only apply to this one case. :eyes:

[BenzoDia]

26. The mandate is crucial to making the whole thing affordable.

Consider that insurance companies are being told that they cannot reject people based on pre-existing conditions. The mandate spreads the cost of that to everyone.

[Hoyt]

28. I agree with you, but it's a waste of time to post facts.

When HCR is scuttled, we'll be back to ground -10000.

There will be nothing to add a public option to, and the rethugs -- who'll use this against Democrats for decades -- ain't gonna to approve a single payer until we are all dying in the streets and the have to face reality.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. Except that the individual prices charged would NOT be affordable

I actually read some executive summaries of the bill.

I find that most people who are so gung-ho about the bill don't realize what's in it.

Being just above the threshold for government subsidies, I would have to buy a policy that was more expensive and had worse provisions than the policy I dropped a few months ago for being expensive and useless.

In other words, the Obama bill allows insurance companies to continue price-gouging (especially charging people over 50 three times the standard rates) and imposing high deductibles and copays, i.e. raking in the money (with government subsidies yet!) and having to pay out only 85%. (Wendell Potter said that they used to pay out 95%--and insurance was affordable in those days.)

The "affordable health care" in the Obama bill is a millionaire Senator's definition of "affordable."

They could have passed the good parts of the bill (no denial for pre-existing conditions, young people covered till age 26) without the Guaranteed High Profits for the Insurance Companies provisions.

Yeah, yeah, the insurance companies wouldn't have liked it. So fucking what?

Who else gets to veto a bill because they don't like following it?

[BenzoDia]

47. Do you have a link that states which insurance plans you'd be forced to buy?

The purpose of the health exchanges is to offer coverage that meet benefit and cost standards. Also, since these are left up to the state to run, I don't see how it's valid to make a generalized statement on the entire law.

Edit:
Also, States are given funding to help review premiums to prevent unfair price hikes.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. Months later, I no longer have the links, but look up

"gold, silver, and bronze" insurance plans and the Kaiser-Permanente executive summary.

[Hoyt]

54. How do you know the premiums won't be affordable (with subsidies)?

First off, we haven't even gotten to 2014. At that point, there will be no pre-existing condition exclusions and the exchanges will kick in. That means we can move from one insurance company to another if the benefits and premiums aren't what we want. At least one or two insurers -- out of the thousands that exist -- will go for volume by offering the best combination of premiums and benefits. Are they going to get insurance down to $150/month for full coverage for someone in their 50s without a subsidy -- nope, can't be done, even if provided directly by the government (unless we are willing to make some major changes in the way we seek health care -- which I am BTW).

Next, I'd be careful putting too much faith in what Wendell Potter supposedly said. Remember, he go rich for years screwing people (perhaps killing them). I applaud him for feeling remorse for it, but I doubt that very many insurance companies have ever paid out 95% in medical benefits. If they did, we need to resurrect that company and buy our insurance from them. Profits, marketing costs, sales commissions, CEO bonuses are more than 5% for most insurers. The new law does not allow anywhere near charging 50 times standard rates. If you don't believe it, go read the law. The 80/85% MLR will help control premiums with proper enforcement, as will tightening the ratio in future years (well, unless we scuttle what was achieved).

BTW -- I would have preferred a single payer or at least a public option. But, you need some framework to add a public option -- and the law provides that.

At this point, if we throw out what was passed -- rather than trying to improve it -- we'll be worse off than we were in 2005.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. Move from one insurance company to another?

I already tried that. They all charge the same.

They will still be allowed to charge me 3 times as much as a young person.

They will still be allowed to set deductibles high enough to guarantee that the average person will keep paying but never use their services.

If we had to keep the Obama plan but I were allowed to make just one change, I would BAN deductibles. Utterly ban them. In what industry other than insurance can you pay thousands of dollars a year to a private company, and then, when you really need their services, they tell you that they don't have to cover you?

The lame, self-serving excuse that the insurance companies use is that people would run to the doctor for every sniffle if there were no deductibles. Yeah, like there are millions of Americans whose idea of a good time is sitting in a doctor's waiting room reading six-month-old magazines. Do you know what Taiwan did about that? They tracked people's doctor visits, and they sent warnings to the hypochondriacs warning that they would have to pay for all further non-critical visits out of pocket.

(My brother, the doctor, says that all insurance companies are crooks and think up incredibly lame excuses for not paying for medically valid treatments that they're supposed to pay for. He spends a couple of hours on the phone each week arguing with insurance companies.)

[Hoyt]

80. Lydia, most of the new Health Care Reform does not kick in until 2014.

I know that is not much help to you now, but no reason to throw out what was accomplished. The new law also includes limits on deductibles.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. LIMITS on deductibles. Not bans

Bans are what is needed.

