Individual Mandate Thrown Out By Judge

[Perchoutofwater]

U.S. Health-Care Law Requirement Thrown Out by Judge

By Tom Schoenberg and Margaret Cronin Fisk - Dec 13, 2010 11:13 AM CT

 

President Barack Obama

 

U.S. President Barack Obama. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

U.S. District Court Richmond, Virginia

 

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Richmond, Virginia. Photographer: Jay Paul/Bloomberg

 

The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance, a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the president’s plan.

 

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, said today that the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health-care legislation goes beyond Congress’s powers to regulate interstate commerce. While severing the coverage mandate, Hudson didn’t address other provisions such as expanding Medicaid that are unrelated to it. He didn't order the government to stop work on putting the remainder of the law into effect.

 

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.

 

The ruling is the government’s first loss in a series of challenges to the law mounted in federal courts in Virginia, Michigan and Florida, where 20 states have joined an effort to have the statute thrown out. Constitutional scholars said unless Congress changes the law, its fate on appeal will probably hinge on the views of the U.S. Supreme Court’s more conservative members.

 

U.S. health-care stocks extended gains after the ruling. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Health Care Index rose 0.5 percent at 12 p.m. New York time. UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Coventry Health Care Inc. led gains.

 

Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice, did not immediately reply to voicemail and e-mail messages seeking comment on Hudson’s decision.

 

The case is Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, 10-cv- 00188, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond).

 

Link

 

I wonder if the back room giveaways would have been enough to get this horrible piece of partisan trash passed had it not been for this provision? I'm sure the government will appeal the decision, but I'm equally sure just as I was when the dems forced this upon us that it will be found unconstitutional by SCOTUS as well. My only question is how much harm will be done between now and then and what the other provisions that probably wouldn't have been passed without this one will do to our businesses and our economy.

[PPIchamp]

[Perchoutofwater]

Without the individual mandate, I don't see how they can force insurers to cover preexisting conditions. I know there is a separate lawsuit on preexisting conditions as well as lawsuits filled on behalf of physician owned hospitals.

[bushwacked]

Surely, Perch and some of the other righties here will be calling for this activist judges head...right?

[Ursa Majoris]

Ah, I remember the good old days when the righty complaint about health care was all the freeloaders using the ER for health care and therefore jacking up costs by not paying the bills. Fix that problem and whaddya know? Now it's all unconstitutional and all.

 

What a shock.

[evil_gop_liars]

Phew, now we can expect our premiums to go down.

[Perchoutofwater]

Ah, I remember the good old days when the righty complaint about health care was all the freeloaders using the ER for health care and therefore jacking up costs by not paying the bills. Fix that problem and whaddya know? Now it's all unconstitutional and all.

 

What a shock.

 

You know I've been on the fence regarding health care and how to fix it for a long time. I'd love to see a sales tax implemented for indigent care, and have said as much here in the past. I do think that the current bill as its is written is unconstitutional, don't you?

[Yukon Cornelius]

Surely, Perch and some of the other righties here will be calling for this activist judges head...right?

[bushwacked]

I do think that the current bill as its is written is unconstitutional, don't you?

 

I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I won't pretend to know, it's seems most people versed in the thing think it's not. It's almost certain this will be decided by the supreme court.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Phew, now we can expect our premiums to go down.

[driveby]

Phew, now we can expect our premiums to go down.

They weren't before.

[cliaz]

Ah, I remember the good old days when the righty complaint about health care was all the freeloaders using the ER for health care and therefore jacking up costs by not paying the bills. Fix that problem and whaddya know? Now it's all unconstitutional and all.

 

What a shock.

 

There are so many different ways to provide universal health care without violating the Constitution. I'm surprised that we went down this road to begin with instead of taking the time to develop a system. I feel that Obama and Congress rushed through health care reform to throw something out there to say, "See, we've doing it" instead of working on a better system to put in place.

[The Holy Roller]

There are so many different ways to provide universal health care without violating the Constitution. I'm surprised that we went down this road to begin with instead of taking the time to develop a system. I feel that Obama and Congress rushed through health care reform to throw something out there to say, "See, we've doing it" instead of working on a better system to put in place.

 

I agree.

[Ursa Majoris]

There are so many different ways to provide universal health care without violating the Constitution. I'm surprised that we went down this road to begin with instead of taking the time to develop a system. I feel that Obama and Congress rushed through health care reform to throw something out there to say, "See, we've doing it" instead of working on a better system to put in place.

What, you mean like public options, single payer, nationalization and all the other unAmerican stuff?

[redrumjuice]

What, you mean like public options, single payer, nationalization and all the other unAmerican stuff?

 

Do you think the UK has superior health care to the US?

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

Do you think the UK has superior health care to the US?

 

I know France does.

 

If I had an untreatable brain tumor and needed the best doctors in the world, assuming they would treat me, to try some innovative and unique treatment, the US is by far the best to see a doctor, it's not even close. For the 99.5 percent of other things that may afflict me, I would rather be in France.

