Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 19, 2010, 12:03:11 PM
-
Thank you Mr. President.
Two state attorneys general ready to file lawsuit on health care bill
Posted: March 19th, 2010
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
(CNN) - Should the Democrats' health care reform bill make it to President Obama's desk, at least two Republican state attorneys general are prepared to file a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.
South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster told CNN he and Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum are ready to take issue with a controversial provision known as "the cornhusker kickback" that exempted the state of Nebraska from paying for Medicare costs and with another provision that mandates all Americans buy health insurance.
The provision giving special treatment to Nebraska was not included in the House bill unveiled Thursday but the legislation must be returned to the Senate before final passage. Democratic leaders have vowed that provision is dead but thirteen other attorney generals in addition to McMaster and McCollum have already signed on to the plan to file a lawsuit if the so-called "cornhusker kickback" is included in any final version of the bill signed by Obama.
But even if that controversial provision is removed, McMaster and McCollum say the bill's individual mandate provision is an unconstitutional encroachment on state authority as protected by the 10th Amendment - the part of the Constitution that provides all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government continue to remain with the states.
"The individual mandate is unconstitutional and a violation of state sovereignty and individual liberty," McMaster told CNN. "This is the most egregious, unconstitutional legislation that we can remember."
But proponents of the legislation maintain it is clearly constitutional under the federal government's constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce - a power the Supreme Court has long said provides Congress with wide discretion to pass legislation in areas not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
But McMaster says this bill is a clear departure from what the Supreme Court has said was permissible in the past because, instead of regulating a pre-existing purchase, the health care bill requires individuals to make a purchase of insurance coverage.
"If you choose to get into interstate commerce, the Congress can regulate it," he said. "But here, the difference is that this is requiring folks to get into interstate commerce by buying insurance. That's blatantly unconstitutional I believe."
While McMaster and McCollum are seeking their states' respective GOP gubernatorial nominations, McMaster says their lawsuit has nothing to do with politics.
"We are motivated by the law, according to the constitution," McMaster said.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/19/two-state-attorneys-general-ready-to-file-lawsuit-on-health-care-bill/?fbid=I1oFms_p6Am#more-95335
-
I like it.
States plan lawsuit against new health care bill
Posted: March 22nd, 2010
(CNN) - Ten states plan to file a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new health care reform bill, Florida's attorney general announced Monday.
Bill McCollum, the Republican attorney general under fellow Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, told a news conference that the lawsuit - joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Texas, South Carolina, Utah, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Washington state, North Dakota and South Dakota - would be filed once President Barack Obama signs the health care bill into law.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill on Sunday night, and Obama intends to sign it on Tuesday, according to Democratic sources.
McCollum said the lawsuit would challenge the bill's provision requiring people to purchase health insurance, along with provisions that will force state government to spend more on health care services.
"This is a tax or a penalty on just living, and that's unconstitutional," he said of the mandate to purchase health coverage. "There's no provision in the Constitution of the United States giving Congress the power to do that."
McCollum also said that portions of the bill would force states to spend money they don't have, which he called a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
"There's no way we can do what's required in this bill and still provide for education, for foster care, for the incarceration of prisoners, all the other things that are in this bill," he said.
McCollum said he expected the lawsuit to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
Later Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the Obama administration expected to win any lawsuits filed against the health care bill.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/states-plan-lawsuit-against-new-health-care-bill/?fbid=I1oFms_p6Am#more-95967
-
when gore sued to have the FL ballots hand-counted for accuracy, he was a little bitch, right?
when kerry sued to have the OH ballots hand-counted for accuracy, he was a little bitch, right?
But when a majority-passed bill passes, everybody put in your tampons and sue sue sue!
-
::) More moral equivalency. Fail.
This is the part Americans should be up in arms about:
McCollum said the lawsuit would challenge the bill's provision requiring people to purchase health insurance, along with provisions that will force state government to spend more on health care services.
"This is a tax or a penalty on just living, and that's unconstitutional," he said of the mandate to purchase health coverage. "There's no provision in the Constitution of the United States giving Congress the power to do that."
-
it's funny. Dems advocate punishing people who burden society with ER walk-in visits. Repubs want to just take care of anyone with a boo-boo for free.
It's a sad state of affairs when the Repubs are the party of "we'll take care of you - no need for personal responsibility!"
-
when gore sued to have the FL ballots hand-counted for accuracy, he was a little bitch, right?
when kerry sued to have the OH ballots hand-counted for accuracy, he was a little bitch, right?
But when a majority-passed bill passes, everybody put in your tampons and sue sue sue!
They shouldn't get tampons. they should be forced to make do with sanitary pads, or even better... leaves. >:(
-
That say that if men bled, tampons would be free.
-
when gore sued to have the FL ballots hand-counted for accuracy, he was a little bitch, right?
when kerry sued to have the OH ballots hand-counted for accuracy, he was a little bitch, right?
But when a majority-passed bill passes, everybody put in your tampons and sue sue sue!
Kerry sued to have the OH ballots counted? Really? I just remember him conceding right away.
-
actually, maybe it was the repubs suing to prevent them from being counted in paper backup format- yes, that was the case. They are still sealed to this day. Repubs then sued to ahve them DESTROYED. I laughed at the time, as I was a bush lover and was all to happy to cheat my party's way to victory. I was a repub scumbag shill.
-
actually, maybe it was the repubs suing to prevent them from being counted in paper backup format- yes, that was the case. They are still sealed to this day. Repubs then sued to ahve them DESTROYED. I laughed at the time, as I was a bush lover and was all to happy to cheat my party's way to victory. I was a repub scumbag shill.
the flotsam also filed lawsuits left and right when they passed social security, etc? How did those lawsuits turn out?
-
actually, maybe it was the repubs suing to prevent them from being counted in paper backup format- yes, that was the case. They are still sealed to this day. Repubs then sued to ahve them DESTROYED. I laughed at the time, as I was a bush lover and was all to happy to cheat my party's way to victory. I was a repub scumbag shill.
Really? Link?
-
when gore sued to have the FL ballots hand-counted for accuracy, he was a little bitch, right?
when kerry sued to have the OH ballots hand-counted for accuracy, he was a little bitch, right?
But when a majority-passed bill passes, everybody put in your tampons and sue sue sue!
This is a very different situation. When gore sued it was one man complaining. This is the state, the people of those states do not want the bill. By constitutional law the people of the various states have a right to do so against any legislation the fed gov passes that they deem an infringement on their sovereignty.
2nd thing, this was hardly a majority bill passed...granted, it was the majority of the house that passed it but the house of representatives is supposed to be a direct reflection of the will of the American people...they in fact did not represent the American people with this bill, they out right and blatantly ignored it.
-
hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
the ballots disappeared. that shit is rich LMAO
http://www.alternet.org/story/58328/
Blackwell, a republican, sued.
On Aug. 23, 2006, lawyers for the King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association notified the Secretary of State's office of their voter suppression suit. The following day Blackwell's office sent letters to all 88 of Ohio's county Boards of Election, notifying them of the suit. It is customary for public officials to preserve potential evidence when notified of pending litigation. Blackwell negotiated with opposing attorneys and agree to send a directive to election boards saying the ballots should be retained. Ian Urbina, a New York Times reporter working on the story, reported that Blackwell said he would be creating a process whereby county election officials could eventually review and dispose of the 2004 ballots.
Blackwell was co-chair of the state's Bush-Cheney campaign.
Tons of good stuff in there.
It's good to have you back BB. Why did you disappear for all those months? Missed your threads man!
-
hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
the ballots disappeared. that shit is rich LMAO
http://www.alternet.org/story/58328/
Blackwell, a republican, sued.
On Aug. 23, 2006, lawyers for the King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association notified the Secretary of State's office of their voter suppression suit. The following day Blackwell's office sent letters to all 88 of Ohio's county Boards of Election, notifying them of the suit. It is customary for public officials to preserve potential evidence when notified of pending litigation. Blackwell negotiated with opposing attorneys and agree to send a directive to election boards saying the ballots should be retained. Ian Urbina, a New York Times reporter working on the story, reported that Blackwell said he would be creating a process whereby county election officials could eventually review and dispose of the 2004 ballots.
Blackwell was co-chair of the state's Bush-Cheney campaign.
Tons of good stuff in there.
It's good to have you back BB. Why did you disappear for all those months? Missed your threads man!
This does not support your contention that "the repubs [sued] to prevent them from being counted in paper backup format- yes, that was the case. They are still sealed to this day. Repubs then sued to ahve them DESTROYED."
According to your link, this was a suit filed by the "King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association." Doesn't sound like "Republicans" to me. Also, they sued to have ballots preserved, not destroyed. Did you actually read the link?
-
That say that if men bled, tampons would be free.
...and sanitary napkins would be worn on the outside of our clothing. :-\
-
looks like somebody tried to cover their asses. I doubt the republicans wanted to save the ballots.
http://www.alternet.org/story/58328/?page=1
-
Michael Savage had a guy on tonight who discussed the fact that this bill mnight go down in court because of its religious discrimination component. It sets out a carve out only for amish people w religious objections. The attorney said he was suing saying that unless all religions are permitted this exemption, the bill is unconstitutional and he is going to court over that.
-
Michael Savage had a guy on tonight who discussed the fact that this bill mnight go down in court because of its religious discrimination component. It sets out a carve out only for amish people w religious objections. The attorney said he was suing saying that unless all religions are permitted this exemption, the bill is unconstitutional and he is going to court over that.
see I dont get that..what happend between seperation from church and state..If I'm gonna be fined 350 for not having insurance (I do) just stating that I don't think Amish should be seperate
-
see I dont get that..what happend between seperation from church and state..If I'm gonna be fined 350 for not having insurance (I do) just stating that I don't think Amish should be seperate
Yeah, it was some crazy stuff like that.
-
I wonder what will happen when uninsured people in these 10 states insist on having access to the programs included in the legislation?
-
Attorneys general sue over health care overhaul
Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. —Attorneys general from 13 states sued the federal government today, claiming the landmark health care overhaul bill is unconstitutional just seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed it into law.
The lawsuit was filed in Pensacola after the president signed the bill the House passed Sunday night.
"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit says.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is taking the lead and is joined by attorneys general from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Colorado and Louisiana. All are Republicans except James "Buddy" Caldwell of Louisiana, who is a Democrat.
Some states are considering separate lawsuits and still others may join the multistate suit.
McCollum, who is running for governor, has pushed the lawsuit for several weeks, asking other GOP attorneys general to join him. He says the federal government cannot constitutionally require individuals to obtain health coverage. He is also arguing the bill will cause "substantial harm and financial burden" to the states.
Some states are also looking at other ways to avoid participating in the overhaul. Virginia and Idaho have passed legislation aimed at blocking the bill's insurance requirement from taking effect, and the Republican-led Legislature in Florida is trying to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ask voters to exempt the state from the federal law's requirements. At least 60 percent of voters would have to approve.
McCollum was working with officials from several state agencies to determine how much the health care overhaul would cost the state. He said earlier this month, "I can't conceive of any good in this bill and I don't think any of these agencies can."
Under the bill, starting in six months, health insurance companies would be required to keep young adults as beneficiaries on their parents' plans until they turn 26, and companies would no longer be allowed to deny coverage to sick children.
Other changes would not kick in until 2014.
That's when most Americans will for the first time be required to carry health insurance — either through an employer or government program or by buying it themselves. Those who refuse will face penalties from the IRS.
Tax credits to help pay for premiums also will start flowing to middle-class working families with incomes up to $88,000 a year, and Medicaid will be expanded to cover more low-income people.
No Republicans in the U.S. House or Senate voted for the bill.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100323/BREAKING/100323013/Attorneys+general+sue+over+health+care+overhaul
-
Here is the only real issue-- Will the Supreme Court hear the case?
On commerce clause grounds, the bill is unquestionably unconstitutional. There is no federal police power, and the federal government cannot force the citizens of the US to buy a service or be subject to penalties. The fed can give incentives, but it cannot punish states and individual citizens through the Commerce Clause. Congress can only goes as far as the constitution allows and no further.
On 10th amendment grounds, it's a tougher legal question to answer-- but it is certainly one worth exploring.
In my estimation, the Supreme Court will be divided 5-4 and deny to hear the lawsuit. The 4 justices that actually know their constitutional law and adhere to prior precedent will find the constitutional challenge to be a legal one. The 4 pie in the sky liberal wimps on the bench will almost certainly rule that the challenge is a political question, and therefore not ripe for adjudication. The swing justice will probably vote with the other 4 liberal justices because healthcare is a "moral issue".
-
I've got a simple fix for this.
Everyone is given the chance to "opt out" and agree to forfeit all future chance to join - PERIOD.
But with that choice they also agree that if they ever need an ambulance, emergency room or any other medical care they either have to pay for it out of pocket or have it covered by private health insurance (which presumably they've voluntarily paid for or received from their employer).
Here the bottom line - If they don't have insurance and they incur medical costs then they agree to have their wages garnished or their property seized and sold to pay the costs. They will not get to use the emergency room as their back up plan because they were too cheap to buy insurance. They can't pass their choice to take on risk to the public
I'd honestly be fine with that and if it means that thousands or hundreds of thousands of morons suffer and die from what would otherwise be a non-fatal event (illness, disease, addident, etc...) I'd consider it just an example of survival of the fittest and probably a good thing for the human race
-
Double Bee,
What do you think about term limits now?! :)
-
Straw I have an even more simple fix.
Survival of the fittest- Let everyone with preexisting conditions die right now with zero coverage. Everyone without coverage now can also die. Life goes on the way it always has.
Afterall, if people get sick and die, they probably were meant to be taken out of the genepool right?
-
Double Bee,
What do you think about term limits now?! :)
I don't think term limits is the problem. At least not with this issue. It only took Obama about a year to do this.
-
Straw I have an even more simple fix.
Survival of the fittest- Let everyone with preexisting conditions die right now with zero coverage. Everyone without coverage now can also die. Life goes on the way it always has.
Afterall, if people get sick and die, they probably were meant to be taken out of the genepool right?
don't we already have that systme right now - well rather we had it up until Obama signed the bill today
-
Gee whiz. Nothing gets by you does it? ::)
-
I don't think term limits is the problem. At least not with this issue. It only took Obama about a year to do this.
This took the help/failure of career whores politicians.
-
This took the help/failure of career whores politicians.
Yeah. They played a role too, but do you really think "new" Democrats would have had the backbone to say "no"?
-
Yeah. They played a role too, but do you really think "new" Democrats would have had the backbone to say "no"?
Are there even democrats or republicans left these days?
-
Are there even democrats or republicans left these days?
Hard to tell on a lot of issues. They're all to blame for that stupid mulit-administration stimulus. Sort of makes you want to stay home on election day. :-\
-
Gee whiz. Nothing gets by you does it? ::)
so you're saying Grayson was right?
why did the Repubs get so insulted then if he was simply telling the truth
-
Hard to tell on a lot of issues. They're all to blame for that stupid mulit-administration stimulus. Sort of makes you want to stay home on election day. :-\
If you stay home they win.
-
If you stay home they win.
True. I always vote.
-
More than thirty states are considering legislation to block parts of the bill. Doubt they can do that, but just further shows how the majority of the country does not want this.
14 states sue to block health care law
By the CNN Wire Staff
March 23, 2010
(CNN) -- Officials from 14 states have gone to court to block the historic overhaul of the U.S. health care system that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, arguing the law's requirement that individuals buy health insurance violates the Constitution.
Thirteen of those officials filed suit in a federal court in Pensacola, Florida, minutes after Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The complaint calls the act an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states" and asks a judge to block its enforcement.
"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit states.
The case was filed by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and joined by 11 other Republican attorneys general, along with one Democrat. McCollum said the new law also forces states "to do things that are practically impossible to do as a practical matter, and forcing us to do it without giving any resources or money to do it."
McCollum's lawsuit was joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota Texas, Utah and Washington. Virginia's attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, filed a separate case in his state Tuesday afternoon.
All but one of those state officials, Louisiana's Buddy Caldwell, are Republicans. But McCollum said the case is not a partisan issue and predicted other Democrats would join the suit.
"It's a question for most of us in the states of the costs to our people and to the rights and the freedoms of the individual citizens in upholding our constitutional duties as attorneys general," he said.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that lawyers have advised the administration it would win the lawsuits. And Democratic Party spokesman Hari Sevugan called the lawsuit "a waste of state funds during the worst economic crisis in a generation."
"The American people don't want any more delay, obstruction or hypocrisy on this. They want thoughtfully implemented reform so that it works for all Americans," Sevugan said.