In the early 1990s, I was able to get health insurance without deductibles. Don't tell me that the medical treatments needed by the average person have become so much more sophisticated that the price gouging is justified.

And is anybody looking into whether the high cost of malpractice insurance is justified? I'm sure the insurance company apologists will moan about $10 million awards, but 1) How many such awards are upheld on appeal? 2) What is the ratio of claims to doctors in each specialty, and what is the average (mean, mode, and median) payout?

If the American people are expected to sacrifice for the welfare of the insurance companies (by being forced to buy expensive policies), then it's only fair to require them to sacrifice for us, too.

[Hoyt]

117. You can get policies now with no deductible, but your premiums will go up accordingly.

Even if we paid into a government plan, those who don't qualify for a subsidy would just have to pay roughly the amount of the deductible you removed in increased premiums (at the lower levels of deductibles).

As to malpractice, you won't get any debate from me. It makes up about 3-8% of the cost of health care and is used by too many folks as a rationale for high costs.

When the law actually kicks in, I think we'll find premium increases do begin to subside (somewhat). And we can weed out the plans that are the biggest rip-off. But, truthfully, until we change our expectations of what health care is, even a government run single payer system is going to cost more than most people will happily pay. If we magically stripped everything but direct health benefits out of most insurance policies right now -- marketing, profits, obscene salaries and bonuses for greedy execs, etc. -- we'd get a reduction of 20% or so in premiums at best. Now, if we want to talk about rationing care in some cases, putting the skids on a lot of research that only produces marginally better treatments at much higher costs, etc., then we might actually achieve affordable care. But then folks will be gripping about having to wait longer, grandma can't get a hip replacement when she's 95 years old, etc. I think we are screwed no matter how you look at it. But, that ain't Obama or the Democrat's fault.

BTW -- If I had a choice, I'd gladly go for a government plan. I'd rather gripe at someone elected than someone who made it to the top by figuring out ways to take another cut of the money for themselves and stockholders.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

137. But my point is that in the 1990s, I was able to pay $110 a month

with NO deductible and only a modest co-pay.

There have been no advances in medical care for the average person major enough to justify $331 a month with a $5000 deductible and 20% co-pay after that (which is what I dropped last spring). It's not as if we ALL get quadruple bypasses (which, come to think of it, existed in the 1990s).

What else among our normal purchases has tripled in price while DECREASING what you get for it?

Do you really think that the insurance companies will reduce their prices once they have everyone over a barrel? Look at what has happened in Massachusetts, which has a small-scale version of the Obama plan. The highest insurance costs in the country and no decrease in emergency room visits.

One of the people responding to the NY Times article pays $1800 a month in health insurance premiums. That's $21,600 a year. Every year.

We ought to ALL drop our insurance if it's feasible (I realize that not everyone can), especially if paying the premiums is preventing us from getting actual CARE, and collapse the system that the government has no alternative but to institute single payer. Fear of a possible medical emergency keeps us slaves.

[mdmc]

81. 1

[alarimer]

140. This bill is an insurance companies wet dream

Force people to buy shitty insurance that didn't actually cover much and was expensive to boot. If they didn't buy it, they would be fined.

[jobycom]

73. Yeah, that's true. Which means if the mandatory clause is knocked out, the insurance companies

will challenge the pre-existing conditions clause, and the other restrictions, and the whole bill collapses.

I still think a public option would have fixed a lot of the problems. Allow insurance companies to cover who they want for whatever cost they want, but give everyone an option to buy into a public policy based on the lowest market pricing available. That will force insurance companies to offer either cheaper or better coverage, and might actually invoke the competition Republicans acknowledge improves the market. As it stands, health insurance is practically a mandatory market, meaning the customer can't just realistically walk away without suffering hardship, so the pricing is imbalanced towards demand instead of being a balance of supply and demand, and that makes the prices artificially high. Public Option changes that. As long as it's not overly subsidized to the point where insurance can't compete. Maybe subsidize the policies that regular companies don't want, anyway, but allow a market-priced public option to draw prices down. Works for shipping--the Post Office competes with UPS and the rest, but they all thrive.

[sofa king]

109. The mandate merely secures another profit margin in an elaborate shell game.

Remember, the only true object of insurance is to extract more money from you, the individual, than the insurance company expects to pay out for you. Their interest in you is never benign, they are only motivated by profit. They are willing to expend oceans of your cash in lobbying against your interests, in campaign fundraising for representatives who work against you, and literally hours of annoying television commercials each day drumming up false support for issues designed, ultimately, to screw you out of every last dime you can make over your mathematically predicted lifetime.

