VA judge rules key part of Obamacare unconstitutional

[BJJ-Blue]

"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 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."

"Despite the laudable intentions of Congress in enacting a comprehensive and transformative health care regime, the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds," Hudson added. "Salutatory goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers."

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

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."

Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, urged Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to request an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court."

Full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/...pt=T1&iref=BN1

[Drake]

Who didn't see THAT coming?

[David Jamieson]

yeah, you can't force someone to buy insurance. That was not well thought out and it seemed to be in place of building the requirted infrastructure needed to service the reformed health care.

How it happens here is this:

1. taxes are collected
2. each province is responsible for administering the funds for health care based on projections
3. the feds distribute the collected taxes earmarked for health care to the provinces
4. the province administers the health care under federal guidelines and through centralized tax collection both straight up and sin taxes.


so, if you are just going to leave the hospital and insurance system the same and tell everyone to buy insurance, then yes, your idea of universal health care is stupid and not well thought out and I am probably guessing right in that it likely carries a whole lot of write in add on crap that is so common in American bill passage.

so when are those earmarks to be eliminated from your system to douse that corruption and underhandedness?

[BJJ-Blue]

yeah, you can't force someone to buy insurance. That was not well thought out and it seemed to be in place of building the requirted infrastructure needed to service the reformed health care.

We agree!!!

Well Obama and the Democrats signed a law forcing us to.

And of course it was not well thought out, the Speaker of the House openly said they didn't read it before voting for it, and that we would have to pass it first to see what is in it.

so when are those earmarks to be eliminated from your system to douse that corruption and underhandedness?

That is an issue, I guess. But the biggest cost that American doctors face that is passed on to the consumer is malpractice insurance. Ask any practicing doctor if you don't believe me. That's why the Republicans wanted to get some sort of tort reform in the legislation. But it was jammed through with only 1 Party votes, and they made sure tort reform wasn't in it. Might be interesting to see what Party gets the most campaign money from trial lawyers....

[KC Elbows]

Car insurance isn't optional in a lot of states, including states without comprehensive public transportation.

[Drake]

Car insurance isn't optional in a lot of states, including states without comprehensive public transportation.

I thought car insurance was mandatory everywhere.

[KC Elbows]

I thought car insurance was mandatory everywhere.

I'm old I guess, I remember it being optional in most states.

Thanks, ya big jerk.

[David Jamieson]

You can own uninsured vehicles. You just can't drive them on the roads.

[Drake]

In Colorado you can't even register the vehicle without valid proof of insurance.

[Syn7]

In Colorado you can't even register the vehicle without valid proof of insurance.

in BC you have to buy insurance to drive your car... period... and you can own it uninsured on your own property indefinately... but if you wanna drive it it has to be insured with certain minimums...

oh and the best part... and BJJBLUE you will love this part.... we only have one choice of insurance providers... a crown corp. called ICBC... whos claims adjusters get bonuses for finding excuses to not pay out claims... oooohhh how evil and socialist of us... i laugh when you people call obama a socialist... you dont even know... lol...

[BJJ-Blue]

Using the car insurance example is totally off-base. You do not have to own a car, or even drive cars you own. So that means every American is not forced to buy car insurance. Only those people who CHOOSE to drive have to buy insurance. Under Obamacare everyone breathing would be FORCED to buy insurance whether they want to or not. Congress has the right to regulate commerce, but not the right to force people to engage in commerce.

oh and the best part... and BJJBLUE you will love this part.... we only have one choice of insurance providers... a crown corp. called ICBC... whos claims adjusters get bonuses for finding excuses to not pay out claims... oooohhh how evil and socialist of us... i laugh when you people call obama a socialist... you dont even know... lol...

Interesting. Is this mandated by law, or has the free market brought this upon you guys?

As to Obama, he is most definately a socialist. Anyone who says they want to "spread the wealth around" is a socialist/communist.

[KC Elbows]

Using the car insurance example is totally off-base. You do not have to own a car, or even drive cars you own. So that means every American is not forced to buy car insurance. Only those people who CHOOSE to drive have to buy insurance. Under Obamacare everyone breathing would be FORCED to buy insurance whether they want to or not. Congress has the right to regulate commerce, but not the right to force people to engage in commerce.

In my area, you have to have insurance to register a car, and will get ticketed for having an unregistered car visible on your property.

Additionally, since public transportation is weak here, without a car, you're gonna have a hard time making a living, which is fairly true in most places with substantial sprawl and lack of comprehensive public transportation.

The idea that most Americans have a choice on having a car is pure fantasy.

As to Obama, he is most definately a socialist. Anyone who says they want to "spread the wealth around" is a socialist/communist.

Which makes trickle down economics socialistic.

[BJJ-Blue]

In my area, you have to have insurance to register a car, and will get ticketed for having an unregistered car visible on your property.

Additionally, since public transportation is weak here, without a car, you're gonna have a hard time making a living, which is fairly true in most places with substantial sprawl and lack of comprehensive public transportation.

The idea that most Americans have a choice on having a car is pure fantasy.

But again, Americans have the CHOICE to not buy a vehicle. Sure, it may be an inconvenience, but it's still a choice. Unlike the mandates in Obamacare.

Which makes trickle down economics socialistic.

How so? 'A rising tide lifts all boats' is not spreading the water around. Capitalists believe wealth is created by the private sector, and thus everyone can earn more money. Socialists believe in 'Zero sum' economics, ie that the pie never gets bigger, so we have to divide it fairly. Conservatives believe that by making the pie bigger, everyone will get more pie.

And we have a history of success, Reaganomics and Bush's tax cuts both worked. Socialism has a list of failures; USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and Eastern Europe for example.

[KC Elbows]

One can be a capitalist and not believe in trickle down economics. As for Reagan's success, wasn't his the presidency when the average American savings first went into the negative? How is this a success story for trickle down theory?

To the first point, no, most Americas don't have the option of not owning a car, practically speaking. Unless you live in a highly urbanized area, it's quite likely that you must get a car. Going without one briefly=a heavy inconvenience for most Americans. Going wthout one permanently=impossible.

[Reality_Check]

Well, I guess that is one ruling against vs 14 for, two of which said the individual mandate was Constitutional.

Link to 1st opinion: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38913949/Steeh-Opinion

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43289.html

U.S. District Court Judge George Steeh ruled Thursday that the so-called individual mandate — a requirement President Barack Obama opposed during the presidential campaign but later embraced as part of sweeping changes — falls squarely within Congress’s ability under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce.

“The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket is plainly economic,” Steeh wrote in a 20-page opinion. “These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers and the insured population, who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance.”

2nd decision:

http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/virginia.pdf

I hold that there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals’ decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market…Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care…Far from ‘inactivity,’ 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. As Congress found, the total incidence of these economic decisions has a substantial impact on the national market for health care by collectively shifting billions of dollars on to other market participants and driving up the prices of insurance policies.