Renee Landers, a law professor at Suffolk University in Massachusetts, said the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate commerce and promote the general welfare of Americans.
"If the federal courts follow existing precedents of the United States Supreme Court, I don't think that the claims will be successful," Landers told CNN.
Ryan Wiggins, a spokesman for McCollum, said the case was filed in Pensacola because "we were told that out of all of the places to file in Florida, Pensacola would move the quickest on it."
At least one of the officials who signed onto the lawsuit has run into criticism back home. Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, criticized Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna for joining the case and said she would actively oppose the suit.
Separately, legislatures in three dozen states are considering proposed legislation aimed at blocking elements of the health care bill. But Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Texas, said the Constitution says laws passed by Congress trump state laws.
"We've got a very conservative Supreme Court, but they're not about to overturn 200 years of Constitutional history and interpretation and declare that the supremacy clause is no longer in effect," Jillson said.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/23/health.care.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T1
-
More than thirty states are considering legislation to block parts of the bill. Doubt they can do that, but just further shows how the majority of the country does not want this.
YOU LIE !
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx
-
YOU LIE !
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx
Well you could link the Rasmussen poll...you know the group that polls "likely voters." But that wouldn't fit your agenda. In November we'll find out if the majority of americans "support" force.
-
Well you could link the Rasmussen poll...you know the group that polls "likely voters." But that wouldn't fit your agenda. In November we'll find out if the majority of americans "support" force.
I gave you the link to the Gallup poll which was just done yesterday
if you want Rasmussen go find it yourself
-
I gave you the link to the Gallup poll which was just done yesterday
if you want Rasmussen go find it yourself
::) ::)
You are the same one who thought these polls were wrong all along, but believe them now. Typical.
-
::) ::)
You are the same one who thought these polls were wrong all along, but believe them now. Typical.
uh - when did I say "these polls are wrong all along"
why do you just constantly make shit up?
-
uh - when did I say "these polls are wrong all along"
why do you just constantly make shit up?
Look, the MSM has been kneepadding this thing for a week now. Of course the polls are going to move a bit. The same thing happened after the SOTU address.
-
States Sue Over Overhaul That Will Bust State Budgets (Update2)
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A By Pat Wechsler
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama faces a fight over the health-care overhaul from states that sued today because the legislation’s expansion of Medicaid imposes a fiscal strain on their cash-strapped budgets.
Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania are among 14 states that filed suit after the president signed the bill over the constitutionality of the burden imposed by the legislation. The health-care overhaul will make as many as 15 million more Americans eligible for Medicaid nationwide starting in 2014 and will cost the states billions to administer.
States faced with unprecedented declines in tax collections are cutting benefits and payments to hospitals and doctors in Medicaid, the health program for the poor paid jointly by state and U.S. governments. The costs to hire staff and plan for the average 25 percent increase in Medicaid rolls may swamp budgets, said Toby Douglas, who manages the Medicaid program for California, which hasn’t joined the lawsuits.
“The states are coming through the worst fiscal period in the history of record keeping,” said Vernon Smith, a former Medicaid director for Michigan and now a principal at the research and consulting firm Health Management Associates in Lansing, Michigan. “Medicaid is the most significant, most visible and most costly part of this expansion and states fully expect to see increases in their spending.”
California’s Deficit
For California, with a $20 billion budget deficit, the extra load will cost at least an additional $2 billion to $3 billion annually, said Douglas, chief deputy director for California’s health care programs. He said the overhaul is currently projected to add 1.6 million people to the 7 million enrolled in his state’s program.
“We face enormous challenges just sustaining our existing program,” said Douglas in a March 18 telephone interview. “I just don’t see states having the capacity to move forward on these changes in this environment.”
The numbers of new enrollees because of the overhaul are based on current estimates and may be low, he said in an e-mail. The estimate doesn’t incorporate the growth that the program, known in California as Medi-Cal, may experience even without the new federal legislation, he said.
Medi-Cal recipients are projected to increase 4.3 percent to 7.3 million in fiscal 2011, which begins July 1, spokesman Norman Williams said.
Court Challenge
Douglas’s state is battling in court over Medicaid spending cuts it tried to make this fiscal year. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on March 3 barred California from reducing payments to doctors and hospitals, saying federal law required states to maintain “equal access to basic health care” for the poor. California is appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The federal government mandates that states provide health coverage under Medicaid to children, pregnant women, and the elderly and disabled poor. States set the rules on eligibility and decide which benefits to provide, making for a complex hodge-podge of coverage standards across the nation. The health- care overhaul simplifies the system by setting a minimum national floor and requires that all states cover childless adults, who will make up almost all of the expansion enrollees.
Medicaid Spending
Medicaid spent more than $344 billion in 2008, about 15 percent of total national health-care expenditures that year, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the program. It currently covers 60 million, about the same as Medicare, the federal program for the elderly and disabled, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, California. The U.S. government covered about 57 percent of Medicaid’s cost in 2008, the foundation said.
Florida will have to spend an additional $1.6 billion for Medicaid and hire 1,000 new workers to accommodate the overhaul, the state’s Attorney General Bill McCollum said yesterday in Orlando, Florida.
“This is a bad bill,” he said. “That’s a political determination and a practical one.”
The states that sued are Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington, McCollum said in a statement on his office’s Web site.
The complaint posted on the Florida attorney general’s Web site called the legislation an “encroachment on the sovereignty of states,” and said Florida will be asked to “broaden its Medicaid eligibility standards to accommodate upwards of 50 percent more enrollees.”
Insurance Mandate
Besides the added Medicaid costs, the states are also challenging the right of the federal government to impose a mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, whose state filed a separate lawsuit today challenging the law, called the health legislation an “unconstitutional overreach” of the federal government’s authority.
Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said the president isn’t “concerned” about the potential legal challenges. Congress has the “inherent authority” to mandate coverage under the commerce clause that allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, she told Bloomberg Television yesterday.
The historic health-care bill, which the House passed March 21 after 13 months of debate and discord, marks the biggest expansion of health coverage since enactment of Medicaid and Medicare in 1965. Obama signed it into law today.
Legislation Amendments
The House on March 21 also passed legislation amending the overhaul, expanding the number of those who will be covered by insurance and raising the total cost to $940 billion. The Senate is scheduled to take up these amendments this week. The package of bills would increase the number of Americans insured by 32 million, raising the portion of people under the age of 64 with insurance to about 94 percent.
The bills raise the threshold for people to qualify for Medicaid to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, which was $22,050 for a family of four and $10,830 for an individual for the 48 contiguous states in 2009, according to guidelines set by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The biggest challenge states face is dealing with a program where the growth in annual spending regularly exceeds the growth in state revenue, said Smith of Health Management Associates.
“It has been a very, very difficult period for the states,” Smith said. “They had to cut spending at a time when significantly more people needed it.”
Falling State Revenue
Most states have confronted drops in revenue since the beginning of the recession in late 2007 as tax collections fell for an unprecedented fifth straight quarter by the end of December last year, according to the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, New York. In the first nine months of 2009, states suffered the biggest decline in revenue ever recorded.
In fiscal 2009, Medicaid enrollment increased a record 3.29 million nationally, with another rise of 1.29 million the year before, based on reports compiled for the Kaiser foundation.
Medicaid spending accounts for about 22 percent of state spending, according to the National Governors Association, which said it doesn’t expect revenue to return to pre-recession levels until at least 2014. Budget directors estimate the fiscal 2011 budget gap could expand to $102 billion and may even reach $180 billion, the Kaiser study said. States by law, unlike Washington, must balance their budgets.
“In the past, Medicaid was only as strong as its weakest link,” said Stephen Somers, president of the health-policy nonprofit Center for Health Care Strategies Inc. in Hamilton, New Jersey. “ Now, there is the first universal floor and it will form the foundation for universal coverage.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Pat Wechsler in New York at pwechsler@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: March 23, 2010 16:30 EDT
-
hey ...i dont personally want life insurance...but i'm gonna be forced to buy it ...so i'm paying for others...
in pakistan we gave beggars charity but once in a while when in a bad mood...it ws ok to kick the living crap out of one and no one minded...
does this also apply here?
i can then just call it 'therapy' :)
-
I gave you the link to the Gallup poll which was just done yesterday
if you want Rasmussen go find it yourself
Way over your head dude. Rasmussen polls likely voters...gallup polls everyone. Now which one should I be concerned about?
-
Way over your head dude. Rasmussen polls likely voters...gallup polls everyone. Now which one should I be concerned about?
Again - the link I gave was a poll that was done the day I posted it.
It was the most timely info available and showed that the statement "the majority of the country does not want this" was a lie.
If you have a Rasmussin poll taken in the last 48 hours then post it
-
This does not support your contention that "the repubs [sued] to prevent them from being counted in paper backup format- yes, that was the case. They are still sealed to this day. Repubs then sued to ahve them DESTROYED."
According to your link, this was a suit filed by the "King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association." Doesn't sound like "Republicans" to me. Also, they sued to have ballots preserved, not destroyed. Did you actually read the link?
Bump. :)
-
I though Repubs were against frivolous lawsuits?
-
hey ...i dont personally want life insurance...but i'm gonna be forced to buy it ...so i'm paying for others...
in pakistan we gave beggars charity but once in a while when in a bad mood...it ws ok to kick the living crap out of one and no one minded...
does this also apply here?
i can then just call it 'therapy' :)
A lot of people need care to stay alive. Obviously, need ≠ right but somebody's got to pay and it may as well be people like you. :)
-
Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare
Friday, 26 Mar 2010
By: David A. Patten
President Barack Obama is one of the worst presidents ever in terms of respecting constitutional limitations on government, and the states suing the federal government over healthcare reform "have a pretty strong case" and are likely to prevail, according to author and judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella, Napolitano says the president's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional.
"The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments," Napolitano says. "Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.
Special: Do You Back Obama's Healthcare Plan? Vote Here Now!
"That's called commandeering the legislature," he says. "That's the Congress taking away the discretion of the legislature with respect to regulation, and spending taxpayer dollars. That's prohibited in a couple of Supreme Court cases. So on that argument, the attorneys general have a pretty strong case and I think they will prevail.”
Napolitano, author of his just-released “Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History” and a Fox News senior judicial analyst, is the youngest Superior Court judge ever to attain lifetime tenure in the state of New Jersey. He served on the bench from 1987 to 1995.
Napolitano tells Newsmax that the longstanding precedent of state regulation of the healthcare industry makes the new federal regulations that much more problematic.
"The Supreme Court has ruled that in areas of human behavior that are not delegated to the Congress in the Constitution, and that have been traditionally regulated by the states, the Congress can't simply move in there," Napolitano says. "And the states for 230 years have had near exclusive regulation over the delivery of healthcare. The states license hospitals. The states license medications. The states license healthcare providers whether they're doctors, nurses, or pharmacists. The feds have had nothing to do with it.
"The Congress can't simply wake up one day and decide that it wants to regulate this. I predict that the Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of what the president just signed into law…"
The judge also says he would rate President Obama as one of the worst presidents in terms of obedience to constitutional limitations.
"I believe we have a one party system in this country, called the big-government party," Napolitano says. "There is a Republican branch that likes war and deficits and assaulting civil liberties. There is a Democratic branch that likes welfare and taxes and assaulting commercial liberties.
"President Obama obviously is squarely within the Democratic branch. The president who had the least fidelity to the Constitution was Abraham Lincoln, who waged war on half the country, even though there's obviously no authority for that, a war that killed nearly 700,000 people. President Obama is close to that end of lacking fidelity to the Constitution. He wants to outdo his hero FDR."
For those who oppose healthcare, the Fox legal expert says, the bad news is that many of the legal challenges to healthcare reform will have to wait until 2014, when the changes become fully operational.
Until then, there would be no legal case that individuals had been actually harmed by the law. Moreover, Napolitano says it takes an average of four years for a case to work its way through the various federal courts the final hearing that's expected to come before the Supreme Court.
"You're talking about 2018, which is eight years from now, before it is likely the Supreme Court will hear this," he says.
. . . .
http://newsmax.com/Headline/Andrew-Napolitano-barack-obama/2010/03/26/id/354008
-
Illinois Is 40th State to Defend Health Care Choice;
Oklahoma Health Freedom Bill Poised for Ballot
By Christie Herrera, 3/26/2010 8:10:50 AM
Washington, D.C.—Yesterday, Illinois became the 40th state where legislators have introduced, or will introduce, legislation modeled after the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act. Illinois House Bill 6842 prohibits a requirement to purchase health insurance and would provide the state with protection in a constitutional challenge of the federal health reform bill.
The Oklahoma Senate also gave preliminary approval Tuesday for House Joint Resolution 1054—a constitutional amendment protecting a patient’s right to pay directly for medical care, and prohibiting penalties for failing to purchase health insurance—to appear before voters on the November ballot. The resolution passed with strong bipartisan support, with 20 Oklahoma House Democrats and 11 Oklahoma Senate Democrats backing the legislation.
“In order to fix a few problems with one of the best health care systems in the world, the President and Congressional leaders are essentially wrecking a car that needs a tune-up,” said Oklahoma Representative Mike Ritze, sponsor of HJR 1054.
“Oklahomans are happy with the current system and want no part of the new one. This legislation will help them send that message to the federal government,” Ritze added.
ALEC’s Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act has already been enacted by the Virginia and Idaho legislatures, and measures in Oklahoma and Arizona will appear before voters on the November ballot. The legislation has also passed one chamber in Georgia, Missouri, and Tennessee and is accelerating in Florida and elsewhere.
A complete map with links to the legislation in each state is available online at http://www.alec.org
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation's largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?c30bb49f-a948-451c-96c8-d4a5cd64aaf6
-
Dem AGs Rebuff GOP Govs On Healthcare Lawsuits
Tuesday, 30 Mar 2010
Republican governors in two western states want to join in legal challenges to recent federal health care legislation, but each is meeting stiff resistance from the same obstacle: an attorney general from the rival party.
Amid campaign-year jockeying, high-profile health-care disputes have erupted between the states' top elected officials in both Arizona and Nevada.
In Nevada, Democratic Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto rebuffed demands Tuesday from Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons that she join 14 of her colleagues in suing the federal government over health reform.
Masto said the suit would be unlikely to succeed, while Gibbons said he was "exploring his options" to pursue a lawsuit on his own.
Both Gibbons and Masto are up for re-election.
"I am disappointed the attorney general has refused to fight for the rights of Nevada citizens," Gibbons said. "But I swore an oath to protect Nevada citizens and that is exactly what I intend to do."
In Arizona, Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat, also is declining to sue on his state's behalf. The move angered Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who asked the GOP-controlled Legislature for authority to go around Goddard and file suit. On Tuesday, Arizona House and Senate committees approved Brewer's request, sending the measures to final votes in both chambers.
Goddard is running for governor, while Brewer is facing a Republican primary challenge from the right, and the issue has emerged as an early battle in the campaign for governor.
"I think the attorney general is derelict in his duties and responsibilities to the citizens of this state," said Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce of Mesa.
Goddard has called Brewer's actions a "shameful stunt to score political points."
Elsewhere, battles have emerged among top state leaders, with distinct political overtones:
— In Colorado, Washington and Wisconsin, Republican attorneys general have sued or tried to sue despite opposition from Democratic governors.
— In Kansas and Kentucky, Republicans lawmakers have demanded that their states sue; the Republican lieutenant governor in Missouri has made a similar request.
— In Georgia, the Democratic attorney general is facing an impeachment resolution after he refused the Republican governor's request to sue. Democratic lawyers in Minnesota and Mississippi hadn't yet decided whether to honor lawsuit requests from Republican governors.
Republicans pushing lawsuits claim that the health care overhaul, signed last week by President Barack Obama, is unconstitutional because it requires people to buy insurance from a private contractor, and claim it eviscerates states' rights.
Republicans in Arizona and Nevada also say the health overhaul will put massive burdens on state Medicaid programs.
Arizona risks losing billions in federal Medicaid dollars if lawmakers don't reverse part of the state budget adopted earlier this month. In response to big deficits, the budget eliminated a health care program for children and dropped health coverage for 310,000 people in the state's Medicaid program.
The cuts would have saved about $400 million in the next fiscal year. Lawmakers have said they have no choice but to reverse them.
Lawsuit opponents argue that there is little chance of success because legal precedent is firmly on the side of the federal government.
In a letter to the governor released Tuesday, Masto of Nevada said under the U.S. Constitution's commerce and spending clauses, "the authority given to Congress is extensive and appears strong enough to support the Act."