Because to an insurance company, you're a line of income waiting to be tapped, and that's it.

[RufusTFirefly]

111. +10000 n/t

[sofa king]

121. Thank you, my friend. How goes it in Freedonia?

I should add that the specific idea that got jammed was a particular jewel in the conservatives' crown since the Nixon era, according to Steve Benen:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_12/027064.php

Endorsed by the Heritage Foundation itself. So good riddance.

[RufusTFirefly]

122. This bill is so simple a four-year-old child could understand it.

Run out and find me a four-year-old child. I can't make head or tail out of it.



Hail and Farewell, sofa king!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

138. That is what people don't understand!

The insurance companies may send out glossy brochures with smiling nurses on the cover, telling you how much they "care" about you, but from their point of view, the ideal customer was someone like me, who paid in hundreds of dollars a month and couldn't afford to get any actual care aside from two emergencies (for which I went to an urgent care clinic) in six years, and who never met her deductible.

[Creative]

128. Yes, but it is Unconstitutional. Are you suggesting that the Constitution just be ignored?

[BenzoDia]

129. Well 2 other federal judges ruled that it is constitutional.

So it's a matter of interpretation I suppose.

[Creative]

132. Yes, but as the Supreme Court will confirm, this is the correct interpretation.

Forced commerce cannot exist in a free society.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

35. Please note that it was not a mandate to purchase health care, but

a mandate to purchase health insurance. As many have found out, just because you have insurance, you are not necessarily covered for an illness.

Here's a link: Virginia health-care ruling strikes down key provision of Obama's plan

By Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 13, 2010; 12:48 PM

RICHMOND - A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a key provision of the nation's sweeping health-care overhaul is unconstitutional, the most significant legal setback so far for President Obama's signature domestic initiative.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson found that Congress could not order individuals to buy health insurance.

In a 42-page opinion, Hudson said the provision of the law that requires most individuals to get insurance or pay a fine by 2014 is an unprecedented expansion of federal power that cannot be supported by Congress's power to regulate interstate trade.
....

Hudson is the first judge to rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. He said, however, that portions of the law that do not rest on the requirement that individuals obtain insurance are legal and can proceed. Hudson indicated there was no need for him to enjoin the law and halt its implementation, since the mandate does not go into effect until 2014.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. Yes, I was "insured" last winter when I suffered an expensive injury

at precisely the time when I was barely surviving economically because of a slowdown in my business.

The treatment was expensive, but under my high deductible (the only option that I could afford, and that just barely), it was not covered.

I had to pay every penny out of pocket, and the vultures continued to deduct the premiums automatically from my bank account. The only "service" they provided was to send me pieces of paper that explained why my treatment wasn't covered.

I dropped my insurance when I realized that the five months of premiums that I paid in 2010 would have paid for my ENTIRE health care bill out of pocket.

H.R. 676 or, as an alternative, state-by-state implementation of single payer.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

44. "I had to pay every penny out of pocket, and the vultures continued to deduct the premiums...."

That is the money quote.

The insurance companies make money by having you pay premiums and then giving you nothing in return. That is not health care. It is the opposite of health care.

I detest Cuccinelli, but the principle of "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" applies here. I have to hold my nose and agree with Cuccinelli on this one.

The government might as well require me to buy a Chevy Malibu or an Apple iPhone. They might be fine products, but perhaps I have some other idea on how my money should be spent.

Thanks for writing.

[SemperEadem]

65. so, why should I be mandated to buy any kind of insurance, then?

car insurance, home owner's insurance, etc.

if it's good for one type, it's good for all types of insurance.

[BarryMeNot]

70. Owning a home or car is optional

Staying healthy, not so much.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Nope, you're not required to buy either a car or a house

I don't own a house, and I have spent about half my life without a car. By the way, neither car insurance nor homeowner's insurance is a federal law.

However, nobody gets into this life without a body.

[mdmc]

82. 1

[sabrina 1]

115. Well, that was predictable. Did people not object to mandates

on that basis? I am opposed to them, and this was one of my arguments against them. To force people to buy a shoddy product from a corrupt institution and give them no choice in the matter was clearly not constitutional. I was shocked to see Democrats support this, as they were so opposed to it, on THESE VERY GROUNDS when Republicans proposed it.

Those are the dangers of supporting a man over principles. Had there been a PO, this could not happen as the people would have had a choice. As a Constitutional lawyer, I am amazed the President Obama did not foresee these challenges as his own party base warned him about.

[Tesha]

3. That was the trouble with this half-assed approach of mandating insurance purchases.

It's perfectly constitutional if the government simply *PROVIDED*
health care and paid for out of some tax revenue.

