Obama's Health-care law ruled unconstitutional by US judge

[still_one]

Just across Bloomberg scroll

[OHdem10]

1. It will now be appealed??? then the SCOTUS?

[blogslut]

2. A portion of the law

The individual mandate. Not the entire law.

[still_one]

4. That is right, but without the mandate, it will have problems being viable. /nt

[Motown_Johnny]

9. for the insurance companies

I think this is great news (assuming it is accurate)


I hate the thought of the next conservative president mirroring this provision to make everyone invest in their retirement with private for profit companies.

[xchrom]

3. Well - we'll see what happens as it moves through.

I'm guessing it will be appealed.

[still_one]

5. No question about it, and would this affect the Social Security mandate?

[Motown_Johnny]

10. ?

What social security mandate?


Do you mean a tax that everyone has to pay?


If so...

How can being forced to contribute to the profits of a private company have anything to do with a tax?

[Doctor_J]

19. Not that much, but the corrupt Reagan-Bush-Bush courts

don't care much about laws, precedents, and the constitution.

[Dokkie]

41. yea

All the Obama administration has to do is to collect the tax (insurance payment) to the US treasury account and then transfer it to the individual privately run Insurance companies. This ruling is going to be over turned whether we like it or not.

[Abq_Sarah]

21. No

SS is a service provided by government and paid for by a tax.

[reformist2]

6. I think it's doomed.

SCOTUS is going to kill this 5-4. Single-payer was the way to go.

[Motown_Johnny]

12. If it kills this provision....

...it may open the way for some "public option" so that people won't be forced to contribute to the profits of a private company.



Honestly, I think this is good news for single payer. I have been hoping for it since this was put into the bill.

[FBaggins]

15. How would we get that through a new House? n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

40. we wouldn't, but the provision isn't set to go into effect yet

so we would simply need to take it up after the 2012 election (assuming we can regain a majority).

[GSLevel9]

38. that's what I'm hoping for...

this bill was TERRIBLE, just a sell out to the HC industry. Single payer would be great...

[beforeyoureyes]

7. It is unconstitutional to force citizens to purchase a private corporate product

Or, be taxed...

SINGLE PAYER

The system can't sustain. There is no way, people simply WONT pay because they CANT pay.

[NightWatcher]

11. Imagine the Dark Side of the mandate.

As a gift to the health insurance CEOs, President Huckabee announces a 700% increase in health care premiums or pay the tax (fine) which doubles every year.

This is a gift to CEOs

Single payer/ Medicare for all is the only way to go

[kenny blankenship]

48. Pres. Huckabee just wants the program to be fully funded! The insurance co.s are OUR SYSTEM, dammit!

Don't you get that? You don't want the system to COLLAPSE do you??? That's the health and lives of 310 million Americans you're playing with! We have to have HEALTHY insurance companies or we'll all get sick! That's the uniquely American way we do things: if the Great Providers are strong, the myriad leeches are allowed to prosper in their shadow. Healthy insurance companies=Strong health care system, and a strong Nation. Don't you understand? President Huckabee is a Pastor too, so if you're against his Christian charity to our health care system, you're against Jesus.

[Aramchek]

13. do you have car insurance?

[Doctor_J]

16. Yes, but my friend without a car doesn't

[Aramchek]

22. well, your friend without a physical body doesn't need Health Insurance, but all the rest of us do

[Doctor_J]

27. Uhh...what?

:wtf:

[BlueDemKev]

50. It means....

...that so long as you're born, you WILL need health care. You needed medical care the first few seconds of your life! Therefore, the requirement to purchase health insurance coverage is well-within the realm of the Constitution's Commerce Clause. Of course, this Bush II-appointed judge's only interest is to undermine President Obama so the Republicans can retake the White House in the event he chooses to retire in the next 5-6 years.

[Doctor_J]

57. Aramchek said my friend without a body doesn't need HC

comparing him to my real friend who doesn't drive. Apples & oranges

[BlueDemKev]

60. The point is....

If your friend drives a car, he needs to carry auto insurance. However, he can choose not to drive a car (he better live in New York or he'll have a hard time keeping a job anywhere else without being able to drive).