Some lawsuit opponents also argue that states don't have standing to sue because the law doesn't require anything of state governments. Rather, the mandate to buy insurance is levied on taxpayers.
And opponents say states would waste tax dollars by joining a suit that will proceed anyway. If successful, the impact of the suit would affect all states, not just those that sue.
Both Brewer and Gibbons say lawyers have offered to take the case for free, including, in Nevada, a Republican running for attorney general. Arizona House Republicans beat back a Democratic proposal to ban the use of state time or money on the suit.
——
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/US-Health-Care-Lawsuits/2010/03/30/id/354291
-
For what it's worth
In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance.
This legislation also created America’s first payroll tax, as a ship’s owner was required to deduct 20 cents from each sailor’s monthly pay and forward those receipts to the service, which in turn provided injured sailors hospital care. Failure to pay or account properly was discouraged by requiring a law violating owner or ship's captain to pay a 100 dollar fine.
This historical fact demolishes claims of “unprecedented” and "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty...”
Perhaps these somewhat incompetent attorneys general might wish to amend their lawsuits to conform to the 1798 precedent, and demand that the mandate and fines be linked to implementing a federal single payer healthcare insurance plan.
-
bump. John Adams who helped write the constitution didn't think mandated insurance was against it.
-
For what it's worth
In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance.
This legislation also created America’s first payroll tax, as a ship’s owner was required to deduct 20 cents from each sailor’s monthly pay and forward those receipts to the service, which in turn provided injured sailors hospital care. Failure to pay or account properly was discouraged by requiring a law violating owner or ship's captain to pay a 100 dollar fine.
This historical fact demolishes claims of “unprecedented” and "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty...”
Perhaps these somewhat incompetent attorneys general might wish to amend their lawsuits to conform to the 1798 precedent, and demand that the mandate and fines be linked to implementing a federal single payer healthcare insurance plan.
Interesting.
-
Ariz. Governor Signs Bill Authorizing Health Suit
Thursday, 01 Apr 2010
Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed a bill giving her authority to skirt the state's Democratic attorney general and file a lawsuit challenging federal health care legislation.
Brewer signed the legislation Thursday after requesting last week that lawmakers approve it.
Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat, angered Republicans last week by declining to join more than a dozen other states in suing to block the health care overhaul bill signed by President Barack Obama.
Republicans say the federal legislation is unconstitutional in part because it requires people to purchase private health insurance. Goddard and other Democrats say a suit would be unlikely to succeed and thus a waste of taxpayer money.
It wasn't immediately known when Brewer planned to use her new authority to file a lawsuit.
http://newsmax.com/Politics/US-Health-Overhaul-Arizona/2010/04/01/id/354538
-
nothing but a waste of taxpayers money on frivolous law suits
-
Sections of new health-care law violate the Constitution
Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna believes he and 13 other attorneys general have a constitutional duty to challenge parts of the new health-care law.
By Rob McKenna
Special to the Times
I WAS sworn in for the second time last year as state attorney general. The oath of office requires that I "swear to support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of the state of Washington." It's an oath that I'm honored to take — and one that I take very seriously.
Our Constitution guarantees rock-solid rights and freedoms, including free speech, due process, and the right to keep and bear arms, among others. The framers of the Constitution believed in a system of checks and balances that prevents any one branch of government from wielding unstoppable power and infringing on individual rights.
The framers stressed that the rights listed "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and that there are real limits on the powers delegated to the federal government. The 10th Amendment reinforces those limits and protects individual rights, stating that undelegated powers "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I've joined 13 other state attorneys general in a bipartisan lawsuit challenging some provisions of the new federal health-care law. We're concerned that the challenged sections violate the Constitution and are providing an important check on federal power.
Improving access to health care is too important to build on an unconstitutional foundation. For the first time in our nation's history, the federal government will require all Americans to purchase a particular product in the private marketplace: health insurance. The Internal Revenue Service will fine those without a federally approved health-insurance plan.
The Constitution's Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. But does it empower Congress to force you to engage in a certain kind of commerce? If Congress can order you to buy certain kinds of health insurance, what else can they order you to buy? Could they require you to buy General Motors vehicles, because the federal government now effectively owns that carmaker?
In addition, the insurance mandate is outside the powers delegated in the Constitution to the federal government, and therefore infringes on individual rights reserved under the 10th Amendment.
We are also concerned that the massive expansion of Medicaid required under the bill violates state sovereignty by taking control of state spending, forcing a budget-busting expansion of Medicaid coverage.
In our state, as many as 300,000 new people will qualify for the program. According to Dr. Roger Stark, of the Washington Policy Center, this will cost the state $1.36 to $6.8 billion over 10 years. And it's important to note that current Medicaid spending contributes to the chronic budget shortfalls we've faced the last two years, leading many lawmakers to propose tax increases.
All Americans should have access to affordable medical coverage. No one should go bankrupt because she gets sick. Those with pre-existing conditions should not be barred from obtaining health insurance. Our lawsuit does not cancel out sections of the health-care bill that address these issues.
As attorney general, I'm an independent guardian of the law. I've sued both the Bush and Obama administrations over their legally questionable environmental policies. I've fought both political parties in the U.S. Supreme Court, successfully defending the voter-approved, top-two primary. My office aggressively pursues illegal political fundraising and advertising activities uncovered by the PDC, regardless of whom, on the left or right, committed those violations.
The lawsuit over the health-care bill is consistent with my commitment to independently fight for your rights, to uphold my oath of office and defend the Constitution.
Rob McKenna is Washington's attorney general.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2011510208_guest04rob.html
-
nothing but a waste of taxpayers money on frivolous law suits
Somebody that would be in favor of a one trillion dollar bill obviously does not care about a "waste" of taxpayer money.
-
Somebody that would be in favor of a one trillion dollar bill obviously does not care about a "waste" of taxpayer money.
doesn't the less than a trillion dollar bill actually save money in the long run?
These lawsuits have no merit and will just be money down the shitter for states that are already underwater
-
Somebody that would be in favor of a one trillion dollar bill obviously does not care about a "waste" of taxpayer money.
Tell me about it.
-
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011483297_healthdebate31m.html
UW panelists say lawsuits challenging health bill lack merit
By Nick Perry
The University of Washington billed it as a debate among distinguished law faculty over whether the new federal health-care law is constitutional.
But while the four panelists at a packed event Tuesday may have differed on some of the finer points, they all agreed on the big question: They said the new law passes constitutional muster and that various lawsuits arguing the opposite - including the one joined last week by state Attorney General Rob McKenna - have little merit or chance of success.
Even John McKay, the former Republican U.S. attorney for Western Washington (who was forced out in 2006 under contentious circumstances) said that while he sympathized with some of the political issues in play, he thought the lawsuits lacked merit. In fact, he questioned the timing and thrust of the cases: "One way to say it is, that this has to be seen as a political exercise," he said.
Moderator Hugh Spitzer noted the lack of a vigorous dissenting voice.
"I will say that we tried very hard to get a professor who could come and who thinks this is flat-out unconstitutional," he said. "But there are relatively few of them, and they are in great demand."
Spitzer, an expert in state constitutional law and a UW affiliate professor, said afterward that organizers even considered setting up some kind of video conference to provide the counter perspective. But in the end, he said, the lack of professors taking that position spoke to the merits of the arguments. He said organizers did not invite McKenna because they wanted to stick with academicians.
Sitting on the panel alongside McKay, who these days teaches constitutional law at Seattle University, were UW professors Stewart Jay, Sallie Sanford and Kathryn Watts.
McKay explained the reasoning behind some of the arguments in the legal cases filed in Florida and Virginia — namely, that the federal government has overstepped its authority by forcing Americans to buy health insurance and that the federal government is illegally forcing states to be a part of the scheme.
Jay said that when it comes to the first argument, the federal government has "the power to tax and spend" and the ability to regulate interstate commerce — adding that health care, which makes up one-sixth of the economy, undoubtedly constitutes vital commerce. And he said that states aren't being forced into the scheme because they could opt out of accepting federal health dollars.
Sanford said that when some people don't have health insurance, it changes the cost for everyone else. She cited state estimates that people who pay for health insurance are coughing up about $1,000 a year to help cover those who rely on charity care or who don't pay their medical bills.
The panelists seemed to agree that if any of the cases make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices would be hard-pressed to find the law unconstitutional, given some recent precedents they have set in other cases.
Yet anything is possible — and it all makes for a lively national debate.
McKay said it is an exciting time for anyone teaching constitutional law and that the confrontation over health care — including violence and threats of violence — raises the stakes for the nation.
-
Indiana Joins Suit Against Health Care Reform
AG Questions Constitutionality Of Law
POSTED: 1:02 pm EDT March 29, 2010
UPDATED: 6:58 pm EDT March 29, 2010
INDIANAPOLIS -- Indiana on Monday joined a lawsuit filed by Florida and 13 other states last week against the health care reform law President Barack Obama signed.
Attorney General Greg Zoeller questioned the constitutionality of requiring people to buy health insurance and the federal government imposing rules on states that he said could be seen as violating sovereignty.
Video: Indiana Joins Suit Against Health Care Reform
"Anytime the federal government requires the state to act, the question of sovereignty is appropriate, and the U.S. Supreme Court is in position to answer," Zoeller said last week. "I think the sooner we can have a resolution out of the Supreme Court as to the constitutionality, really the better."
Zoeller said his office received an avalanche of e-mail in the wake of the passage of health care reform, most of it urging him to act, but he made the decision on his own.
The lawsuit asks a judge to declare health care reform unconstitutional because "the Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage."
"I feel like it's overreaching," Zoeller said, of the health care plan. "I think there are other ways of doing it. I'm not denying we need health insurance reform."
The initial bill for legal representation is $50,000. The cost will be split among the states. Indiana could hire an outside firm and spend more money in the future.
The work is currently being done by Tom Fisher, the state's solicitor general, who would argue Indiana's complaint if it reaches the Supreme Court.
"I think they will be very hard-pressed to ignore the issue, because the individual mandate is at the crux of the statute," Fisher said.
The White House said it believes the lawsuit will fail, and David Orentlicher, a professor of law at Indiana University Purdue University-Indianapolis and former Democratic leader in the Indiana House, agrees.
"There is not a serious constitutional problem here. In fact, we know the government can make you buy insurance … That's what Medicare is," Orentlicher said. "While we are working, we are paying toward our health insurance when we reach age 65."
Indiana will have 21 days to add to the complaint Florida originally filed.
http://www.theindychannel.com/politics/22988851/detail.html
-
Pawlenty to file lawsuit against health care law
Posted: April 6th, 2010 06:20 PM ET
From CNN's Taylor Harris
(CNN) - Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minnesota, announced Tuesday he intends to file suit against the new federal health care law.
Critics of the law argue that its requirement for individuals to buy health insurance violates the Constitution.
"The federal government is now requiring citizens under penalty of a fine to buy a good or a service, and we think that's an unprecedented overreach by the federal government into the lives of individual citizens," the governor said following a meeting on education reform.
Pawlenty, a potential 2012 presidential candidate, did not say whether he will pursue his own lawsuit or join legal challenges from 14 attorneys general filed last month.
Related: States sue to block health care bill
"At this time, he is considering his options," Brian McClung, the governor's spokesperson, told CNN.
Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Hari Sevugan said in a statement Tuesday that the governor's lawsuit is, "Yet another political ploy by Pawlenty to pander to the radical right-wing of his party."
The Republican governor's remarks come a day after Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, a Democrat, informed Pawlenty that she would not file suit on behalf of the state.
"I have determined that a lawsuit by the state of Minnesota against the United States of America is not warranted and, accordingly, I will not be filing such a lawsuit," Swanson wrote in a letter to the governor.
Swanson added that she will file an amicus brief in support of the United States, "to set forth what I believe to be a correct reading of the Constitution."
Renee Landers, a law professor at Suffolk University in Massachusetts, recently told CNN that the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate commerce and promote the general welfare of Americans.
Swanson and Pawlenty are not the first attorney general and governor to butt heads over health care. Last month Georgia's Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, said he would pursue litigation against the new health care law, even though his state's attorney general, a Democrat, advised him not to.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/06/pawlenty-to-file-lawsuit-against-health-care-law/?fbid=XPBeW4MfwYo#more-98392
-
If those states file lawsuits, cut off all government funding to them.
No point in my tax dollars paying for roads or schools in places my kids don't go and I don't drive.
Fuck 'em.
-
Fine, but let them keep their tax dollars.
-
Five states join lawsuit against health care bill
Posted: April 7th, 2010
(CNN) - Five more states - Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona - on Wednesday joined 13 others in a lawsuit against the historic overhaul of the U.S. health care system signed into law last month by President Barack Obama, the Texas attorney general announced.
The lawsuit initially filed by Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Idaho, South Dakota and Washington argues that the legislation's requirement that individuals buy health insurance violates the Constitution.
It calls the health care bill an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states" and asks a judge to block its enforcement.
"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit states.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said last month that the Obama administration expected to win any legal challenge to the health care bill.
Legal experts say the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed.
Renee Landers, a law professor at Suffolk University in Massachusetts, said the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate commerce and promote the general welfare of Americans.
"If the federal courts follow existing precedents of the United States Supreme Court, I don't think that the claims will be successful," Landers told CNN last month.
Separately, legislatures in three dozen states are considering proposed measures aimed at blocking elements of the health care bill. But Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Texas, said the Constitution says laws passed by Congress trump state laws.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/07/five-states-join-lawsuit-against-health-care-bill/?fbid=XPBeW4MfwYo#more-98543
-
Five states join lawsuit against health care bill
Posted: April 7th, 2010
Legal experts say the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed.
more frivolous lawsuits that are nothing more than waste a taxpayers money so that Repubs can grandstand on the public dime
The irony is that may red states actually receive more in federal subsidies than they pay in taxes
-
Mo. Lt. Gov. Plans Lawsuit Over Health Care Bill
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 8, 2010
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder says he'll seek private funding for his own legal challenge to the new federal health care law.
Kinder said Wednesday that he will file the lawsuit later this month in a Missouri federal court in his official capacity. A spokesman says the suit will focus on issues dealing with seniors and the solvency of Medicare. He wouldn't provide additional details.
No fundraising goals have been set.
The Republican lieutenant governor plans his own lawsuit instead of joining one filed by more than a dozen states challenging the new federal health care law. That suit claims the U.S. government can't mandate that citizens have health insurance or force states to carry out the new law without reimbursing them for costs.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/08/business/AP-US-Health-Overhaul-Lawsuit-Missouri.html
-
Stephen Breyer: Supreme Court Likely To Review Health Care Reform
MARK SHERMAN | 04/15/10
WASHINGTON — Justice Stephen Breyer predicted Thursday that the Supreme Court will one day pass judgment on this year's health care overhaul.
Breyer told a congressional panel that the massive health care law, like most major federal legislation, is a good candidate for high court review.
More than a dozen Republican attorneys general in several states are determined to challenge the law in federal court, arguing that its requirement that Americans get health insurance is unconstitutional.
Breyer said the court's relatively light caseload in recent years will soon be a thing of the past.
"I'd predict that three, four years from today, no one's going to ask us again why we have so few cases," Breyer said at a hearing on the court's budget before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.
Justice Clarence Thomas said at the same hearing that the court's caseload, a third less than it was 20 years ago, depends in large part on what is happening in Congress. "Until recently, there hasn't been comprehensive legislation of the kind that would fill our docket," Thomas said.
The court still deals regularly with aspects of a 36-year-old federal law on retirement and health benefits as well as a mid-1990s statute that is designed to speed appeals in death penalty cases.
Lawmakers also quizzed the justices about allowing cameras in the courtroom.
Breyer has been much more open to televising court proceedings than others, including Thomas. Americans' understanding of the court would increase if they could see it in action more easily, Breyer said.
But he said the justices also have serious concerns about things being taken out of context and having televised high court hearings used to try to open criminal trials to television cameras. He said juror and witness security must be taken into account.
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., the subcommittee chairman, said he worries that commentators might use court coverage to launch broadsides against the justices. "Did you hear Breyer? What a jerk. Did you hear Thomas?" Serrano said.
Thomas, who does not ask questions at court arguments, piped up at that point. "You mean, didn't hear me," Thomas said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/stephen-breyer-supreme-co_n_539134.html
-
Jose serrano is awful. He is from my area.
-
Virginia health care lawsuit can proceed, judge rules
Posted: August 2nd, 2010
From CNN's Charles Riley
Washington (CNN) – The Commonwealth of Virginia will be allowed to continue its constitutional challenge to the health care bill signed into law by President Obama earlier this year, a federal trial court ruled Monday.