It's quite dubious to force us to buy insurance, though, and opens
the law up for all sorts of quibbling around the margins.

Tesha

[still_one]

4. Why wouldn't that apply to Social Security? We are forced to buy that? /nt

[Romulox]

9. From which portion of the US Constitution does the US Congress get the power to mandate the purchase

of a good or service from a private, for-profit entity, in your opinion? :popcorn:

[snappyturtle]

11. +1

[FedUp_Queer]

29. My hunch is the appellate court will overturn him. However,

The Obama Presidency continues to unravel.

[Green_Lantern]

34. Obama's admin is setting itself to win in 2012

The new tax deal is pretty economically stimulative and the tax cut for the rich will keep the GOP from making an issue of deficits.

Without this deal we wouldn't be extending unemployment or middle class tax rates or having payroll tax holiday.

What do you suggest we do to boost the economy?

[FedUp_Queer]

66. The tax deal

Is somewhat stimulative (some economists give about .5-.9 additional uptick in GDP). One I'd seen was a former IMF economist said it was essentially no bang for the buck. However, given the reduction in payroll taxes in the bill (which is less money to social security for the next two years...and likely shifts the burden to make up the difference to general fund taxation), how do you make up that money? How "positive" will it be in 2 years when that tax resorts (from 5.65% to 7.65%) back and the GOP calls it a two percentage point increase in payroll taxes, and that hits squarely on the middle class?

The problem is that Obama could have had this deal, minus the tax cuts for the rich, months ago (recall Boehner said he'd vote for it without tax cuts for the rich, if that's all he could get).

The GOP duped Obama. Now the law, if passed, will put Obama in the dubious position of supporting that two percentage point increase in payroll taxes heading into 2012. At that point, there will be that much less in social security. In essence, he'll piss off the old folks who vote, and vote GOP typically and the middle class, who will stay home.

Given this awful deal, I think a New Deal type solution is in order. Money for infrastructure taken partially from redirection of funds from the $800 billion we will spend on the military. We need to rebuild our infrastructure which, at best, is falling apart.

[Green_Lantern]

31. Article 1 Sect 8

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;


If you don't get insurance they have the power to tax you because the essence of a public health system requires everyone to contribute.

[harun]

51. Doesn't meet the definition of a tax. Also, Health Insurance is not

Health Care. As all too many people know, just because you pay for Health Insurance doesn't mean they are going to pay for your care.

Thirdly there is no Public Health System people are contributing to. Taxes paid already contribute to that. The system you are referring to is the private for-profit system.

Anything else you need clarification on?

[Green_Lantern]

55. of course it is a tax and yes the money goes to a newly created

High risk state administered pools for people who can't get insurance.

Medicaid & Medicare pays at private for profit hospitals. So what? Public health doesn't mean govt. run.

[The Croquist]

53. I think that the tenth amendment comes into play here

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If you can justify forcing somebody to buy something by article 1, Section 8 you can justify making liquor sales and manufacturing illegal but it took 18th amendment to do it and the 21st to revoke it.

I don't buy your argument that they can tax you if you don't buy it.

By the same logic the government can place a tax on abortions so high that no women could ever afford it. The Republicans will be back in power one day.

[Green_Lantern]

59. no unlike liquor sales healthcare hasn't been left to just states

Since LBJ. Abortion is a constitutionally protected right.

[The Croquist]

126. So why couldn't the federal government ban liquor sales

but it can force people to spend their money on things they don't want to?

Sorry but this is a very slippery slope to walk on.

Just because the Supreme Court ruled one way in 1973 doesn't mean it has to in the future.

[Green_Lantern]

145. they needed an amendment to ban liquor because liquor sales

Within a state wasn't a federal role. It's hard to argue that health care is left solely to the states.

I guess I should ask why an amendment wasn't necessary to create Medicare?

As far as taxing abortion so women couldn't get them...it violates Roe v. Wade.

And if that's overturned then we have more to worry about than potential to tax abortion.

[FedUp_Queer]

67. I'm not saying I agree with the judge. However, even the bill

calls this a penalty, and actually argued, I believe, that it was NOT a tax. Given the makeup of SCOTUS, I'd bet on an affirmance of this opinion. Maybe not.

[24601]

141. As I recall, Congress was deliberately not defining this as as a tax.

They did it for political reasons - and it just may have screwed them over. Their power to tax is not in question; however their power to force commerce may well be unconstitutional. And if they do have to start over, the 112th Congress will not be so agreeable.

[Romulox]

144. Even if money to a private entity were a "tax" (it's not), the Congress may not

achieve via the tax code something that is otherwise unconstitutional. For example, the Congress may not abridge the right of all US citizens to vote via a "poll tax". :hi:

[Green_Lantern]

147. I'm not saying insurance fees are a tax...

The tax is the fine for not buying insurance and the fine doesn't go to a private entity.