If your friend has a physical body (which he does) he will need health insurance. Unlike a car, he CANNOT choose whether or not to have a body. Therefore, he needs to buy health insurance so the rest of us don't have to pay for his medical care whenever he gets sick or injured just because he's too lazy to buy health insurance coverage.

[Dokkie]

58. you cant be serious

What about people who use alternative medicine? are we supposed to forced to submit to your way of life?

[FBaggins]

17. The federal government does not require you to buy car insurance. n/t

[Aramchek]

20. do you pay into Social Security? Medicare? I thought so.

That's a Federal Mandate, frodo.

[Abq_Sarah]

24. It's also

A tax levied to pay for a service provided by the government.

[Aramchek]

30. so the government is forcing you to pay for something, right?

we can play semantics.
or we can just talk about what's really happening.

[FBaggins]

37. Do you really not see the difference or are you being obtuse?

There is no constitutional restriction against forcing you to pay for something if that "pay" is a tax and the "something" is a government service.

[Aramchek]

44. I guess they could call it a tax, collect your premium, and send it to the Insurance Company.

Would this make you happy?

[FBaggins]

55. It doesn't matter whether or not I'm "happy", but yes that could be constitutional.

The government can hire subcontractors to provide a government service paid for with taxes.

[alc]

52. what's really happening

is the government is creating a "tax" which is not on their books, not transparent, and is run by private companies who we cannot vote out of office. They're also setting a precedent to "outsource" other government functions and give private companied direct control of our "taxes" rather than having the government set the rate and having the money filtered through the government in a way we can see.

If you think government oversight will keep the private companies in check, look at how the SEC oversight of financial institutions and MMS oversight of BP worked over the last few years. The SEC and MMS had the power to do much more than they did but they didn't use it. The health bill gives various agencies permission to regulate health insurers but doesn't require much. And we will be required to pay whatever the insurers demand and accept whatever benefits they decide to pay and congress will deny responsibility and most voters will accept that. And every year the regulators will complain that the insurers got around last year's "fixes" and create new "fixes" that also do nothing.

[FBaggins]

25. Of course I do... but those are government programs paid for with taxes...

...not federal mandates to purchase a product from a for-profit company.

Single payer would have avoided this.

[Aramchek]

29. Single Payer is not an option in a Country where 15% of the economy is tied up in Insurance

That section would have been erased if a Single Payer bill had passed.
And millions would be jobless, not to mention the other repercussions it would have on the Economy.

You know it was never a viable course of action.

[FBaggins]

33. The fact that the constitutional (and best) option is not politically viable...

is not evidence that what someone considers the next best option IS constitutional.

And many here would argue that it was far from the next-best option. A solid public option would almost certainly have avoided this particular stumbling block.

That section would have been erased if a Single Payer bill had passed.

Really? Life, long-term-care, auto, home, liability, business, etc, etc, etc insurance would all go away?

[Aramchek]

47. The pUblic Option couldn't pass the Senate. Single Payer definitely couldn't.

Of course, Single Payer is the best choice if you're starting from scratch.

But the problem is we weren't. And you can't pretend that we were.

Enacted Policy has to be based on Reality.


You know that there are millions of Americans employed in the Health Insurance industry.
Why pretend this is not the case?

[FBaggins]

54. Same problem, sorry. The fact that something better might not pass does NOT make

the alternative constitutional.

You know that there are millions of Americans employed in the Health Insurance industry.
Why pretend this is not the case?

You were the one who claimed that 15% of the economy was going to go away if we did away with the need for private health insurance.

And no, there are not multiple millions of people employed in health insurance if you aren't counting the doctors who would still be doctors and the insurance salesmen who also sell other insurance (etc)... and your spin ignores the fact that a massive (and though it sounds like RW talking points, it clearly would be massive) new government program would probably take almost as many government employees to manage as the health insurance industry employs in what would become a duplicative role. And the people in your Dr's office who handle billing with the insurance companies would shift over to working with the government. New process, same basic tasks.