Judge Henry Hudson ruled in a 32-page opinion that the legal challenge mounted by Virginia State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli should be allowed to continue. The state argues that part of the health care bill – Section 1501, which requires individuals to obtain a minimum level of health insurance – is unconstitutional.
"While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate - and tax - a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce," Hudson wrote in his opinion. "Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed this issue."
Cuccinelli voiced his approval of the judge's ruling in a statement issued after the court ruled.
"We are pleased that Judge Hudson agreed that Virginia has the standing to move forward with our suit and that our complaint alleged a valid claim." Cuccinelli said.
But Monday's ruling is a narrow one that only allows the lawsuit to continue. The merits of the state's case will be argued in a full hearing at a later date. It's a fact the White House pointed to in a blog post dedicated to the court's decision.
"Now that this preliminary stage has ended, the government fully expects to prevail on the merits," White House aide Stephanie Cutter wrote. "The Affordable Care Act falls well within Congress's power to regulate under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause. As President Reagan's Solicitor General Charles Fried recently wrote, 'the health care law's enemies have no ally in the Constitution.' "
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said the state is looking forward to a full hearing.
"I applaud today's decision allowing Virginia's constitutional challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to move forward. Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has brought forward a specific and narrowly tailored objection to the Act. It warrants a full and thorough hearing in our courts. It is meritorious and constitutionally correct," McDonnell said in a statement.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/02/virginia-lawsuit-can-proceed-judge-rules/?fbid=XPBeW4MfwYo#more-116069
-
doesn't the less than a trillion dollar bill actually save money in the long run?
These lawsuits have no merit and will just be money down the shitter for states that are already underwater
Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Save money in the long run?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh brother, I just peed myself.
-
Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Save money in the long run?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh brother, I just peed myself.
Don't even bother emmortal. You will go page after page with Straw and no matter the evidence you supply, he is as dense as they come.
-
Missouri Votes to Block Health Insurance Mandate
Published August 03, 2010 | Associated Press
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a key provision of President Barack Obama's health care law, sending a clear message of discontent to Washington and Democrats less than 100 days before the midterm elections.
With about 70 percent of the vote counted late Tuesday, nearly three-quarters of voters threw their support behind a ballot measure, Proposition C, that would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it.
That would conflict with a federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalties starting in 2014.
Tuesday's vote was seen as largely symbolic because federal law generally trumps state law. But it was also seen as a sign of growing voter disillusionment with federal policies and a show of strength by conservatives and the tea party movement.
Legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana and Virginia have passed similar statutes, and voters in Arizona and Oklahoma will vote on such measures as state constitutional amendments in November. But Missouri was the first state to challenge aspects of the law in a referendum.
Federal courts are expected to weigh in well before the insurance provision takes effect about whether the federal health care overhaul is constitutional.
The intent of the federal requirement is to broaden the pool of healthy people covered by insurers, thus holding down premiums that otherwise would rise because of separate provisions prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to people with poor health or pre-existing conditions.
But the insurance requirement has been one of the most contentious parts of the new federal law. Public officials in well over a dozen states, including Missouri, have filed lawsuits claiming Congress overstepped its constitutional authority by requiring citizens to buy health insurance.
The Missouri Hospital Association spent $400,000 warning people that passage of the ballot measure could increase hospitals' costs for treating the uninsured, but there was little opposition to the measure from either grass-roots organizations or from the unions and consumer groups that backed the federal overhaul.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/03/missouri-votes-block-health-insurance-mandate/
-
Missouri Votes to Block Health Insurance Mandate
Published August 03, 2010 | Associated Press
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a key provision of President Barack Obama's health care law, sending a clear message of discontent to Washington and Democrats less than 100 days before the midterm elections.
With about 70 percent of the vote counted late Tuesday, nearly three-quarters of voters threw their support behind a ballot measure, Proposition C, that would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it.
That would conflict with a federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalties starting in 2014.
Tuesday's vote was seen as largely symbolic because federal law generally trumps state law. But it was also seen as a sign of growing voter disillusionment with federal policies and a show of strength by conservatives and the tea party movement.
Legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana and Virginia have passed similar statutes, and voters in Arizona and Oklahoma will vote on such measures as state constitutional amendments in November. But Missouri was the first state to challenge aspects of the law in a referendum.
Federal courts are expected to weigh in well before the insurance provision takes effect about whether the federal health care overhaul is constitutional.
The intent of the federal requirement is to broaden the pool of healthy people covered by insurers, thus holding down premiums that otherwise would rise because of separate provisions prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to people with poor health or pre-existing conditions.
But the insurance requirement has been one of the most contentious parts of the new federal law. Public officials in well over a dozen states, including Missouri, have filed lawsuits claiming Congress overstepped its constitutional authority by requiring citizens to buy health insurance.
The Missouri Hospital Association spent $400,000 warning people that passage of the ballot measure could increase hospitals' costs for treating the uninsured, but there was little opposition to the measure from either grass-roots organizations or from the unions and consumer groups that backed the federal overhaul.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/03/missouri-votes-block-health-insurance-mandate/
Great news. Its time we start taking the fight back to this horrific admn on all levels.
-
Missouri Votes to Block Health Insurance Mandate
Published August 03, 2010 | Associated Press
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a key provision of President Barack Obama's health care law, sending a clear message of discontent to Washington and Democrats less than 100 days before the midterm elections.
With about 70 percent of the vote counted late Tuesday, nearly three-quarters of voters threw their support behind a ballot measure, Proposition C, that would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it.
That would conflict with a federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalties starting in 2014.
Tuesday's vote was seen as largely symbolic because federal law generally trumps state law. But it was also seen as a sign of growing voter disillusionment with federal policies and a show of strength by conservatives and the tea party movement.
Legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana and Virginia have passed similar statutes, and voters in Arizona and Oklahoma will vote on such measures as state constitutional amendments in November. But Missouri was the first state to challenge aspects of the law in a referendum.
Federal courts are expected to weigh in well before the insurance provision takes effect about whether the federal health care overhaul is constitutional.
The intent of the federal requirement is to broaden the pool of healthy people covered by insurers, thus holding down premiums that otherwise would rise because of separate provisions prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to people with poor health or pre-existing conditions.
But the insurance requirement has been one of the most contentious parts of the new federal law. Public officials in well over a dozen states, including Missouri, have filed lawsuits claiming Congress overstepped its constitutional authority by requiring citizens to buy health insurance.
The Missouri Hospital Association spent $400,000 warning people that passage of the ballot measure could increase hospitals' costs for treating the uninsured, but there was little opposition to the measure from either grass-roots organizations or from the unions and consumer groups that backed the federal overhaul.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/03/missouri-votes-block-health-insurance-mandate/
Great !!
One by one the States need to reject this POS Bill
-
Suit to Overturn Obamacare Hears First Arguments
Monday, 13 Sep 2010
By: David A. Patten
All eyes will be focused on a Pensacola, Florida courtroom Tuesday as Justice Department lawyers will try to convince a federal district court judge to throw out a lawsuit by 20 states charging that President Obama's healthcare reforms are unconstitutional.
The multi-state lawsuit has been led by Florida's Attorney General, a Republican.
The Obama administration has claimed that the states have no legal standing to bring their legal action.
The central issue in the hearing: Whether the states are legally empowered to challenge the fines in the individual mandate that gives Obamacare its bite.
In an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum says the federal government has exceeded its constitutional authority.
"We are arguing that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to tell you, if you are just sitting in front of your TV set, or doing nothing in the way of real economic activity, that you have to buy a health insurance policy or pay a penalty," McCollum tells Newsmax.
"That's just not in the Constitution," he adds. "The Founding Fathers didn't enumerate any powers that appear to us to give them the right to say this."
The stakes could hardly be higher.
If the administration prevails, it would deal a major blow to conservatives' hopes of using the courts to block the administration's signature piece of legislation.
If the judge rejects the administration's motion, it would mark the second time in as many months that anti-Obamacare forces have won a major court battle on the unpopular bill that most Democrats would prefer voters forget.
The federal government is expected to argue that the "individual mandate" -- essentially a demand that every citizen buy private health insurance or suffer a fine levied by the IRS -- is actually a tax. Only taxpayers can argue the legality of a tax, they contend, and even then only after the assessments take effect in 2015.
The administration also will cite its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, along with its responsibility to provide for the public's general welfare.
Those are the same arguments the federal government made in a Virginia hearing on the other state-level lawsuit filed against healthcare reform, which was filed by Virginia GOP Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
After hearing from both sides in that case, federal Judge Harry E. Hudson in August rejected the federal government's request to have the case dismissed.
Virginia's case, however, was bolstered by a law the Old Dominion adopted making it illegal to require its citizens to purchase health insurance.
"Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America," wrote Judge Hudson in his 32-page opinion.
Hudson also said the federal government's authority to regulate commerce had never been extended so far before.
McCollum says the penalty the federal government seeks to impose is not a tax.
"Even if it's a tax, we think there's no provision in the Constitution allowing this kind of tax," McCollum tells Newsmax. "When President Obama advocated this legislation, he said there was no tax involved in it. So the government's being a little disingenuous, but they're going to make that kind of an argument in this hearing."
McCollum estimates the expansion of Medicaid in the president's healthcare reforms will cost Florida $1 billion a year. He says he feels "pretty confident" that the judge will allow the case to move forward.
Two taxpayers as well as the nation's leading small-business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), have joined his lawsuit. If any one of them is found to have standing, McCollum says, the entire lawsuit would move forward.
McCollum says the healthcare reform legislation could be especially vulnerable once the case reaches the trial phase, because Democrats did not place a severability clause in the bill. That's a common boilerplate provision included in many Congressional bills stipulating that if one provision of a new law is ruled illegal, the remaining parts of the legislation remains in force.
"It certainly is a fact that they have no severability clause," McCollum says. "If at any time we win on any portion of this, then the whole law goes down. I think that the courts are going to look at this as more of a whole. They're going to say, 'How is this all going to interplay?'"
According to The Associated Press, some legal experts believe the 20 states will find it difficult to convince the judge they have been harmed by a law that won't take effect for years. But the NFIB says several of its members have already suffered, because their insurance companies altered policies, and even discontinued them, in anticipation of the new law taking effect.
"We would agree with the government that the individual mandate is the key to the entire healthcare law," said NFIB Executive Director Karen Harned. "But we think the entire healthcare law is bad."
Tuesday's hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. and each side will have 45 minutes to present its case before U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson.
Vinson is not expected to announce his ruling tomorrow. Both sides in the dispute have indicated the case will eventually come before the U.S. Supreme Court — perhaps before the 2012 presidential election.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/healthcare-lawsuit-mccollum-florida/2010/09/13/id/370153
-
Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed
Tue, Oct 12 2010Related NewsUS judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed
3:05pm EDT
Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson
________________________ _________________
MIAMI | Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:30pm EDT
MIAMI (Reuters) - U.S. states can proceed with their lawsuit seeking to overturn President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare reform law, a Florida judge ruled on Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson had already indicated at a hearing last month that he could not uphold parts of a motion by the Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuit, led by Florida and 19 other states.
"In this order, I have not attempted to determine whether the line between constitutional and extra-constitutional government has been crossed," Vinson, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, wrote in his ruling.
Opponents of Obama's overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system have said it violates the Constitution by imposing, for example, unlawful taxes and requiring citizens to obtain coverage, among other issues.
"I am only saying that ... the plaintiffs have at least stated a plausible claim that the line has been crossed," Vinson said.
The suit was originally filed in March by mostly Republican state attorneys general.
In his formal ruling on Thursday, Vinson said the case would continue as scheduled. He had previously set a hearing for December 16.
(Reporting by Tom Brown, Editing by Pascal Fletcher and Doina Chiacu)
-
Awesome. Time to end this mess.
-
U.S. judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law
By Michael Memoli, Los Angeles Times
11:17 a.m. CST, December 13, 2010
A federal judge in Virginia has found a key provision of the healthcare law unconstitutional, the first such ruling on President Obama's landmark reform.
Judge Henry E. Hudson of the Eastern District Court in Richmond, appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that the law's mandate that all Americans have a minimum level of coverage, or pay a fine if they do not, exceeds federal authority.
Virginia's Republican Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, challenged the law by rejecting the federal government's view that the mandate is enforceable under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The state was seeking an injunction against the entire healthcare act if the mandate was found unconstitutional.
Virginia has passed a law stating that residents cannot be ordered to buy insurance.
Chicago Shopping: Your home for personalized holiday shopping deals >>
A federal judge in Florida ruled in October that a separate suit challenging the law brought by 20 states and the National Federation of Interdependent Business could move forward. But a Michigan judge had dismissed a third suit earlier that month.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-healthcare-ruling-20101214,0,7880541.story
-
quick Q...........
Did individual states sue to stop medicare and social security?
-
Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Virginia Challenge to Health Care Law
By Lee Ross
Published December 13, 2010
| FoxNews.com
Casting an unmistakable and perhaps permanent pockmark on the face of the Obama administration, a federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a major component of the new health care reform law is unconstitutional.
Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled Monday for the state's claim that the requirement for people to purchase health care exceeds the power of Congress under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.
Hudson's eagerly awaited decision invalidates the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance by 2014 or face a federal fine. Hudson's decision is the first striking down part of the controversial legislation.
"It is not the effect on individuals that is presently at issue -- it is the authority of Congress to compel anyone to purchase health insurance," wrote Hudson who was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush. "An enactment that exceeds the power of Congress to adopt adversely affects everyone in every application."
The Obama administration is likely to appeal Monday's ruling to the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. It is widely expected that no matter the outcome before that court, the case will ultimately go before the Supreme Court, perhaps by this time next year.
In his ruling, Hudson wrote that he is severing that portion of the law, known as Section 1501, but is not granting an injunction against the entire law.
But Section 1501 is the portion of the law that collects most of the money that is supposed to flow into the system from millions of additional participants. Without it, the law's execution could be severely compromised and could rock the foundation of other provisions in the legislation.
The lawsuit is just one of nearly two dozen challenges filed in federal courts across the country. Another high-profile suit filed in Florida and joined by 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses will go before Judge Roger Vinson on Thursday.
Administration officials insist health care exchanges and many other aspects of the law would survive and implementation of the law would proceed. They said they don't anticipate an adverse ruling in Virginia or Florida to affect many aspects of the law.
That challenge is a broader legal attack on the health care law than the case decided Monday which was filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on March 23, the same day that President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law.
In the lawsuit, Cuccinelli said the federal government is constitutionally prohibited from forcing Americans to buy insurance.
"The status of being a citizen or resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia is not a channel of interstate commerce; nor a person or thing in interstate commerce; nor is it an activity arising out of or connected with a commercial transaction," Cuccinelli wrote in his lawsuit.
In an interview with ABC News last month, President Obama defended the mandate.
"What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty," he said.
Florida Gov.-elect Rick Scott, who gained prominence in his state and nationally during the health care debate, said the Virginia ruling "is great for Floridians and for Americans everywhere."
"Obamacare is the biggest job killer in the history of this country and this decision will go a long way toward restoring the certainty businesses need to start hiring and restoring some sanity to the federal government," he said in a statement.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/13/federal-judge-rules-favor-virginia-challenge-health-care-law/
-
The ruling: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Virginia_ACA_Order.pdf
-
Dems spent all that time and effort for nothing.
-
Good bamacare is a disgrace and the sooner this mess goes away the better.
One by one everything this horrific admn has done is being rolled back.
-
quick Q...........
Did individual states sue to stop medicare and social security?
You know the answer to that and you know the answer to why states sued this time.
Something about comparing apples to oranges comes to mind.
-
240 and the left are about to go into a third stage of meltdown after bamacare goes down the toilet where it belongs.
-
240 and the left are about to go into a third stage of meltdown after bamacare goes down the toilet where it belongs.
says the guy who has been in a perpetual meltdown for the last 2 years.
if it's uncostitutional then it will get tweaked until it's not but first, of course, will be the appeals
btw - are you really an attorney?
-
You know the answer to that and you know the answer to why states sued this time.
Something about comparing apples to oranges comes to mind.
It might be somewhat of a valid comparison if everyone was required to use Medicare or Medicaid.
-
Just argued and won a huge summary judgment motion on a complex construction case in brooklyn. Judge awarded me attorney fees, foreclosure of the property, and possible contemp of the defendant for fraud against the parties.
On the train back now bitch.