[Romulox]

148. I understood what your argument was re: the fine. Did you understand mine?

The Congress may not violate the US Constitution by characterizing penalties as "taxes", full stop. That is to say, either the Congress has the power to force one to buy private insurance, or it does not. Whether the compulsion to purchase is characterized as a "tax" or a punitive "fine" is not the controlling question. Again, think to the poll tax example.

[Dave From Canada]

16. You're not forced to buy social security, you're taxed for it.

[Historic NY]

18. you don't have to collect it either....you pay a payroll tax for it and medicare.

[alc]

33. the difference I see (and like)

is that SS is on the government's books. They are responsible for the amount we pay and what we receive back and it's (supposed to be) transparent. They may try to screw us, but we can vote them out.

With health insurance, the cost can go up and the benefits go down and congress can say "not our fault". We'd have a harder time convincing fellow-voters to vote against a congressman because their non-government insurance premiums go up than because their SS taxes go up. And voting them out may not do anything. Private insurers will just say "ok we won't sell insurance any more" then we'd be even more pissed - so congress will do something that appears to be a fix but isn't really (not that this is really different than SS fixes but at least SS is only between us and the government w/out businesses involved)

[ljm2002]

49. We don't "buy" Social Security from a private entity. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. The equivalent for old age insurance would be requiring all workers to

invest in private financial instruments.

Which is what Chile did under Milton Friedman's shock doctrine, with disastrous results.

[James48]

76. Because Social Security isn't privatized....yet.

Social Security is Constitutional because it's a tax. Congress has the power to levy taxes. The Supreme Court ruled back in the 1930's that Social Security was legal, because Congress has the power to tax


See "Helvering v. Davis (1937)"

Article I, Section 8, empowers Congress to impose and collect taxes "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,"

Social Security was ruled to be "general welfare" because it collected taxes directly, and provided services in return.

[WingDinger]

5. Did anyone think they would not find a sitting equivalent to Good hair judge?

[Psephos]

6. Here's a link to MSNBC Breaking News vid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40642855#40642855

[HereSince1628]

7. Not like that wasn't seen coming at them...

I suppose this will get a fast track to SCOTUS, and then we can find out just how the wise guys think about it. My guess is, they'll say forcing insures to insure folks with previous conditions is the part that's unconstitutional because there is NO profit in that. The mandate has profit written all over it in capital letters.

[NoodleyAppendage]

8. Hmmm...what could have been done to avoid this? PUBLIC OPTION, damn it! n/t

J

[snappyturtle]

15. Absolutely! I am a public option advocate. I do not like this

mandated 'care'.

[FBaggins]

21. Or single-payer. n/t

[Hawaii Hiker]

10. This is why judicial nominations are so damn important

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html?_r=1&hp

"The opinion by Judge Hudson, who has a long history in Republican politics in northern Virginia, continued a partisan pattern in the health care cases. Thus far, judges appointed by Republican presidents have ruled consistently against the Obama administration while Democratic appointees have found for it".

[tabasco]

127. AWOL Boosh-appointed activist judge.

The COA will reverse.

[Roland99]

13. AP link >>>>>>

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iKhOVwPiql87GgAF6HpKArzaj1cg?docId=1647a570642942159b84593b71c5b013

A federal judge in Virginia has declared the Obama administration's health care reform law unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.

He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.

[Gin]

14. yep...SCOTUS will shoot this down and the whole thing will fall

apart...there were some good things in that bill but not all of it...maybe medicare for all might happen.

[midnight]

19. I would welcome this chess move.

[tcaudilllg]

38. with which congress? Keep dreaming.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. There are single-payer movements in several states

Once two or three have enacted their own single-payer programs, the rest of the country will follow.

[GoCubsGo]

79. Not so sure about that.

Five of them are in bed with corporate interests. That includes insurance companies. No telling how this will come down once it hits their courtroom.

[PhillySane]

17. 2000 was the year they stole the Presidency

2010 will go down as the year they hijacked it.

[struggle4progress]

20. ... Hudson found the minimum essential coverage provision of the act “exceeds the constitutional

boundaries of congressional power.” Hudson was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002. The decision left intact other provisions of the law and only affects the part that requires most U.S. citizens to maintain minimum health coverage beginning in 2014 ...
U.S. Health-Care Law Requirement Thrown Out by Judge
By Tom Schoenberg and Margaret Cronin Fisk
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html

[tomm2thumbs]

22. 'the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the govt's reach'

That's what Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli argued. While the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government's reach.

