Health Care Law Unconstitutional

[applecorped]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/

"A U.S. district judge on Monday threw out the nation's health care law, declaring it unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause and surely reviving a feud among competing philosophies about the role of government.
Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla., ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.
"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and
regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute
has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here," Vinson wrote."

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Multiple judges have ruled on the health care bill's constitutionality, and two have now found that it is unconstitutional. So maybe a more accurate title would be "District Judge Finds Health Care Law Unconstitutional?"

All this is going to do is quicken the inevitable appeal up to the Federal appelate court and eventually the SCOTUS. It's no different than the other judges who threw the case out and said there was no basis for a constitutional appeal, or the VA judge who ruled the mandate unconstitutional.

eta: Forgive the source, as the facts still stay the same, but at least 14 judges have thrown out constitutionality cases involving the act.

 

[gnome]

Since it hasn't taken effect yet, it's not really "thrown out" until it goes before SCOTUS.

Interestingly, the question of an individual mandate is one of the reasons why I started leaning towards Obama instead of Clinton during the primaries. Watching their televised debate, Obama's suggested plan did not have an individual mandate, and Clinton's did.

Merits aside I just thought it would be difficult to sell to the American people, and would too easily be painted as government pushing something on us.

Frankly I prefer to think of it as a healthcare tax that you can opt out of by shopping from the free market instead. I would think conservatives would find that greatly to their liking. When you come down to it, it's a user fee.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Since it hasn't taken effect yet, it's not really "thrown out" until it goes before SCOTUS.

Did you click that link? They threw out suits alleging unconstitutionality of the ACA. Not the ACA itself.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Here's a quote from the decision. Are you kidding me? This is his logic?

If impact [of the uninsured] on interstate commerce were to be expressed and calculated mathematically, the status of being uninsured would necessarily be represented by zero. Of course, any other figure multiplied by zero is also zero. Consequently, the impact must be zero, and of no effect on interstate commerce.

Right. Treating the uninsured results in zero economic impact in the United States. Brilliant reasoning.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Here's a quote from the decision. Are you kidding me? This is his logic?



Right. Treating the uninsured results in zero economic impact in the United States. Brilliant reasoning.

That guy must be a moron.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Link to the opinion, please?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Link to the opinion, please?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47906586/Vinson-Opinion

It's 78 pages, make sure you have a while. Also, hope you enjoy multiple-page discussions of what the Commerce Clause really means (according to his interpretation).

 

[Regnad Kcin]

That guy must be a moron.

That guy is Michelle Bachman?

 

[gnome]

Did you click that link? They threw out suits alleging unconstitutionality of the ACA. Not the ACA itself.

I was referring to the summary given in the first sentence of the article.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I was referring to the summary given in the first sentence of the article.

My apologies. I didn't read the article since I already knew the situation, and here I thought you were the one who hadn't read. I absolutely retract what I said and hope you won't hold it against me in the future!

 

[mike3]

Frankly I prefer to think of it as a healthcare tax that you can opt out of by shopping from the free market instead. I would think conservatives would find that greatly to their liking. When you come down to it, it's a user fee.

Except that it's a regressive, not progressive, tax.

And it doesn't work like in other countries, where the tax actually gives you healthcare. This you pay if you _don't_ have healthcare.

 

[gnome]

My apologies. I didn't read the article since I already knew the situation, and here I thought you were the one who hadn't read. I absolutely retract what I said and hope you won't hold it against me in the future!

Too late! You're on my list buddy!

 

[Neally]

Duplicate thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194741

 

[gnome]

Except that it's a regressive, not progressive, tax.

And it doesn't work like in other countries, where the tax actually gives you healthcare. This you pay if you _don't_ have healthcare.

Bearing in mind that if you can't afford your own health care, you receive a subsidy under the system rather than a penalty. It applies to people who do not have health care insurance by choice.

The problem is if you're shaking off the pre-existing condition mess, being free to opt out entirely is basically asking others to pay for your lack of planning when you ultimately do get sick. It's like being able to buy car insurance after the accident. This took me a while to come to, but requiring some kind of buy-in while healthy is the only way for an insurance system to function without turning people away for pre-existing conditions.

If there's a third option there I really would love to see it, because I'm not fond of the mandate. But I'm even less fond of the pre-existing condition trap.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Duplicate thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194741

That's concerning a different ruling, but I would be all for merging this one with that one.

 

[applecorped]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/

"In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday."

 

[A Laughing Baby]

The ruling was already posted on this page. He also subjugates the necessary and proper clause to the commerce clause. Almost exactly the same line of reasoning the VA judge took, which was criticized by legal experts.

 

[johnny karate]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/

"In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday."

Someone should remind Judge Vinson that Obama originally wanted a public option, and that the abandonment of that idea and the inclusion of the individual mandate was an attempt to reach a compromise with obstructionist Republicans.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Someone should remind Judge Vinson that Obama originally wanted a public option, and that the abandonment of that idea and the inclusion of the individual mandate was an attempt to reach a compromise with obstructionist Republicans.

And it began as a conservative idea.