-
Health judge fears 'broccoli' mandate
By JENNIFER HABERKORN | 12/16/10
PENSACOLA, Fla. — In a federal courtroom Thursday, Judge Roger Vinson questioned how far Congress’s authority would go if it can legally require nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance.
Could they "mandate everybody has to buy a certain amount of broccoli?” Vinson questioned, comparing the positive impact both could have on health. The comments came during oral arguments in the constitutional challenge 20 states have brought against the health reform law—just days after a federal judge in Virginia struck down the same controversial piece of President Obama’s signature legislation.
The federal government argued that health insurance and health care are unique markets and that Congress has the power to regulate them.
“It’s not shoes. It’s not broccoli,” said Ian Gershengorn, arguing for the federal government. “Health insurance is a product that is a financing mechanism."
The constitutionality of the health care reform law’s so-called individual mandate and an expansion of the Medicaid program are at the center of the lawsuit filed by 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Business. Both parties argued their case for more than 3 hours Thursday in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Florida.
It’s the most high-profile and politically charged challenge to health care reform but only one of about two dozen working their way through the courts. Already, a dozen have been thrown out on procedural grounds. In two cases, judges have upheld the legislation. Just this week, Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia struck down the mandate. The issue is widely expected to be settled by the Supreme Court.
The states are asking Vinson to declare the mandate unconstitutional and stop implementation of the entire law. Vinson, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said he would rule “as quickly as possible,” but was not specific.
One of the key questions in the case is whether the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the choice to not buy health insurance. The states argue that Congress doesn’t have the authority to regulate a choice to stay out of the health insurance market.
The federal government argues that Congress had every right to do so. Gershengorn says consuming health care isn’t a choice because all Americans will need it at one point or another. Instead, he compared the decision to purchase health insurance, versus paying out of pocket or getting treatment covered through charity care, to a decision to pay for a car with cash, a credit card or a check.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46498.html
-
The federal government argues that Congress had every right to do so. Gershengorn says consuming health care isn’t a choice because all Americans will need it at one point or another. Instead, he compared the decision to purchase health insurance, versus paying out of pocket or getting treatment covered through charity care, to a decision to pay for a car with cash, a credit card or a check.
The govt has become a tyrannical leviathon.
-
The govt has become a tyrannical leviathon.
I like that. I'm stealing it. :)
-
20 states ask judge to throw out Obama health law
Washington Times/AP ^ | December 16, 2010
PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) — Attorneys for 20 states fighting the new federal health care law told a judge Thursday it will expand the government's powers in dangerous and unintended ways.
The states want U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to issue a summary judgment throwing out the health care law without a full trial. They argue it violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.
"The act would leave more constitutional damage in its wake than any other statute in our history," David Rivkin, an attorney for the states, told Judge Vinson.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
-
Oklahoma to challenge health care law
By the CNN Wire Staff
January 7, 2011
(CNN) -- The state of Oklahoma will file a lawsuit within the next few weeks challenging the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, according to the state's incoming attorney general.
"There is great clarity for me on the necessary and urgent need to exercise my responsibility to defend Oklahoma's Constitution against a federal government and president that have gone too far in their overreach of power and authority," Attorney General-elect Scott Pruitt said in a written statement Friday.
Pruitt was backed by Oklahoma Governor-elect Mary Fallon, who called the health care overhaul an unfunded mandate that is "bad for our economy, bad for our health and bad for our states."
It's "an unconstitutional Washington power-grab that seeks to force our citizens to buy certain products," she said.
Pruitt and Fallon, both Republicans, focused on a provision in the new law requiring most Americans to have health insurance by 2014. Oklahoma voters backed an amendment to their state constitution last November specifying that residents cannot be required to purchase insurance.
Oklahoma's pending lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal challenges to the overhaul, which is widely viewed as Obama's signature domestic accomplishment.
The law's so-called "individual mandate" was found unconstitutional by a Virginia federal judge in December.
The 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, is expected to rule on that lawsuit in the next few months. The case, regardless of the outcome in Richmond, is almost certain to ultimately be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The challenges in Virginia and Oklahoma are separate from a lawsuit filed by Florida and 19 other states. A federal judge in Pensacola, Florida, heard arguments in that case in December.
Congressional Republicans in Washington are expected to push for a repeal of the health care overhaul next week, though the measure is not expected to clear the Democratic-controlled Senate.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/07/oklahoma.health.care/index.html?hpt=Sbin
-
26 States Join Suit Against Obama Health Law
Published January 19, 2011
Associated Press
PENSACOLA, Fla. -- Six more states joined a lawsuit in Florida against President Obama's health care overhaul on Tuesday, meaning more than half of the country is challenging the law.
The announcement was made as House members in Washington, led by Republicans, debated whether to repeal the law.
The six additional states, all with Republican attorneys general, joined Florida and 19 others in the legal action, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said.
"It sends a strong message that more than half of the states consider the health care law unconstitutional and are willing to fight it in court," she said in a statement.
The states claim the health care law is unconstitutional and violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.
Government attorneys have said the states do not have standing to challenge the law and want the case dismissed.
Lawsuits have been filed elsewhere. A federal judge in Virginia ruled in December that the insurance-purchase mandate was unconstitutional, though two other federal judges have upheld the requirement. It's expected the Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve the issue.
"It is important to note that two of the three courts that have reviewed this law on the merits have found it constitutional, and those decisions --as well as two others the government prevailed on -- are pending in courts of appeal. At the same time, trial courts in additional cases have dismissed numerous challenges on jurisdictional and other grounds that have not been appealed," Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.
Meanwhile, the White House dismissed an expected vote on repealing the law, saying the Republicans' push was not a serious legislative effort. Democrats have a majority in the Senate and they have said they will block repeal in that chamber.
In the Florida case, the states also argue the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing money to pay for it. They say the new law gives the state's the impossible choice of accepting the new costs or forfeiting federal Medicaid funding.
Florida U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson could rule later this month whether he will grant a summary judgment in favor of the states or the Obama administration without a trial.
Florida's former Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after President Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law in March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The nation's most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business, also joined the suit.
Joining the coalition in the Florida case were: Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
The other states that are suing are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/18/states-join-obama-health-care-lawsuit-fla/
-
200 Economists Ask Lawmakers to Repeal Obamacare
CNSNews ^ | January 19, 2011 | Fred Lucas
(CNSNews.com) – As the House prepares debate on the future of the $1 trillion health care overhaul enacted last year, 200 economists have asked members of Congress to repeal the act.
“To promote job growth and help to restore the federal government to fiscal balance, we, the undersigned, feel that it would be beneficial to repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” the economists said in a letter (pdf) to Congress.
“Too many Americans remain unemployed and the United States faces a daunting budgetary outlook. We believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a threat to U.S. businesses and will place a crushing debt burden on future generations of Americans,” they wrote.
The letter includes the signatures of Douglas Holtz-Eakin and June O’Neil, both former directors of the Congressional Budget Office; Arthur Laffer, the first chief economist for the Office of Management and Budget, Brian Wesbury, former chief economist of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress; and William Niskanan, former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors and chairman emeritus of the libertarian CATO Institute.
President Barack Obama signed the bill into law last year, which requires employers to provide insurance, mandates individuals to carry insurance and establishes health insurance exchanges of government-approved plans.
House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) introduced legislation to repeal the unpopular law.
The letter from economists said the law is “fiscally dangerous at a moment when the United States is already facing a sea of red ink.”
“It creates a massive new entitlement at a time when the budget is already buckling under the weight of existing entitlements. At a minimum, it will add $1 trillion to government spending over the next decade,” the letter stated. “Assertions that these costs are paid for are based on omitted costs, budgetary gimmicks, shifted premiums from other entitlements, and unsustainable spending cuts and revenue increases.
“A more comprehensive and realistic projection suggests that the Affordable Care Act could potentially raise the federal budget deficit by more than $500 billion during the first ten years and by nearly $1.5 trillion in the following decade,” it added.
The letter also said the mandates and regulations will harm the economy.
“The mandates will compete for the scarce business resources used for hiring and firm expansion,” the letter said. “The law also levies roughly $500 billion in new taxes that will enter the supply chain for medical services, raising the cost of medical services. At the same time that businesses juggle the potential for higher interest rates or higher taxes, these medical costs will translate to higher insurance premiums, further increasing the cost of operating a business in the United States.”
-
Judge lets six states join Fla. reform lawsuit
Modern Healthcare ^ | 1/20/11 | Joe Carlson
In a public relations victory for opponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson granted six more states approval to join in the Florida-based lawsuit to stop the reform law.
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a written statement that although the addition of plaintiffs does not change the underlying legal arguments in the case, it sends “a strong message” that a majority of states consider the law an unconstitutional expansion of federal powers.
(Excerpt) Read more at modernhealthcare.com ...
-
Idaho Set to Nullify Obama's Health Care Law
Published January 20, 2011
Associated Press
BOISE, Idaho -- After leading the nation last year in passing a law to sue the federal government over the health care overhaul, Idaho's Republican-dominated Legislature now plans to use an obscure 18th century doctrine to declare President Barack Obama's signature bill null and void.
Lawmakers in six other states -- Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming -- are also mulling "nullification" bills, which contend states, not the U.S. Supreme Court, are the ultimate arbiter of when Congress and the president run amok.
It's a concept that's won favor among many tea party adherents who believe Washington, D.C., is out of control.
Though a 1958 U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirmed that federal laws "shall be the supreme law of the land," Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter is promoting the idea, too. In his January 10 State of the State speech, he told Idaho residents "we are actively exploring all our options -- including nullification."
Sen. Monty Pearce, an Idaho GOP lawmaker who plans to introduce a nullification bill early next week, wanted to be the first one to give Otter a recently published book on the subject, "Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century."
"I took that copy and tried to give it to the governor," he said, pointing to a copy on his desk. "He already had a copy."
Sick of just passing largely symbolic resolutions decrying federal encroachment on states' rights, proponents like Pearce say their bills will ratchet up the pressure on the feds: This isn't just some piece of paper to wave about; if it passes -- and there's plenty in Idaho to suggest it will -- this would become the law of the state, Pearce says.
It's been tried before, a long time ago.
Back in 1799, Thomas Jefferson wrote in his "Kentucky Resolution," a response to federal laws passed amid an undeclared naval war against France, that "nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts... is the rightful remedy."
Three decades later, South Carolina Sen. John Calhoun pushed nullification of federal tariffs that many in the South deemed discriminatory toward agricultural slave states. President Andrew Jackson readied the military, before a compromise defused the situation.
In 1854, Wisconsin also sought to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act that forced non-slave states to return escapees.
And more recently, Arkansas defied the federal government's order to desegregate public schools after the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.
In a unanimous 1958 ruling rejecting Arkansas' position, the High Court wrote that states were bound by the Constitution's Article VI mandating U.S. laws, when vetted by justices, "shall be the supreme law of the land."
After passing its "Health Care Freedom Act" last year, Idaho is already among 27 states now suing the federal government over the constitutionality of what health-care overhaul foes deride as "Obamacare."
Supreme Court justices haven't yet weighed in on questions like whether residents can be compelled to buy health insurance.
But Thomas E. Woods, Jr., author of the 2010 book "Nullification" that Otter and Pearce have in their Idaho Capitol offices, argues states have the final say on the gravest issues, like when the government forces citizens to spend their hard-earned money.
If the U.S. president, Congress, and the Supreme Court get it wrong, Woods said, then Jefferson had it right back in 1799 when he wrote that states, as creators of the federal government, "being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction."
"What do we do when we don't get proper relief in the court?" Woods told The Associated Press from his home in Auburn, Ala. "We can't just throw up our hands and say, 'We tried.' The creators had to have some way of not having that system destroyed."
For Idaho's Pearce, Obama and the Democratic-led Congress are destroying the American system.
"There are now 27 states that are in on the lawsuit against Obamacare," Pearce said. "What if those 27 states do the same thing we do with nullification? It's a killer."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/20/idaho-nullify-obamas-health-care-law/
-
::)
Hawaii to join other states in legal papers supporting federal health care reform law
By Associated Press
POSTED: 06:20 p.m. HST, Jan 21, 2011
Gov. Neil Abercrombie is announcing that Hawaii will join several other states in legal papers defending the health care reform law that President Barack Obama and Congress enacted last year.
In a statement today, the Democratic governor called the law a "momentous step forward" that preserved the best elements of Hawaii's long-standing health care statutes.
Democrats say the national law has awarded $22 million to help Hawaii families, including nearly 20,500 seniors, pay their prescription drug expenses.
Hawaii joined a friend-of-the-court brief with California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Oregon, New York and Vermont.
It was filed Wednesday in the appeal of a federal district court ruling in Michigan that upheld the law.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/114403964.html
-
What fool you guys have for Gov.
-
Wonder if ole Neil can actually locate the paperwork to file it?
-
What fool you guys have for Gov.
Ya think? He really made a fool of himself with that birth certificate stuff.
You should see who he put in his cabinet. :-\ We are in for a long four years.
-
US Judge May Escalate Battle Over Healthcare Reform
Monday, 31 Jan 2011
A Florida judge on Monday become the second U.S. judge to declare President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law unconstitutional, in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.
The judge, Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola, was expected to rule on a lawsuit brought by governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans. Obama is a Democrat.
The plaintiffs represent more than half the U.S. states, so the Pensacola case has more prominence than some two dozen lawsuits filed in federal courts over the healthcare law.
No specific time has been given for Vinson's ruling, which was unlikely to end the legal wrangling over the contentious reform law, which could well reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
But an aide said he was determined to issue his opinion in the course of Monday on the suit filed on March 23, 2010, just hours after Obama signed the reform into law.
The healthcare overhaul, a cornerstone of Obama's presidency, aims to expand health insurance to cover millions of uninsured Americans while also curbing costs. Administration officials insist it is constitutional and needed to stem huge projected increases in healthcare costs.
Two other district court judges have rejected challenges to the "individual mandate," the law's requirement that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.
But a federal district judge in Richmond, Va., last month struck down that central provision of the law in a case in that state, saying it invited an "unbridled exercise of federal police powers."
The provision is key to the law's mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured. Officials argue it is only by requiring healthy people to purchase policies that they can help pay for reforms, including a mandate that individuals with pre-existing medical conditions cannot be refused coverage.
Vinson has suggested strongly that he too will rule the individual mandate oversteps constitutional limits on federal authority. He also may move to invalidate the entire law, by granting the plaintiff states' request for an injunction to halt its implementation.
"The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent," Vinson wrote in an earlier opinion in October.
Speaking during another hearing last month, he added that it would be "a giant leap" for the courts to encroach on the freedom of citizens to buy or not buy a commercial product.
The 70-year-old appointee of President Ronald Reagan even noted that he himself had been uninsured, paying out of pocket when the first of his five children was born.
Vinson's comments did not necessarily conclusively signal how he might rule on the full merits of the case.
He has also shown little sympathy for the plaintiffs' secondary argument for striking down the reform law, on the grounds that it violates state sovereignty by imposing a vast expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides healthcare for the poor and disabled.
But his ruling on the individual mandate could mark a major setback for Obama on an issue that will likely end up at the Supreme Court, the highest U.S. legal authority.
If Vinson orders an injunction, the government would almost certainly appeal and seek an immediate stay of the ruling.
Vinson's ruling will come after the House voted this month to repeal the healthcare reform law. The repeal is unlikely to go any further as the Democratic-controlled Senate is expected to drop it.
Since a full legislative repeal seems like a non-starter in the current Congress, legal experts all agree the real battle over reform is destined for the Supreme Court.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/healthcare-reform-Florida-judge/2011/01/31/id/384471
-
Hey, Beach!
That judge just ruled that the mandate is UNCONSTITUIONAL!!!
-
Awesome.
-
US Judge May Escalate Battle Over Healthcare Reform
Monday, 31 Jan 2011
A Florida judge on Monday become the second U.S. judge to declare President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law unconstitutional, in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.
The judge, Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola, was expected to rule on a lawsuit brought by governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans. Obama is a Democrat.
The plaintiffs represent more than half the U.S. states, so the Pensacola case has more prominence than some two dozen lawsuits filed in federal courts over the healthcare law.
Great news !!!
No specific time has been given for Vinson's ruling, which was unlikely to end the legal wrangling over the contentious reform law, which could well reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
But an aide said he was determined to issue his opinion in the course of Monday on the suit filed on March 23, 2010, just hours after Obama signed the reform into law.