[tcaudilllg]

36. There's no difference, but because the judge is psychotic he can't see that.

[tcaudilllg]

37. Basic microeconomics: decisions with respect to monetary obligations = economic activity.

[LuckyTheDog]

24. As usual, with anything that might harm their own interests...

... the Freepers are giddy about this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2641922/posts

[Milo_Bloom]

25. THANK YOU JUDICIAL BRANCH!!!

[FedUp_Queer]

27. Hmmmm...single-payer is looking better and better.

[Roland99]

30. H.R. 676 or bust!

[Tx4obama]

32. George W. Bush nominated Hudson on January 23, 2002 n/t

[totodeinhere]

57. So what? Are we supposed to automatically reject any ruling ever made by a judge

appointed by Bush? If so, then the Republicans should be able to reject any ruling from a judge appointed by President Obama.

[mistertrickster]

40. This is what happens when the public option is killed off. Requiring people to

buy a private service without a public option isn't Constitutional.

We're forced to pay for the military, we're forced to pay into Soc. Security. That's taxation based on representation.

But we can't be forced to buy a new Ford or shop at Walmart.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Yes, even if such a mandate were phrased in terms of

"you have to choose from a government-designated 'pool' of cars."

Or put it another way, suppose the government said, "We don't want to provide public transit anymore, and besides, the auto companies are ailing, so we're going to require every person over the age of 16 to buy a new car." Do you think car prices would go DOWN under such a scenario?

[tcaudilllg]

45. Not a big deal. Who cares if the price of health care goes up? Start some co-ops.

[alp227]

46. NYT: Health Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional

A federal district judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional, becoming the first court in the country to invalidate any part of the sprawling act and ensuring that appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from below.

Judge Henry E. Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, declined the plaintiff’s request to freeze implementation of the law pending appeal, meaning that there should be no immediate effect on the ongoing rollout of the law. But the ruling is likely to create confusion among the public and further destabilize political support for legislation that is under fierce attack from Republicans in Congress and in many statehouses.

In a 42-page opinion issued in Richmond, Va., Judge Hudson wrote that the law’s central requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The insurance mandate is central to the law’s mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured because insurers argue that only by requiring healthy people to have policies can they afford to treat those with expensive chronic conditions.

Ful story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html?pagewanted=all

[bluedigger]

50. Good.

This bill was fatally flawed from the beginning. If it stands it will set precedent for further entrenching of corporatism in our political system. It could have, and should have, been remedied by single payer/public option. This is what comes of compromise with big business. Health insurance is not and will never be health care, and forcing it's purchase is immoral.

[Kennah]

52. From CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/?hpt=T1

...
Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, urged Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to request an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court.
...
A Justice Department spokeswoman expressed confidence the administration will eventually prevail in the legal fight.
...
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 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.
...

[madrchsod]

118. Medicaid is a federal-state provided medical care to the poor.

if these states opt out then the poor will rely on the emergency room for healthcare

but that`s ok...the empire needs to rid itself of the jobless,poor, sick,and the dieing.

[Kennah]

125. I'm sorry, but you confused me

Your statements seemed to indicate the poor do not currently rely upon the ER for health care. Maybe I just misheard.

[usregimechange]

62. Good news

[kelly1mm]

64. GREAT NEWS! I hope it gets expedited to the SC. nt

[burnsei sensei]

72. But, but, the mandates were Karen Ignagni's idea!

I have no sympathy.
It is forced commerce indeed, and damn her for forcing them down our throats.
In a truly just world, Karen would be standing at the bar for mass murder and pillage.

[CLANG]

74. You'd have thought the "big thinkers" would have thought of that minor detail...

[robdogbucky]

75. Can no one proof read anymore?

Federal Judge Henry Hudson from Virginia said Healthcare Law Uncontitutional

Uncontitutional?

[Orrex]

77. It'll be interesting to see how the insurance industry lobbies in response to this

Considerable money has been spent already in the run-up to implementation. They won't be pleased to have thrown all of that money down the toilet.


And is the whole healthcare law thrown out, or simply the part about mandates?

[mdmc]

78. Can't force us to buy overpriced, ineffective SHIT!

Holla at yo boy!

[Supersedeas]

169. short of a public option is there another means of lowering the price

on the currently overpriced ineffective shit

[54anickel]

83. Judge In Va. Strikes Down Federal Health Care Law

Source: The Associated Press

A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

snip>

Virginia Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli filed a separate lawsuit in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. However, the key issue was his claim that the federal law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.

snip>.....

The central issue in Virginia's lawsuit was whether the federal government has the power under the constitution to impose the insurance requirement. The Justice Department said the mandate is a proper exercise of the government's authority under the Commerce Clause.

Cuccinelli argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government's reach.