[quinnox]

8. Applauds!

I said this a long time ago, no way requiring all people, by force of law, to buy health insurance from for profit insurance corporations should be constitutional.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[quinnox]

23. No thanks, its enough to celebrate with fellow DUers

in this thread. Trust me, there were many DUers against this for the same reason I was back when it was being debated here on DU.

[superduperfarleft]

36. Funny, I was against the individual mandate when Hillary was promoting it.

In fact, me and several other DUers regularly defended Obama/criticized Hillary Clinton during the primaries because she wanted individual mandates and he didn't.

What happened?

[Coyote_Bandit]

18. Yipppeee!

I've got no objection to paying a TAX to support taxpayer funded healthcare (e.g., single payer).

But it is unconscionable to require me to BUY something from a private for-profit mega-corporation.

Those politicians who wanted to require me to make that purchase do not serve to advance and protect my needs and interests.

[kenny blankenship]

26. Finally found a story and link on it

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html

[Bandit]

28. So now what does Obama have?

Even his crappy Health Care Bill will be thrown out and everything Democrats accomplished will go by the way side.. There is no way in Hell Republicans will EVER address the health Care issue in this country.. They stand by their argument that we already have the best in the world so why tamper with it..IMO Obama is the reason why Change can not and will not happen..People will not fall for his line again..

[Gin]

32. wonder how this will affect MA law since they are mandated to buy

or lose their tax deduction from the state.

[FBaggins]

35. States and the Federal government do not have identical powers.

And doesn't MA have a lite-public-option?

[SammyWinstonJack]

34. People should never have fell for his line to begin with. Hindsight and all that jazz.

[Ron Green]

31. Single Payer! Everybody in, nobody out!

Just get rid of private health insurance, except for people who want cosmetic surgery and suspended animation.

[2Design]

39. Needed public option and/or medicare for all - they blew it n/t

[redirish28]

42. How can this law be unconstitutional(granted not perfect.) when one reads the preamble

of the Constitution.


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."



the health of ones citizens promotes the General Welfare of the country.


This is WHY single Payer is the most constitutional thing I can think ones' country should provide.

[badtoworse]

43. Read the 10th Amendment - nt

[BlueDemKev]

46. Read the Commerce Clause

[ProdigalJunkMail]

51. the most abused and twisted amendment

for the expansion of federal powers...

sP

[Wednesdays]

61. Sorry your guys lost in 1865.

:rofl:

[badtoworse]

53. In the end, the SCOTUS will have to resolve that.

Depending on how far you are willing to stretch it, there is no limit to what the Commerce Clause can be used to justify. I believe that the current SCOTUS is more likely to reign in federal powers under the commerce clause than expand them. My prediction is that the Roberts court will rule the provision that requires citizens to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.

There is no severability clause in the bill as passed. I understand that despite that, the court might strip out the offending provision and leave the rest of the law intact. That does not seem feasible to me in this case since the requirements on pre-existing conditions are not sustainable without a requirement that healthy people participate. If the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional, I believe they will throw the entire law out.

[BlueDemKev]

62. How is the pre-existing condition exclustion ban unconstitutional?

I see what you're saying about health insurance premiums going thru the roof if the mandate is struck down but the prohibition on insurance companies excluding people from buying insurance coverage is allowed to stand, but how can the court strike down the latter? There is nothing unconstitutional about the gov't telling a business that they may not discriminate in deciding who they serve.

[Abq_Sarah]

63. The preamble carries no force of law

It grants the government no powers.

[MadHound]

45. Good, maybe this will end this monstrosity of health care "reform"

And we can go back and get something better.

[Bluerthanblue]

49. yeah sure-

I'm SURE we'll be able to get something better.

:shrug:

[garybeck]

56. I agree with this ruling.

I'd much rather have single payer government funded health care than a law requiring everyone to purchase private, for-profit, health care.

we must do away with the profit. period.

[meow mix]

59. im glad to hear it.. with no public option its crap

and ill be happy to see it repealed / thrown out... just means more company for me under the bus. i like lots of company

[mdmc]

64. ..

[mdmc]

65. ..