The healthcare overhaul, a cornerstone of Obama's presidency, aims to expand health insurance to cover millions of uninsured Americans while also curbing costs. Administration officials insist it is constitutional and needed to stem huge projected increases in healthcare costs.
Two other district court judges have rejected challenges to the "individual mandate," the law's requirement that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.
But a federal district judge in Richmond, Va., last month struck down that central provision of the law in a case in that state, saying it invited an "unbridled exercise of federal police powers."
The provision is key to the law's mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured. Officials argue it is only by requiring healthy people to purchase policies that they can help pay for reforms, including a mandate that individuals with pre-existing medical conditions cannot be refused coverage.
Vinson has suggested strongly that he too will rule the individual mandate oversteps constitutional limits on federal authority. He also may move to invalidate the entire law, by granting the plaintiff states' request for an injunction to halt its implementation.
"The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent," Vinson wrote in an earlier opinion in October.
Speaking during another hearing last month, he added that it would be "a giant leap" for the courts to encroach on the freedom of citizens to buy or not buy a commercial product.
The 70-year-old appointee of President Ronald Reagan even noted that he himself had been uninsured, paying out of pocket when the first of his five children was born.
Vinson's comments did not necessarily conclusively signal how he might rule on the full merits of the case.
He has also shown little sympathy for the plaintiffs' secondary argument for striking down the reform law, on the grounds that it violates state sovereignty by imposing a vast expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides healthcare for the poor and disabled.
But his ruling on the individual mandate could mark a major setback for Obama on an issue that will likely end up at the Supreme Court, the highest U.S. legal authority.
If Vinson orders an injunction, the government would almost certainly appeal and seek an immediate stay of the ruling.
Vinson's ruling will come after the House voted this month to repeal the healthcare reform law. The repeal is unlikely to go any further as the Democratic-controlled Senate is expected to drop it.
Since a full legislative repeal seems like a non-starter in the current Congress, legal experts all agree the real battle over reform is destined for the Supreme Court.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/healthcare-reform-Florida-judge/2011/01/31/id/384471
Great News!
-
How can anyone defend this mandate?
-
How can anyone defend this mandate?
Without the mandate, virtually NOBODY will sign onto this crap. If you don't believe me, ASK OBAMA and his left-winged cronies. They don't even want to be part of their own law.
-
Hey, Beach!
That judge just ruled that the mandate is UNCONSTITUIONAL!!!
Nice.
Federal judge says key parts of health care reform unconstitutional
January 31st, 2011
03:01 PM ET
[Updated at 3:41 p.m.] A federal judge in Florida has ruled unconstitutional the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama, setting up what is likely to be a contentious Supreme Court challenge in coming months over the legislation.
Monday's ruling came in the most closely watched of the two dozen challenges to the law. Florida along with 25 states had filed a lawsuit last spring, seeking to dismiss a law critics had labeled "Obamacare."
Judge Roger Vinson, in a 78-page ruling, dismissed the key provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - the so-called "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face
stiff penalties.
"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," Vinson wrote.
"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time
when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled 'The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.' "
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/31/federal-judge-says-key-parts-of-health-care-reform-unconstitutional/
-
The mandate was the corrupt bargain reached by obama and the carriers.
Screw them both.
I hope this thing goes down in flames at the SC which it will.
FFFUUUBBBOOOO
-
Skip to comments.
FL Judge Rules Against Obamacare, Injunction Denied As Unnecessary Since Entire Law Unconstitutional
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion ^ | January 31, 2011 | Professor William A. Jacobson, Cornell Law School
Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, in a lawsuit by 26 state attorney generals, has held that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Judge Vinson first found that the mandate was unconstitutional, and then found that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the entire law be deemed unconstitutional. Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient (in effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived).
Here is the conclusion of the Order:
"The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.
For the reasons stated, 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.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” ... In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.
For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED. In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional."
Florida Health Care Mandate Lawsuit, Summary Judgement Order (At link or web address below) http://www.scribd.com/doc/47906075/Florida-Health-Care-Mandate-Lawsuit-Summary-Judgment-Order
-
Skip to comments.
FL Judge Rules Against Obamacare, Injunction Denied As Unnecessary Since Entire Law Unconstitutional
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion ^ | January 31, 2011 | Professor William A. Jacobson, Cornell Law School
Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, in a lawsuit by 26 state attorney generals, has held that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Judge Vinson first found that the mandate was unconstitutional, and then found that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the entire law be deemed unconstitutional. Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient (in effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived).
Here is the conclusion of the Order:
"The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.
For the reasons stated, 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.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” ... In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.
For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED. In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional."
Florida Health Care Mandate Lawsuit, Summary Judgement Order (At link or web address below) http://www.scribd.com/doc/47906075/Florida-Health-Care-Mandate-Lawsuit-Summary-Judgment-Order
“U.S. Judge says entire health care law must be declared void”.
ENTIRE ACT DECLARED VOID, because parts cannot be broken out of it!!!
Obamacare to the dumpster!!!!
-
DU and HP are freaking out.
-
From the Washington Times
"Judge uses Obama’s 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.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/
-
I've posted that clip many times.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v344/bb5usa/voidHCBill.jpg)
-
Again - obama campaigned against the very fucking thing he is now demanding of us.
Obama is such a lying sack of communist trash, I don't know who is worse, him, or the idiots and morons still supporting this kenyan madoff.
-
not all bad news for libs....At least Unions in these 26 States wont have to ask for an exemption from Obamacare now !!!!!
-
Fla. judge strikes down Obama health care overhaul
AP
By MELISSA NELSON, Associated Press Melissa Nelson, Associated Press – Mon Jan 31, 6:53 pm ET
PENSACOLA, Fla. – A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care overhaul unconstitutional Monday, siding with 26 states that argued people cannot be required to buy health insurance.
Senior U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson agreed with the states that the new law violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties. He went a step further than a previous ruling against the law, declaring the entire thing unconstitutional if the insurance requirement does not hold up.
Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Monday the department strongly disagrees with Vinson's ruling and intends to appeal.
"There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal," she said in a statement.
The final step will almost certainly be the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have already upheld the law and a federal judge in Virginia ruled the insurance mandate unconstitutional but stopped short of voiding the entire thing.
At issue was whether the government is reaching beyond its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.
Vinson, who was appointed to federal bench by Ronald Reagan in 1983, said it is, writing in his 78-page ruling that if the government can require people to buy health insurance, it could also regulate food the same way.
"Or, as discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals," he wrote, "Not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system."
Obama administration attorneys had argued that health care is part of the interstate commerce system. They said the government can impose a tax penalty on Americans who decide not to purchase health insurance because all Americans are consumers of medical care.
But attorneys for the states said the administration was essentially coercing them into participating in the overhaul by holding billions of Medicaid dollars hostage. The states also said the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing money to pay for it.
Vinson said the courts have generally not accepted similar arguments about Medicaid as a violation of state sovereignty and that the states did not provide enough evidence in this case.
"I appreciate the difficult situation in which the states find themselves," he wrote. "It is a matter of historical fact that at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the Founders did not expect that the federal government would be able to provide sizable funding to the states and, consequently, be able to exert power over the state to the extent that it currently does."
He said that the only way the states would have legal standing to claim the Medicaid portion of the law is coercion would be for the Supreme Court to change the Constitution.
"Unless and until that happens, the states have little recourse to remaining the very junior partner in this partnership," Vinson wrote.
Still, opponents of the health overhaul praised his decision Monday afternoon. House Speaker John Boehner said it shows Senate Democrats should follow a House vote to repeal the law.
"Today's decision affirms the view, held by most of the states and a majority of the American people, that the federal government should not be in the business of forcing you to buy health insurance and punishing you if you don't," he said in a statement.
Democrats just as quickly slammed the ruling.
"This lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt by those who want to raise taxes on small businesses, increase prescription prices for seniors and allow insurance companies to once again deny sick children medical care," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a prepared statement.
Former Florida Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law in March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The nation's most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business, also joined.
Officials in the states that sued lauded Vinson's decision. Almost all of them have Republican governors, attorneys general or both.
"In making his ruling, the judge has confirmed what many of us knew from the start; ObamaCare is an unprecedented and unconstitutional infringement on the liberty of the American people," Florida GOP Gov. Rick Scott said in a statement.
Other states that joined the suit are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
-
You can't force the public to buy anything. Case closed.
-
Obama himself campaigned against the mandate.
Enough said.
-
Posted at 6:32 PM ET, 01/31/2011
Left unprepared for ObamaCare ruling
By Jennifer Rubin
www.washingtonpost.com
________________________ _______________
Liberal pundits who have consulted liberal law professors about liberals' great achievement -- ObamaCare -- are pronouncing the ruling by Judge Roger Vinson to be much to do about nothing. The ruling is. . . um. . . thinking of a case liberals hate. . . um. . . just like Bush v. Gore ! (Except it has nothing to do with the Equal Protection Clause or any other aspect of that case.) It is, we are told, "curious," "odd," or "unconventional."
These are complaints, not legal arguments. And they suggest that the left was totally unprepared for the constitutional attack on their beloved handiwork. After all, the recent mocking by the left of conservatives' reverence for the Constitution suggests they are mystified that a 200-year old document could get in the way of their historic achievement. They are truly nonplussed, and so they vamp, not with reasoned analysis but with an outpouring of adjectives.
Liberals are particularly perturbed by Judge Vinson's ruling on severability, the determination as to whether the individual mandate is so central to the law as to make the law unrecognizable and unenforceable without it. But here, the left has only the administration and the Democratic Congress to blame. From the opinion (the defendants are the Obama officials):
Having determined that the individual mandate exceeds Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, and cannot be saved by application of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the next question is whether it is severable from the remainder of the Act. In considering this issue, I note that the defendants have acknowledged that the individual mandate and the Act's health insurance reforms, including the guaranteed issue and community rating, will rise or fall together as these reforms "cannot be severed from the [individual mandate]."
Oops. Not some crazy judge, but the administration was the source of the notion that the individual mandate can't be severed from the rest of the law.
But it's not just the administration; it seems Congress did its part to contribute to the invalidation of the whole statute. Judge Vinson observes that "the Act does not contain a 'severability clause,' which is commonly included in legislation to provide that if any part or provision is held invalid, then the rest of the statute will not be affected." He observes that this defect is not necessarily determinative. However, "The lack of a severability clause in this case is significant because one had been included in an earlier version of the Act, but it was removed in the bill that subsequently became law." Oh, now, there's a problem.
That is no small matter, the judge explains:
The absence of a severability clause is further significant because the individual mandate was controversial all during the progress of the legislation and Congress was undoubtedly well aware that legal challenges were coming. Indeed, as noted earlier, even before the Act became law, several states had passed statutes declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional and purporting to exempt their residents from it; and Congress' own attorneys in the [Congressional Research Service] had basically advised that the challenges might well have legal merit as it was 'unclear' if the individual mandate had 'solid constitutional foundation.'"
As the opinion goes on, the judge makes clear that the Obama team dug its own grave on the severability point:
To be sure, the words "protection" and "affordable" in the title of the Act itself are inextricably tied to the health insurance reform provisions (and the individual mandate in particular), as the defendants have emphasized throughout the course of this litigation
Ezra Klein cherry picks one line from the case ("This is not a situation that is likely to be repeated") as evidence the court is doing something untoward. But a cursory reading of the the preceding pages explains why this outcome is not likely to be repeated. Congress in removing the severability clause, the Obama lawyers in repeatedly arguing the individual mandate was essential to the statute and, finally, the interlocking pieces of the statute itself are such that it's hard to imagine a similar case arising.
The only thing "odd" about the ruling is the left's response. The cheerleaders for ObamaCare better hope the Obama legal team has some better arguments in the upcoming rounds of litigation.
________________________ _______________________-
Great news. Not only is the bill a steaming ile of shit, but the incompetent idiots who drafted it forgot the severability clausemeaning MadoffCare is going away in its entirety.
-
Already some networks are trying to discredit the judge by saying he was appointed by Reagan. An attack on the person but not the logic of his decision. It would be ideal if the argument was whether his decision was correct or not. Not on who appointed him.
-
The far left communist shit bags in this country will DO ANYTHING to prop up Obamadoff and everything and anything he does, regardless of how disgusting and traitorous it is.
-
Already some networks are trying to discredit the judge by saying he was appointed by Reagan. An attack on the person but not the logic of his decision. It would be ideal if the argument was whether his decision was correct or not. Not on who appointed him.
I think it's a legitimate question to ask (who appointed him), but at the end of the day we still have to look at the merits of his decision. He got it right.
-
I think it's a legitimate question to ask (who appointed him), but at the end of the day we still have to look at the merits of his decision. He got it right.
The only legitimate analysis is his ruling and how it comports with the law and const. precedent. Mandating private insurance under penalty of jail and fine is tyranny.
Whoever supports this idea that the govt can mandate private insurance as a matter of living themselves is a tyrant and should jump off a tall building while wearing thier Obama 2008 gear.
-
I like the decision - I just think he sure made it political/ partisan by "owning" obama with his own campaign slogans.
let the media pundits and 2012 contenders do that. For a judge to play political 'gotcha' just reeks of his own personal motive - not a strict interpretation of the law.
-
I like the decision - I just think he sure made it political/ partisan by "owning" obama with his own campaign slogans.
let the media pundits and 2012 contenders do that. For a judge to play political 'gotcha' just reeks of his own personal motive - not a strict interpretation of the law.
That doesn't necessarily make it political. It makes no sense for Obama to blast the mandate one minute than have it in his own law the next.
-
The only legitimate analysis is his ruling and how it comports with the law and const. precedent. Mandating private insurance under penalty of jail and fine is tyranny.
Whoever supports this idea that the govt can mandate private insurance as a matter of living themselves is a tyrant and should jump off a tall building while wearing thier Obama 2008 gear.
We know this is going for appeal, so my question to you and GW is what about the issue of standing. I've been hearing a lot that the States don't have standing when it comes to suing for the individual mandate.
Have you two heard this? Any merit to the argument?
-
I like the decision - I just think he sure made it political/ partisan by "owning" obama with his own campaign slogans.
let the media pundits and 2012 contenders do that. For a judge to play political 'gotcha' just reeks of his own personal motive - not a strict interpretation of the law.
::) ::)
No, he stuck it up the ass of the supposed con law genius who tried to push something even he himself knew, or should have known was known was as tyrannical as they get legal wise.
and yes, I am lad he used Obama's own words to own him like the little Ayatollah Obama desires to be.
-
We know this is going for appeal, so my question to you and GW is what about the issue of standing. I've been hearing a lot that the States don't have standing when it comes to suing for the individual mandate.
Have you two heard this? Any merit to the argument?
The states have standing on many aspects of this crap bill:
1. The mandates on states to provide more medicaid coverage.
2. The prohibition of states from curtailing existing medicaid coverages within the states themselves.
3. The mandatory "minimum plan" ObamaCare forced every carrier to provide within each state. This touches directly upon 10th Amend issues.
4. The State AG's have standing to represent the citizens of each state on the mandate provision. Think of it as a proxy. Problem is that the mandate provision has not really taken effect as of yet, so there might be an issue there.
Basically, this crap sandwich known as ObamaCare is held together by the equivalent of duct tape. Its quickly unraveling as people become more informed as to the horrific nature of this piece of shit.
-
::) ::)
No, he stuck it up the ass of the supposed con law genius who tried to push something even he himself knew, or should have known was known was as tyrannical as they get legal wise.
and yes, I am lad he used Obama's own words to own him like the little Ayatollah Obama desires to be.
Sorry. Political one-upping doesn't belong in decisions like that. You agree with the judge, so you're cool with it. But if it was some judge releasing Palin's governor emails (May 2011) and he was so verbal and smug and quick to point out contradictions, you'd consider him to be an embarassment to the bench.
leave the politics at home, judge. Strike down a shitty law, and do it without playing GOp grab ass. Give them less grounds for appeal at the next level.
-
Sorry. Political one-upping doesn't belong in decisions like that. You agree with the judge, so you're cool with it. But if it was some judge releasing Palin's governor emails (May 2011) and he was so verbal and smug and quick to point out contradictions, you'd consider him to be an embarassment to the bench.
leave the politics at home, judge. Strike down a shitty law, and do it without playing GOp grab ass. Give them less grounds for appeal at the next level.
No, he struck down the mandate provision as being unconstitutional and tyrannical.
The rest was just gravy. ;)
-
Opinion: Obamacare Is in Critical Condition With the Courts
Feb 1, 2011 – 10:09 AM
John S. Baker Jr.