Read more: http://www.npr.org/2010/12/13/132027077/judge-in-va-strikes-down-federal-health-care-law?sc=fb&cc=fp

[mike_c]

84. excellent-- no mandate without an affordable public option!

The government has no business compelling people to do business with unscrupulous health insurance companies.

[enki23]

86. if and when I have a loved one who can't get insurance, i'll remember people like you.

.

[mike_c]

89. better to blame the politicians who betrayed us all....

eom

[obxhead]

You should remember the people who fought for the insurance

and drug companies not us.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

136. Your loved one will be able to get insurance---

but will they be able to afford it?

Maybe not if they make over $40,000 a year (which I do in some years) and are over 50 (which I am). And even then, the insurance they can "afford" will have high deductibles and high copays.

[enki23]

139. as opposed to no fucking insurance at all.

.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

142. Depending on how high the premiums and deductibles are

"no fucking insurance" could be a better deal.

That's the decision I made, since the combination of high premiums and high deductibles meant that it took me seven months to pay off the bills for my injury last winter (I could have done it in three installments if I hadn't been paying insurance premiums for a policy with a $5000 deductible and 20% copays beyond the deductible.)

I realized that if I ever needed a lot of medical care, $5000 plus 20% of the next $25,000 (or the next $100,000 if I was silly enough to get sick out of network) would bankrupt me anyway. (And in the 1990s, I had a policy that was $110 a month with no deductibles and standard co-pays for each type of treatment and procedures.)

"Fucking insurance" is an apt term. I refuse to be fucked over by them anymore.

[enki23]

154. my sister with CF, and my father with a fucked up back beg to differ

several thousands of dollars a month between them just for the medications. they *can not buy* insurance. if he loses his job, they will be uninsured unless they get some sort of state help. with republicans in charge in iowa, state help is by no means to be fucking counted on. short of single-payer, or being given large sums of money, they *must have* insurance. they *can not buy* insurance privately, for any even vaguely reasonable sum. these motherfuckers want her to die young, and him to live in agony, or fucking kill himself.

people who *really need* healthcare coverage, like this, will take this law and be goddamned grateful for it.

this health care reform isn't perfect by a long, long stretch. but the people who fucking whine and bitch about it, oddly enough, are not the ones who would be most affected by its failure. fuck *all* of the pieces of shit who would hold my family hostage to their unrealizable ideals.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

159. According to what I understand of the health care law, they should be

able to buy insurance now--if it doesn't cost more than what they're paying out of pocket.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

85. I do agree with this part of the ruling:

"Cuccinelli argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government's reach."

I do believe that the decision to NOT PARTICIPATE in commerce is, by definition, not commerce. Ergo, that decision is outside the jurisdiction of congressional oversight were the commerce clause is concerned. IMO, it sets a dangerous precedent where a government body can compel you to buy *any* product simply because the decision of buying it is regulated under commerce.

Perhaps the health bill may be ruled as constitutional due to falling under the jurisdiction of some other congressional power... but I do agree that using the commerce clause in such a way would be unconstitutional. They've been abusing that clause for decades now - it was only a matter of time before they pushed the commerce clause to the breaking point.

[backtomn]

96. The clause is the INTERSTATE Commerce

Since insurance companies CANNOT sell across state lines, this is not, by definition, INTERSTATE. For example, there is Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota and North Carolina.....separate companies. That is why this is unconstitutional.

There was probably a better way to handle this (hint, hint), but this was not it.

[savalez]

87. The headline is a bit misleading.

Oh well, people love hyperbole.

[ixion]

88. The mandate w/o a REAL public option was my big issue with that legislation

because it was unconstitutional, as I said back then.

[SlimJimmy]

90. Agreed, It is unconstitutional (as written). The

government does not have the authority to compel a person to buy a particular product. Not withstanding what other federal judges have ruled; as I believe their logic is flawed. This is not like car insurance where the purchase is optional (no one is forced to own or drive a vehicle).

[lynne]

91. The ruling was appropriate and should have been expected -

- No matter what you may think of Cuccinelli, his argument in this situation was sound.

[Tx4obama]

92. The judge was appointed by George W. Bush. n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

93. This should mean that OASDI and Medicare are also unconstitutional.

But such is life, eh?

[Joanne98]

94. Federal Judge In Va. Rules Part Of Health Care Law Unconstitutional

A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that the individual mandate contained in the health care law passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama this year is unconstitutional.

Judge Henry E. Hudson found in favor of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who brought this suit separately from the other state attorney generals suing the federal government over the law. Hudson was the first judge to rule against the law. Two other judges ruled in favor of the law, bringing the Obama administration's record thus far to 2-1. At least 13 other suits against the health care law have been dismissed on jurisdiction or standing issues.