[westvirginia]

And where/why does France get their advancements on the cheap? From private money here. Without the profit motive many things only marginally available in the so/med countries wouldn't be available at all. Like Cliaz and perch said, there are soooo many better ways to do this than what's been done.

 

I know France does.

 

If I had an untreatable brain tumor and needed the best doctors in the world, assuming they would treat me, to try some innovative and unique treatment, the US is by far the best to see a doctor, it's not even close. For the 99.5 percent of other things that may afflict me, I would rather be in France.

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

And where/why does France get their advancements on the cheap? From private money here. Without the profit motive many things only marginally available in the so/med countries wouldn't be available at all. Like Cliaz and perch said, there are soooo many better ways to do this than what's been done.

 

That sounds like Bush:

"the french don't have a word for entrepreneur"

We do have private industry here you know.... Sanofi is the 6th largest pharmaceutical company in the world with revenues of 41 billiion (compared to 60 billion for Jhonson and jhonson)

 

I get your point though. Without knowing that much about economics, doesn't your point

1) imply that the US ciitizenry is being overcharged by US spam, if the rest of the world is getting the same technology/knowledge/product at a much lesser price?

2) If your point is true (which I honestly don't know) how is that my problem or my fault when I go see my great french GP here who costs me 22Euros, of which I get 17 back from my state health insurance. My state insurance costs me 2400E a year. I am free to get additional coverage to get close to a 100% reimbursement...

 

ETA. Testing. testing. Did the huddle filter just cahnge p h a r m a to spam?

spam

 

EETA. Yes it did.

P h a r m a is filtered at thehuddle?

How are we lefties going to be able to whine about capitalism if you guys are going to take our cherished boogiemen away?

I think that to be fair and balanced the word 'unemplyed' should also be banished so that the right would have less to beatch about....

just a thought

Edited December 13, 2010 by Dr. Sacrebleu

[Beaumont]

Well, now the anti-healthcare law folks are 1-3 ...

 

Where were the posts when the law was upheld by the first two courts?

 

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/08/...her-round-court

Edited December 13, 2010 by Beaumont

[tosberg34]

Surely, Perch and some of the other righties here will be calling for this activist judges head...right?

 

It's not considered "activist" when the ruling is upholding the Constitution. Only when the ruling is based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law is it considered "activist".

[cliaz]

What, you mean like public options, single payer, nationalization and all the other unAmerican stuff?

 

No, no, silly Ursa. By applying critical thinking to the situation. I think I may have posted something about this here at the huddle but not sure (BJ?).

 

First, the federal government would create a pool of funds through taxes.

 

Create a program where the federal government will provide a full scholarship to cover medical school costs or supplement the tuition. Obvious criteria for who qualifies but I don't want to dig down to that level, this is strictly high level.

 

A student who has been accepted to medical school applies and the federal government (most likely with an agreement through each state if the states wish to participate) covers medical school costs. Per the contract the student must spend the next X amount of years working as an internal medicine doctor with a much lower salary (off set with no school loans to pay back) for the federal government.

 

The federal government (and any states that join in) set up these at a government facility such as a library, etc.

 

People without health care can go in to those pods and have internal medicine diagnostic right there.

 

For doctors already practicing and for specialist, create some type of tax credit in which if a doctor performs X amount of hours each year volunteering their expertise in this system.

 

As for the actual surgeries and medications, ect, create an amendment to medicaid/medicare for those.

 

This is just a quick breeze through but you can see where I'm going with it. Our government needs to be more creative in solving issues.

[bpwallace49]

Well, now the anti-healthcare law folks are 1-3 ...

 

Where were the posts when the law was upheld by the first two courts?

 

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/08/...her-round-court

 

Hmm . . informative article.

 

This piece was very telling to me . . .

 

These kinds of challenges often happen after major legislation is enacted. In fact, legal challenges to the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act were all filed – and all failed.

[yo mama]

It's not considered "activist" when the ruling is upholding the Constitution. Only when the ruling is based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law is it considered "activist".

Well, that does make sense.

 

But just out of curiosity, which part of the Constitution was being upheld? And in order to avoid the appearance of being based on your personal or political considerations, it would be helpful if you could cite which Article of the Constitution, specifically. TIA.

[wiegie]

As for the actual surgeries and medications, ect, create an amendment to medicaid/medicare for those.

explain this in more detail please

[tosberg34]

Well, that does make sense.

 

But just out of curiosity, which part of the Constitution was being upheld? And in order to avoid the appearance of being based on your personal or political considerations, it would be helpful if you could cite which Article of the Constitution, specifically. TIA.

 

Why don't we do this: You keep posting which one you think it is and I'll let you know if you're hot, warm or cold. This way, you get to do a little research without me giving you the answer straight up. All you need to do is give me the Article - I'll fill in the section and the clause when you get it right!

 

I'll give you a hint: It's somewhere between 1 and 7. Sound good? TIA.