Special to AOL News The aphorism "Act in haste, repent at leisure" never applied more aptly than it does to Obamacare.
Nancy Pelosi rushed through Obamacare, without allowing time to read the bill, by explaining: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Reading the bill produced last November's angry electorate.
Obamacare Is in Critical Condition With the Courts -- John S. Baker Jr., Louisiana State University law professor.
On Monday, a Florida federal court delivered the latest blow to Obamacare, ruling that the statute is unconstitutional. It follows a similar decision from a Virginia federal court and the House of Representatives' vote to repeal the law. Monday's decision stretches out the negative news for a monumental piece of legislation hailed just a year ago as a great triumph.
Obamacare supporters should now appreciate the virtue of the Constitution's design to slow legislative changes. The Constitution is intended to create stability through reasoned deliberation. The process generally results in compromise and consensus. To the frustration of many, the structure of our constitutional democracy necessarily makes changing legislation much more difficult than it would be in a pure democracy.
The Constitution's framers anticipated that Congress and the president would sometimes thwart the Constitution's design for forcing deliberation. They therefore provided federal courts as a further protection against the power hungry. With this second federal court ruling against Obamacare, it increasingly seems that the health law may not survive when it reaches the Supreme Court.
One thing federal judges always do -- even if members of Congress do not -- is read the legislation brought before them.
Obamacare supporters will say the judicial score is tied: Two federal courts have upheld Obamacare, and two have declared part of it constitutional. But two against two among federal district courts is not a tie.
District judges, whether state or federal, are risk-averse when interpreting the law. District judges preside over trial courts. They normally apply established law to the facts before them. Deciding questions of law is primarily the work of appellate courts.
Federal district judges, in particular, do not like being reversed by appellate judges. Frequent reversals are not good for one's ego or the reputation. Federal district judges naturally know, without consulting statistics, that very few federal statutes are declared unconstitutional.
So given the probabilities, it's much safer and easier for a lone federal district judge to declare federal statutes constitutional. Just leave it to the panel of three appellate judges to consider more carefully whether a statute is unconstitutional. That's what appellate judges are paid to do.
Because of this, the two decisions against Obamacare are much more significant than the two that upheld the legislation.
For a judge to declare a federal statute unconstitutional, his or her opinion better be extremely well reasoned within existing case law. Predictably, many who disagree with the result in controversial cases will charge that the decision is a political one. Therefore, judicial opinions in highly scrutinized cases must necessarily go to great lengths to persuade readers that the decision is based on established constitutional principles. That usually requires quite a lengthy written opinion.
Monday's decision was long (78 pages) and very carefully reasoned. It needed to be, given its widespread consequences. Usually, a decision against a federal statute by a district court will have an immediate effect only within the particular federal district.
In this case, however, 26 states, some individuals and the National Federation of Independent Business were plaintiffs. All get the benefit of the declaratory judgment, even without an injunction. That means that until an appellate court decides otherwise, Obamacare is not applicable in 26 states, nor apparently to members of the NFIB in other states.
It will be quite some time before Obamacare supporters know whether they really achieved a victory last year.
John S. Baker Jr. is the Dale E. Bennett professor of law at Louisiana State University.
________________________ ________________________ ______
ObamaCare is going down like Monica.
-
No, he struck down the mandate provision as being unconstitutional and tyrannical.
The rest was just gravy. ;)
I don't like gravy from judges. Cause some anti-gun gravy or pro-cap/trade gravy won't taste so good.
-
I don't like gravy from judges. Cause some anti-gun gravy or pro-cap/trade gravy won't taste so good.
;D ;D ;D
TBH - we all knew this was going to end up in the SC, but if one or two district courts could get a few kicks in while Bama is down, I'm cool with that :P
-
OPINION
FEBRUARY 2, 2011.The Nuts and Bolts of the ObamaCare Ruling
According to the government's theory, wrote Judge Vinson, 'the more harm the statute does, the more power Congress could assume for itself under the Necessary and Proper Clause.'.
By RANDY E. BARNETT AND ELIZABETH PRICE FOLEY
For months, progressives smugly labeled the legal challenges to ObamaCare as "silly" or even "frivolous." Today their confidence must be severely shaken.
Late Monday afternoon in Pensacola, Fla., U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson delivered the second major judgment that the centerpiece of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—the "individual mandate" that forces Americans to buy health insurance whether or not they want it—is unconstitutional.
In December, District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled against the mandate in a separate lawsuit brought by the state of Virginia. But Judge Vinson's sweeping and powerfully reasoned decision this week went much further, striking down the entire health-reform law on the grounds that the individual mandate was not severable from the rest of the statute. And the plaintiffs in Judge Vinson's courtroom included the attorneys general of 26 states, not just one. His opinion thus casts a dark shadow over ObamaCare until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling on the matter.
Consider the problems posed by the insurance mandate. The Obama administration argued that it was supported by the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. True enough, insurance is commerce, but not buying insurance is the antithesis of commerce. Commerce has always been understood as requiring economic activity. This was the rationale Judge Hudson adopted in striking down the individual mandate in the Virginia case.
The government's lawyers in the Florida case insisted that not buying health insurance was somehow different from a failure to buy other products like clothes or food. They said health insurance was "unique" because, eventually, everyone will seek and obtain health care. And if they aren't insured, the costs will be shifted onto others, thus substantially affecting commerce.
View Full Image
Associated Press
U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson
.Judge Vinson rejected this argument, recognizing that "not consuming" other products, such as food, is also unavoidable and can have substantial effects on other commercial markets. "There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort," he wrote. "The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that—when aggregated with similar economic decisions—affect the price of that particular product or service and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce."
Recognizing the vulnerability of relying on the Commerce Clause alone, the Obama administration in the Florida case shifted its emphasis to the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. That clause empowers Congress to enact "all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" its enumerated powers. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not expand the scope of Congress's enumerated powers. Instead, it gives Congress the ability to select among various means of exercising them—for example, the enumerated power to "establish post offices" necessarily and properly includes a power to print stamps.
The Obama administration claimed that the individual mandate is a necessary and proper means of carrying out its reforms in the health-insurance market. These reforms include requiring insurers to offer coverage to those with pre- existing conditions, to extend coverage to dependents up to age 26, and to eliminate lifetime coverage caps. Because these reforms make health insurance more expensive, the government's lawyers claim that unless everyone is forced to buy health insurance, too many healthy people will sit on the market sidelines as "free riders" until they become ill. So in order to make the "reformed" health-insurance market work, it's necessary and proper to force everyone to buy insurance.
Judge Vinson flatly rejected the administration's attempt to escape the restrictions of the Commerce Clause by appealing to the Necessary and Proper Clause. His decision acknowledges that, while reforming an insurance market is a regulation of commerce, Congress cannot artificially create its own "free rider" crisis in the insurance market and then use that crisis to justify an otherwise unconstitutional mandate as "necessary and proper" to save the market from collapse.
This novel use of the Necessary and Proper Clause, if allowed to stand, would fundamentally transform our constitutional scheme from limited to unlimited federal power, narrowing the scope of individual liberty. In Judge Vinson's words, "the more harm the statute does, the more power Congress could assume for itself under the Necessary and Proper Clause. This result would, of course, expand the Necessary and Proper Clause far beyond its original meaning, and allow Congress to exceed the powers specifically enumerated in Article I."
Rep. Marsha Blackburn on the health-care ruling.
.One crucial difference between the Florida and Virginia decisions relates to the breadth of the remedy. While both courts agreed that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, the Virginia decision merely declared the mandate alone to be unconstitutional—the rest of ObamaCare was unaffected. But Judge Vinson concluded that the individual mandate could not be "severed" from the rest of the law, and so the entire law must be struck down.
The judge had little choice: The Obama administration itself argued that the individual mandate was inextricably intertwined with the rest of ObamaCare. So if the mandate fell, the whole scheme was doomed to collapse as a legal matter. "There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate and other health insurance provisions," he held, "for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone."
The Obama administration attempted to cloak an unprecedented and unsupportable exercise of federal power in the guise of a run-of-the-mill Commerce Clause regulation. When the weakness of that theory was exposed, it retreated to the Necessary and Proper Clause and the taxing power. Judge Vinson's decisive rejection of all these theories is another significant victory for individual liberty—the ultimate purpose of federalism—and it lays the intellectual groundwork for every decision on the mandate yet to come.
Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center. Ms. Foley is a professor of constitutional and health care law at Florida International University College of Law.
________________________ ________________________ ______-
Can't wait til this piece of shit goes does in flames where it belongs.
-
Judge's health care ruling reverberates; Florida gives back money to implement law
St. Petersburg Times ^ | February 2, 2011 | Janet Zink
Reverberations of a Florida judge's ruling that the federal health care law is unconstitutional are spreading throughout the country, with supporters and opponents of the overhaul using the decision to draw their lines in the sand.
In Washington, Republican senators called the ruling a "second stake in ObamaCare" and immediately introduced repeal legislation with plans for a vote today. Nationwide, attorneys general, governors and consumer groups debated the impact of the ruling on changes that have already taken place and those in the works.
Florida officials made their direction clear: We will not move forward to implement this law.
Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty on Tuesday gave back a $1 million federal grant awarded to the state to assist with reforms. The money would have paid for a system to provide information to consumers on the rates of large-group insurers.
And Florida Gov. Rick Scott said the state will wait until the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on the case before it plans for pieces of the legislation that haven't gone into effect.
"We are not going to spend a lot of time and money with regard to trying to get ready to implement it," he said.
In the Florida-led lawsuit representing 26 states, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled Monday that the law's provision requiring people to buy health insurance or face a tax penalty is unconstitutional. He ruled the so-called "individual mandate" unconstitutional, and had to strike the law down entirely.
Vinson declined to issue an injunction against the federal law, but said he believed the federal government would treat his ruling as one.
That's how Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi sees it.
"What he's saying is, they need to follow the law. This is the law as he's ruled. They need to do the right thing," she said in a news conference shortly after the ruling was released.
In Wisconsin, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen agreed: "For Wisconsin, the federal health care law is dead — unless and until it is revived by an appellate court. Effectively, Wisconsin was relieved of any obligations or duties that were created under terms of the federal health care law. What that means in a practical sense is a discussion I'll have in confidence with Gov. (Scott) Walker, as the state's counsel."
But at least one insurance industry group plans to continue abiding by the new federal rules.
"Health plans will, of course, continue to meet their obligation to implement the new law on behalf of the more than 200 million people we serve," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based America's Health Insurance Plans, which represents nearly 1,300 health plans.
That includes covering pre-existing conditions and allowing children as old as 26 to remain on their parents' policies.
Still, Zirkelbach emphasized that throughout the health care debate, the insurance industry has argued that the individual mandate was critical to making sure health care companies could cover the costs of providing services to people regardless of pre-existing conditions and other risk factors.
"States that have implemented these laws without covering everyone have seen a rise in insurance premiums, a reduction of individual insurance enrollment and no significant decrease in the number of uninsured," he said.
Another push for repeal
In the nation's capital, Senate Republicans on Tuesday seized on attention given to the Florida ruling to push their effort to repeal the law.
GOP leader Mitch McConnell offered a repeal amendment to an aviation bill and encouraged Democrats to come on board.
"What we have today is an opportunity ... to take another path," McConnell said.
The Republican-led House has already passed the repeal.
As the debate heated up, phones started ringing in Democratic offices across Capitol Hill, including Florida Sen. Bill Nelson's, with callers urging support of the repeal.
The effort was organized by FreedomWorks, a Republican group that provided organizational support to the tea party. Nelson has said provisions can be tweaked but does not favor wholesale repeal.
One certain change: Eliminating a requirement that businesses file a tax form for purchases of goods or services of more than $600. Both parties agree it is onerous.
But Democrats were refusing to budge on bigger changes, noting that Republicans have not offered specific replacements.
Scott's stance criticized
Gov. Scott promised that if the country's high court ultimately backs the overhaul, Florida will have plenty of time to prepare.
"The state won't be caught flat-footed," he said. "We'll be ready."
The stance taken by Scott, who before he ran for governor founded the nonprofit Conservatives for Patients' Rights to fight the legislation, prompted vitriol.
"I fear that what began as his own personal vendetta against the president's health care initiative has morphed into a personal war using the governor's office as his launching pad," said Florida Sen. Nan Rich, D-Weston.
Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, said Scott's position was to be expected, given he is the former CEO of the Columbia/HCA hospital chain.
"It doesn't surprise me that Gov. Scott would take the side of the insurance industry and say, 'I want them to make more profits and make more money and that's more important to me than protecting the citizens of my state from the abuses of the insurance industry,' " Rome said.
He noted that Vinson is "one of four judges of equal rank" that ruled on the law, and two of the judges upheld it.
"States need to move forward with implementation of the law in a responsible and quick way and do right by the people in their states," Rome said. "This decision doesn't change that one bit."
-
Mark Levin - Federal Judge Obamacare Unconstitutional And Can Not Be implemented
[/youtube]
-
Great clip.
How anyone supports ObamaCare and the idea that the federal govt can force you into a private transaction with a private business as a condition of living is beyond my comprehension.
But then again - we are dealing ith marxists/progressives/socialists/liberals etc, so I guess anything is to be expected.
-
Mark Levin - Federal Judge Obamacare Unconstitutional And Can Not Be implemented
[/youtube]
I like it.
-
Lawrence O'Donnell: Democrats Made Huge Mistake Not Putting Severability In ObamaCare
By Noel Sheppard | February 02, 2011 | 10:28
In the wake of Monday's ruling by a Florida judge to toss out ObamaCare as a result of the individual mandate, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell asked liberal constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley Tuesday if the Democrats made a mistake not writing a severability clause into the law.
Turley surprisingly answered, "It was a colossal mistake" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, HOST: Joining me now is Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University.
Jonathan, thanks for joining us tonight.
JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Hi, Lawrence.
O’DONNELL: Jonathan, the Democrats made a mistake of not writing into the law that the bill is what they call "severable," meaning if courts find bits of it unconstitutional, they can simply sever those bits from the rest of the law. Democrats insist that severability is implicit in this kind of law. Who’s right?
TURLEY: Well, first of all, it was a colossal mistake not to have a severability clause in this legislation. It’s a standard clause in bills. It is not clear why it was kept out. Some people say it was a blunder. Other suggests and I know you know, there’s some suspicion that it might be a sort of game of chicken, that they wanted to make clear, if you take out the individual mandate, you are risking the entire bill to sort of give these judges a bit of sticker shock.
But either way, it was a mistake. It opened the door to allow a judge like Judge Vinson to strike the entire act. Now, it is certainly true that you do not need a severability clause for a judge to sever provision. And, in fact, that’s exactly what Judge Hudson did in the Virginia. He was encouraged to strike down the entire law of Virginia and he chose not to. I agree with that decision. I think he did the right thing there.
But, the Democrats really laid themselves open in how they drafted this act. Judge Vinson is not, you know, totally out of line in saying that severability was put at issue when they did not include the clause. The interesting thing is the severability clause was in an earlier draft of the legislation and was removed.
Something that Judge Vinson notes in his opinion.
O’DONNELL: I can tell you, Jonathan, that’s exactly the kind of mistake that occurs at the staff level when they are in these panic writings, last-minute writings of the legislative language of these bills - - things that they intend to be in there like a severability clause can easily slip out in the word processing.
Fascinating to see two liberals point fingers at Democrats, don't you agree?
Despite them both being correct, they omitted - conveniently or ignorantly - that this is the inherent problem of creating a several thousand page bill that no one reads.
O'Donnell blamed it on the word processing, but how about pointing fingers at all the Democrats in both chambers of Congress as well as in the adminstration that missed this oversight likely because no one read the darned thing? Was it so lengthy and comprehensive that it was impossible for anyone to know what was really there?
Makes you giggle now when you think about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) arrogantly claiming people would love the bill once they learned what was in it. You think she had any idea that there was no severability clause and that this could end up spelling the doom of the entire law?
Think she's lovin' it now? I sincerely doubt the Speaker is humming the McDonald's theme song at the moment.
This all becomes more important depending on the timetable of when the Supreme Court will hear this case. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey noted Tuesday that SCOTUS could end up deciding the 2012 elections:
A Supreme Court ruling that supports the mandate still leaves President Obama and his Democratic allies with an unpopular bill under political siege in the Republican-controlled House, no worse or better off than before a final court ruling. Such a ruling might even provide more motivation to the opposition to gain control of the Senate and White House to reverse the PPACA entirely through legislative action.