Hudson ruled that there where "no compelling exigencies in this case" because the individual mandate doesn't take effect until 2013. Therefore, he said his ruling was declarative and not injunctive, which means it will be reviewed either by the appellate court or by the Supreme Court.

"We are disappointed in today's ruling but continue to believe - as other federal courts in Virginia and Michigan have found - that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told TPM in a statement. "There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/federal-judge-in-va-rules-health-care-unconstitutional.php

[Newest Reality]

95. Well, this could imply that other methods to provide

health care may be more plausible and should be reconsidered. All that needs be done is to remove the concerns and priorities of the insurance industry from the equation.

Problems can be solved where there is a will to do so. So, we still need the collective will that could come from refraining from hoping for change.

The failure behind the curtain is that there is no public option and no real impetus towards the most beneficial outcome: single payer.

[Turbineguy]

98. This was the GOP trojan horse

The whole idea was to create something that would not work or be declared invalid. In other words, Fuck America!

[Xolodno]

99. That portion is invalidated...

However, the rest is not and is still law. Thus no lifetime limits, pre-existing exclusions, etc. And the supposed "savings" in Medicare are still being cut. DUDE!!! That's a recipe for disaster! The Federal Government will have to revisit this issue again, either roll it back or put in a "tax" on everyone to pay for it. If they do neither, then the states will have to do something in regards to tax as they sure can't handle the cost currently.

[drm604]

100. So now insurance premiums will go through the roof. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. News flash: They HAVE gone through the roof

If I had stayed on my former insurance plan (I'm now no longer covered), my premiums would have gone up 30% this year. And that's from an allegedly "non-profit" company.

[drm604]

123. I'm aware of that.

It's not necessary to send me a news flash. I'm aware of that. Mine have gone up also. My point is that it will become even worse.

The whole plan is unworkable. At a minimum we should have a public option.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

135. Than we agree

This plan is a gold plated, gift wrapped permission slip to the insurance companies to charge whatever they feel like and get a government subsidy to do so.

[DainBramaged]

105. HE DID NOT STRIKE DOWN THE ENTIRE GODDAMN LAW JESUS

JUST THE PART REQUIRING COVERAGE BY 2014 OR FACE A FINE.

[54anickel]

108. No need to yell. That was the title of the article, I simply followed DU's rules. Sheesh!

This was a separate thread that's since been combined with another....

[54anickel]

97. Judge In Va. Strikes Down Federal Health Care Law

This thread has been combined with another thread.

Click here to read this message in its new location.

[DainBramaged]

102. PARTS OF!!!! Not all; MSNBC.com has a much better version of the story

[Tx4obama]

103. Judge In Health Care Lawsuit, Has Financial Ties To Attorney General Bringing The Case

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/henry-hudson-judge-in-hea_n_665240.html

[Politicub]

106. :sigh: it was bound to happen by a judge somewhere

It took decades to get anything through congress, and this bill is better than the status quo.

Looks like status quo, here we come.

I was looking forward to not worrying about pre existing conditions should I lose insurance provided by my employer. I'm getting tired of worrying about everything that makes up the social safety net unraveling.

I wanted a public option. We didn't get it. I would rather having something rather than nothing.

[newscott]

112. Of course it was bound to happen.

It should be free for all and used as needed.

[placton]

113. I agree

and he may have saved some semblance of a Dem party by his ruling. This is unconstitutional and horrid policy as well. Single payer is the only way to go.

[Dokkie]

116. K & R

Now he will be forced to pass a real HCR, something that doesn't that I purchase INSURANCE from private companies. Good riddance to bad rubbish

[Amonester]

134. Passing a real HCR will not happen for a very long time...

now, unless 'he' does it before the 'new' house (the one that 'vowed' to 'Repeal it all') comes in (Jan. 2011 to Dec. ????).

The only way was Medicare for all (or Single Payer For All) when the Dems 'had' a 'majority' in all three branches.

Those days will be gone next January.

Squandered opportunity.

Say Bye-Bye to health care (except for the rich and those who can reach an ER).

[pampango]

120. The coalition of "HCR did way too little" and "Obamacare did way to much" celebrates. n/t

[mvd]

130. As imperfect as the law is, we have to win this one

If the mandate goes, all the good stuff goes. And no opportunity to expand on the law with Repukes controlling the House.

[derby378]

131. This ruling simply reinforces a core Democratic value...

...namely, that the American government cannot force you to buy a consumer product. A small portion of the Constitution has just been preserved. And for that, I am thankful.

[fascisthunter]

152. It should be a democratic value

for you and I it is.... for some, not so much.