Judge Rejects Health Law Challenge

[Derechos]

WASHINGTON — For the second time in two months, a federal judge has upheld the constitutionality of the new health care law, ruling on Tuesday that the requirement that most Americans obtain medical coverage falls within Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The judge, Norman K. Moon of Federal District Court, who sits in Lynchburg, Va., issued a 54-page ruling that granted the government’s request to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Liberty University, the private Christian college founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Last month, in a separate case, Judge George C. Steeh of Federal District Court in Detroit also upheld the law.

Like Judge Steeh, Judge Moon was appointed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

Two other federal judges, Henry E. Hudson in Richmond, Va., and Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Fla., are expected to rule in similar cases in the next few months, and each has expressed considerable skepticism about the law’s constitutionality. Judge Hudson and Judge Vinson were appointed by Republican presidents.

snip

Judge Moon rejected the argument by plaintiffs around the country that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not empower Congress to require Americans to buy a commercial product like health insurance. To do so, they argue, would amount to the regulation of inactivity.

In disagreeing, Judge Moon embraced arguments made by the Justice Department. “Far from ‘inactivity,’ ” he wrote, “by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/health/policy/01lawsuit.html?hpw

[LiberalFighter]

1. That "inactivity" reasoning is above my pay grade.

I'm wondering... hasn't Social Security been ruled constitutional or at least not questioned in the courts? How about Medicare, Medicaid.

[happyslug]

4. Social Security is a State Program

When Social Security was set up, Congress did two things. First Congress did what it clearly had the right to do, pass a Tax, the Social Security Tax. Note paying Social Security taxes is completely independent of your right to get Social Security Benefits.

Congress then passed an Act setting up Social Security but only in those states that delegated to the Federal Government any right that state had to set up a Social Security Program. In effect Social Security is a STATE program run by the Federal Government.

Thus, to this day, any state can drop out of the Social Security system by passing a law repealing that State's delegation of authority to the Federal Government. No State will, for while the State can forbid its residents from getting Social Security, the Federal Government would still have the right to collect Social Security Taxes in that state. Thus all the States passed and have kept laws delegating to the Federal Government any and all rights to set up a Social Security System.

Medicare fall under the Social Security Act, taxes are independent of payment.

Now Medicaid under a different formula then Social Security and Medicare. Technically all the Federal Government provides for in Medicaid money is for is the "Transitional Aid to Dependent Families", TANF for short). Now, the state can have other programs (For example my home State of Pennsylvania has the "General Assistance" Program, which is 100% State funded) but payment under those programs must be the same as to TANF recipients (but can be be a much shorter time period, GA in PA is only two months in a Two year period for example UNLESS you are applying for Social Security, then you can stay on GA until you get Social Security Disability OR you are denied Social Security Disability). Medicaid comes under the same rule, can be expanded to other groups but must be the same as TANF, but can be for shorter time periods.

Over the last 20-30 years State Welfare payments have dropped and the number of people eligible for such state welfare has dropped but the cost of welfare has jumped do to the increase cost of medical care AND nursing home care.

As to TANF (and its related Medicaid costs), since the states have to match what the Federal Government pays. One way to lower the Cost to the State is to lower the payout of TANF. The State loses the Federal Match, but often can balance its budget on the back of welfare recipients. With Welfare Reform in the 1990s, participation in TANF has dropped (anyone on TANF must have a "plan" AND work on that "Plan" to get off TANF to be eligible for TANF).

Starting in the 1980s various non-profit groups and then the States adopted what later became known as the Children Health Insurance Program (CHIP for Short). Starting in the 1990s CHIPS became a Federal Program. CHIPs is an almost 100% Federally Funded, but the number one reason Children are denied CHIP is that their Families income is so low that they are eligible for TANF and if a family is eligible for TANF the Family can NOT get CHIPS (TANF also pays better, but that is another story).

When Bush jr was Governor of Texas he hated CHIPS for the simple reason people would apply for it and be denied on the grounds they were eligible for TANF. CHIP was almost 100% Federally Funded but TANF was 50% State funded and Bush hated it. Bush had run for Governor of Texas on getting people off Welfare in Texas. CHIPS was undermining that promise since the chief reason people were being denied CHIPS was that they should be on TANF. CHIPS became a way for people to realized they were eligible for TANF and make the application for TANF. This is what Bush hated about the CHIP program.

I bring CHIP up for it shows some of the Restrictions of TANF and thus Medicaid. Both are State-Federal Programs. if a State wants to participate they must match the Federal money. Congress has says it will pay up to the "Standard of Need" i.e $674 per month if the state agrees to pay 50% of that amount. Most states has ever taken Congress up on that offer. My Home state of Pennsylvania never did, the best Pennsylvania ever did was 80% of the Standard of Need, it is now down to $174 a month payment for one person in my home county of Cambria (In Allegheny County the State Pays $206, in Philadelphia county the State pays $226, it varies among the other counties but all payments are set by the State to reflect the differences in the cost of living between Counties when the State last raised Welfare Rates in 1982)while the Standard of Need is $674 per month.

Technically TANF is part of the Social Security Act, and like Social Security no state is required to participant. On the other hand, the Federal Money, even with all the strings attached, provides 1/2 of the cost of any welfare being paid out. Thus, if a State wants to get out of Medicaid, which is part of the Social Security Act as is Medicare, the States can do so, but loses the Federal match. This lost of Federal Match has been easier for the States to do then to drop out of Social Security, for Social Security costs the states nothing while TANF the state has to match the Federal payout. The same with Medicare and Medicaid, Medicare is 100% Federally Funded, so the states do not care, Medicaid is a 50-50 split with most of the cost incurred do to nursing home care (and the elderly Vote so the States do NOT want to cut it).

The taxes that pay for all these programs are independent of the programs and are clearly permitted under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. The best attack on such programs is that they should be state programs, but the Social Security sets them up as State Programs with Federal Funds (and Federal Rules). The Courts have refused to attack the taxes, including Social Security Taxes, that support these programs for such taxes are clearly Constitution thus leaving the only attack to be on the program itself and no state has ever said it will refuse to participate is Social Security, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, TANF or even Food Stamps. Thus no one has standing to challenge the pay out of these programs (and if they did all they courts can rule is they can refuse to accept the payout).

The best attack on this program is to say that Congress has the right to Tax for Health Care but to force people to join and make payments to others (not the Government) is a "taking" of property without compensation and the promise of health care is NOT compensation for the person attacking the program puts no value on health care. Thus use the Constitution's restrictions on taking of property without compensation as the claim. Agree that Congress could TAX for such a program, but can NOT mandate such a program.

So far the attacks on the program has avoided that argument for the simple reason it leaves standing the one health program option that most people support, the single payer. I expect this to continue for the simple reason the people who oppose the plan as is, also oppose single payer (such as Social Security).

[happyslug]

2. Subject posted earlier from another news source:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4636190

[MisterP]

3. huzzay for RomneMandates! nt