An adverse ruling by the Supreme Court before the 2012 election would be an unequivocal disaster, however. President Obama and his fellow Democrats spent almost half of the 111th congressional session fiddling on health care while the economy burned, which destroyed their credibility in the midterm elections last fall. They insisted that their work would pass constitutional muster even as the mandate fueled the rise of the Tea Party and came to embody all of the arrogance and elitism of big government, nanny state. A ruling that overturns even just the mandate means that they tossed away their House majority and all of their political momentum for nothing.
What’s more, it will increase the prestige and the credibility of those who fought the passage of the PPACA and who later vowed to repeal it entirely and start reform over from scratch. And that could come just as President Obama runs for re-election and Democrats desperately try to preserve their Senate majority as they defend 13 more seats than Republicans. Not only would their work be discredited, so would their entire approach to governance.
The question of severability in the legal sense will play an important part of the appeals process, up to the Supreme Court sooner or later. The bigger question will be whether President Obama and his party will have any political severability from Obamacare if the Supreme Court overturns it on an expedited review. Voters will give the final judgment on that point, but given Democrats' lack of accomplishment over the past few years, don't bet on it.
This makes the severability omission larger than O'Donnell and Turley cared to admit. As Morrissey noted Wednesday, the Democrats are now in a real bind no matter what happens with SCOTUS:
- ne has to presume under the circumstances that the chance to head off a long, contradictory trek through different appellate circuits will appeal to at least the conservative end of the bench, especially since there is zero chance of avoiding the case in the long run anyway. On the other hand, after Bush v Gore, the court may not be terribly anxious to get to that end game and be seen as conducting a political intervention.
If they decide to tackle the inevitable sooner rather than later, the White House and its Democratic allies will face two outcomes: either a fired-up electorate like in 2010, or massive egg on their faces and … a fired-up electorate. There will be no severability from ObamaCare either way.
I don't agree on the Bush v. Gore point, as Obama injected himself into the Court's politics when he foolishly decided to admonish them during his 2010 State of the Union address. As a result, Justice Samuel Alito joined Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in not attending this year's SOTU.
As all you need are four Justices to hear the case, it seems almost a metaphysical certitude one of the remaining six will join Alito, Scalia and Thomas especially as this is going to be a political issue whenever the Court chooses to hear it.
And, no matter what their decision, the 2012 elections look certainly to be a referendum on ObamaCare, for if SCOTUS rules for it, the Center and Right will mobilize like never before to get Democrats out of the White House and the Congress in order to legislatively stop this catastrophe before it's fully implemented in 2014.
If SCOTUS finds the bill un-Constitutional as I expect, the Center and the Right will similarly mobilize against Democrats to toss the bums out that wasted so much of the nation's time during a recession on an issue that wasn't anywhere near as important to the citizenry as the economy and jobs.
This deliciously means that Pelosi was kind of right with her love it claim, for conservatives are all humming the McDonald's theme song now having found out what's not in the bill.
Colossal mistake indeed.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/02/02/lawrence-odonnell-democrats-made-huge-mistake-not-writing-severabilit#ixzz1Cq67EAnx
-
-
White House Wants Obamacare on Slow Legal Track
Friday, 04 Feb 2011 01:43 PM Article Font Size
A U.S. Supreme Court showdown over President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul may be inevitable. His administration is in no rush for the court to get involved.
The Justice Department yesterday said it will oppose Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s request that the court immediately review the law, which a federal trial judge said was unconstitutional. The administration said the high court should follow its usual practice and first let an appeals court rule on Cuccinelli’s challenge.
The government’s approach would give it a chance to rack up lower court victories and perhaps build popular support for the law before the justices take up the case. It might also set the stage for a Supreme Court ruling only months before the 2012 presidential election.
“Litigating through the courts of appeals in the normal course suggests confidence in the government’s case,” said Christopher J. Wright, a lawyer with Wiltshire & Grannis LLP in Washington who has argued 28 Supreme Court cases and isn’t involved in the health-care fight. “In this particular case, it may produce unanimous judgments from appeals courts upholding the law.”
Cuccinelli said in an interview that states and businesses need to know whether the law is constitutional as soon as possible in light of rulings in Virginia and Florida against the administration.
Guidance for States
“What really matters now is getting this decided for the people of this country so we can move on both with health care reform and just economically knowing how we’re going to have to operate,” he said.
The Supreme Court has taken the step being sought by Cuccinelli, known as certiorari before judgment, only a handful of times in the past half century and generally only when the justices are simultaneously considering a related case that has cleared the appellate level.
The chances of the court agreeing to hear the case in the face of government opposition are “zero,” said Carter Phillips, a lawyer in Washington at Sidley Austin LLP who has argued 71 Supreme Court cases.
“I do not think the court will be inclined to decide this question without the benefit of having the views of at least one and probably more than one court of appeals on a very difficult question of constitutional law,” Phillips said.
Final Resolution
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said in a statement that certiorari before judgment would do little to expedite a final resolution. Cuccinelli said he isn’t explicitly asking the court to hear the case in its current term, which is scheduled to end in late June.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond is scheduled to review the Virginia challenge in May -- alongside an appeal of a different judge’s decision upholding the law. A ruling by that court this year would give the losing side time to seek Supreme Court review during its 2011-12 term, which begins in October.
Schmaler also said the provision at the center of the court fight -- the requirement that people either buy insurance or pay a penalty -- doesn’t take effect until 2014.
“There is more than sufficient time for the case to proceed first in the court of appeals,” Schmaler said in the statement. She declined to comment further on the government’s motivations.
Judges Split
Four trial judges around the country have split 2-2 on the law’s constitutionality. In the Virginia case, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson said in December that the insurance mandate was beyond Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.
Several appellate experts said they expect the government to fare better at the next level.
“They are more likely to get favorable decisions out of the courts of appeals,” said John Elwood, a partner at Vinson & Elkins LLP in Washington who served as a law clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy, the potential swing vote on the nine-member Supreme Court.
The Justice Department might find an especially receptive audience at the 4th Circuit. Although that court developed a reputation as a conservative bastion in the 1990s and 2000s, it may now lean in the other direction. Of the court’s 14 active judges, eight were appointed by Democratic presidents and a ninth, Roger Gregory, was nominated first by Democratic President Bill Clinton and then by Republican George W. Bush.
Party Affiliation
Party affiliation has made the difference so far with health care. The two trial judges who declared the law unconstitutional -- Hudson and Florida’s Roger Vinson -- are both Republican appointees. The judges who upheld the law -- Norman Moon of Virginia and George Caram Steeh of Michigan -- were appointed by Democratic presidents.
The two other appeals courts set to consider the law have a more Republican flavor. The Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit, which will hear the Michigan case later this year, has four Democratic and 10 Republican appointees among its active members. The Atlanta-based 11th Circuit, which would hear an appeal in the Florida case, has five Democratic and six Republican selections.
Appeals courts generally assign cases first to a three- judge panel. Should the government lose at that stage, it could seek review by the full appeals court, perhaps pushing Supreme Court involvement back to the 2012-13 term. And should the government win, it could even urge the Supreme Court not to review the law at all.
Public Support
Delay of any length gives the administration time to win more public support for the law, a factor that some lawyers said might subtly influence the nine justices. Some provisions have already taken effect, including a requirement that young adults be allowed to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until they turn 26.
The administration likely wants “the law to be on the books as long as possible and have people get used to it,” Elwood said. “If it has a feel of familiarity to it, the less likely they are to strike it down.”
Appellate consideration would help the courts home in on the central legal issues, said Drew S. Days III, a professor at Yale Law School and solicitor general under President Bill Clinton. After appeals court consideration, “all the arguments have been played out fully and unwound and elaborated in ways that I think will be helpful to the justices,” Days said.
Cuccinelli said the case involves a “very pure legal argument” and wouldn’t benefit from appeals court rulings. “They’re really just kind of a warm-up for the Supreme Court,” he said.
© Copyright 2010 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.
Read more on Newsmax.com: White House Wants Obamacare on Slow Legal Track
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
________________________ _______-
Gee I wonder why ::) ::)
-
Great Op-Ed - of course Team Kneepad knows more than this guy.
________________________ ________________________ ________________
OPINION
FEBRUARY 7, 2011.
An ObamaCare Appeal From the States
Twenty-one governors representing more than 115 million Americans have written to Kathleen Sebelius asking for more flexibility on health-care reform..Article Video Comments (284) more in Opinion ».
By MITCH DANIELS
Unless you're in favor of a fully nationalized health-care system, the president's health-care reform law is a massive mistake. It will amplify all the big drivers of overconsumption and excessive pricing: "Why not, it's free?" reimbursement; "The more I do, the more I get" provider payment; and all the defensive medicine the trial bar's ingenuity can generate.
All claims made for it were false. It will add trillions to the federal deficit. It will lead to a de facto government takeover of health care faster than most people realize, and as millions of Americans are added to the Medicaid rolls and millions more employees (including, watch for this, workers of bankrupt state governments) are dumped into the new exchanges.
Many of us governors are hoping for either a judicial or legislative rescue from this impending disaster, and recent court decisions suggest there's a chance of that. But we can't count on a miracle—that's only permitted in Washington policy making. We have no choice but to prepare for the very real possibility that the law takes effect in 2014.
For state governments, the bill presents huge new costs, as we are required to enroll 15 million to 20 million more people in our Medicaid systems. In Indiana, our independent actuaries have pegged the price to state taxpayers at $2.6 billion to $3 billion over the next 10 years. This is a huge burden for our state, and yet another incremental expenditure the law's authors declined to account for truthfully.
Perhaps worse, the law expects to conscript the states as its agents in its takeover of health care. It assumes that we will set up and operate its new insurance "exchanges" for it, using our current welfare apparatuses to do the numbingly complex work of figuring out who is eligible for its subsidies, how much each person or family is eligible for, redetermining this eligibility regularly, and more. Then, we are supposed to oversee all the insurance plans in the exchanges for compliance with Washington's dictates about terms and prices.
.The default option if any state declines to participate is for the federal government to operate an exchange directly. Which got me thinking: If the new law is not repealed by 2013, what could be done to reshape it in the direction of freedom and genuine cost control?
I have written to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Services (HHS), saying that if her department wants Indiana to run its program for it, we will do so under the following conditions:
• We are given the flexibility to decide which insurers are permitted to offer their products.
• All the law's expensive benefit mandates are waived, so that our citizens aren't forced to buy benefits they don't need and have a range of choice that includes more affordable plans.
• The law's provisions discriminating against consumer-driven plans, such as health savings accounts, are waived.
• We are given the freedom to move Medicaid beneficiaries into the exchange, or to utilize new approaches to the traditional program, instead of herding hundreds of thousands more people into today's broken Medicaid system.
• Our state is reimbursed the true, full cost of the administrative burden to be imposed upon us, based on the estimate of an auditor independent of HHS.
• A trustworthy projection is commissioned, by a research organization independent of the department, of how many people are likely to wind up in the exchange, given the large incentives for employers to save money by off-loading their workers.
Today's Rasmussen poll finds that Americans still favor repeal of the President's health-care reform. Senior editorial writer Joseph Rago has the latest. Also, Opinionjournal.com columnist John Fund on the unanswered questions about the Gipper.
.Obviously, this is a very different system than the one the legislation intends. Health care would be much more affordable, minus all the mandates, and plus the consumer consciousness that comes with health savings accounts and their kin. Customer choice would be dramatically enhanced by the state's ability to allow more insurers to participate and offer consumer-driven plans. Through greater flexibility in the management of Medicaid, the state might be able to reduce substantially the hidden tax increase that forced expansion of the program will impose.
Most fundamentally, the system we are proposing requires Washington to abandon most of the command-and-control aspects of the law as written. It steers away from nanny-state paternalism by assuming, recognizing and reinforcing the dignity of all our citizens and their right to make health care's highly personal decisions for themselves.
So why would Ms. Sebelius and HHS agree to this de facto rewrite of their treasured accomplishment? A glance at the recent fiasco of high-risk pools provides the answer. When a majority of states, including Indiana, declined to participate in setting up these pools, which cover those with high-cost, existing conditions, the task fell to HHS. As widely reported, it went poorly, with costs far above predictions and only a tiny fraction of the expected population signing up.
If the feds can't manage this little project, what should we expect if they attempt it on a scale hundreds of times larger and more complex? If it were only Indiana asking, I have no doubt that HHS would ignore us. But Indiana is not alone. So far, 21 states—including Pennsylvania, Texas and Louisiana—have signed the same letter. We represent more than 115 million Americans. Washington's attempt to set up eligibility and exchange bureaucracies in all these places would invite a first-rate operational catastrophe.
If there's to be a train wreck, we governors would rather be spectators than conductors. But if the federal government is willing to reroute the train to a different, more productive track, we are here to help.
Mr. Daniels, a Republican, is the governor of Indiana.
-
A new Dem threat to health care law
Politico ^ | 02/08/11 | Manu Raju
________________________ _______________________-
A handful of moderate Senate Democrats are looking for ways to roll back the highly contentious individual mandate — the pillar of President Barack Obama’s health care law — a sign that red-state senators are prepared to assert their independence ahead of the 2012 elections.
They haven’t decided whether to propose legislation, but any effort by moderate Democrats that takes aim at the individual mandate could embarrass Obama and embolden Republicans who are still maneuvering to take down the health care law.
And it’s not just health care. The senators are prepared to break with the White House on a wide range of issues: embracing deeper spending cuts, scaling back business regulations and overhauling environmental rules. The moderates most likely to buck their party include Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jon Tester of Montana — all of whom are up for reelection in 2012 and represent states Obama lost in 2008.
The goal is to lay down a record of bipartisan compromises with Republicans, but it could also put Obama at odds with key centrists, right at the moment the president himself is looking to forge a more centrist path.
And their efforts could put Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) at a potential disadvantage on key votes. The Senate leader has to protect 23 Democratic seats next year, giving moderates and swing-state Democrats plenty of leeway to prove their independence, but he also has to worry about keeping a unified front for the party ahead of the presidential election. With only 53 Democrats leading the thin Senate majority, if three or four break away on any key issue, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could in some cases claim a simple majority.
The Democratic moderates said they’re not concerned about how their positioning will affect their party’s overarching political strategy.
“I’m not worried about the politics of this; I’m worried about the substance of it,” McCaskill said. “My goal has always been pretty simple: affordable, accessible, private-market insurance for people in America who want insurance. The politics of this are hard; it’s just easier to stay focused on the substance because that’s what matters.”
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Democrats face a “dilemma.”
But there’s a political complication for Republican leaders as well. Some in GOP circles fear that by teaming up with Democratic moderates, they could give these Democrats bipartisan cover that would help them in 2012.
Some Republicans are quietly warning colleagues not to work with vulnerable Democrats in the first place. This comes after Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) teamed up with McCaskill to back a proposal that would dramatically cut spending over the next decade and Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) worked with Manchin to repeal a small-business reporting provision in the health care law.
“It would be one thing if they were collaborating with Democrats on issues [for] which they’ve long shared an alliance,” a senior GOP aide said. “But there needs to be a recognition that this is not about principle for these vulnerable Senate Democrats. It’s all about election cycle gamesmanship, and our side shouldn’t be handing them political cover.”
The Democratic moderates strongly refuted suggestions that their positioning is being influenced by electoral politics.
“I truly believe all bills need to be bipartisan,” said Manchin, a freshman who won the late Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd’s seat in a special election last year.
The individual mandate and efforts to overhaul it would certainly gain the most attention, especially if moderate Democrats teamed up with Republicans, something that would be a clear rebuke of the core of Obama’s health care law. For now, it’s unclear whether they’ll even offer a bill, but moderates are certainly open to it.
Democrats justify the provision by arguing that it’s meant to ensure that individuals don’t drain the health care system by waiting until they are sick to purchase coverage — particularly now that the new law prohibits insurers from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions.
The provision has become one of the most controversial of an already-controversial law, especially in red states, where Republicans have seized on recent court rulings to characterize it as an unconstitutional federal power grab.
Nelson, who faces a tough road to win a third term next year, asked the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office to outline alternatives to the mandate, potentially by bringing large numbers of people into insurance coverage through open and closed enrollment periods. He may offer legislation once the congressional scorekeepers report back to him.
“This is about making it better,” Nelson said. “I never thought the mandate was a particularly good way to do it.”
Nelson fired back at GOP critics who said he’s trying to distance himself from the law. “What’s their plan? Is their plan, 'hope you don’t get sick'?”
Last year in Missouri, voters approved a ballot measure to nullify the federal health care law — and McCaskill is well-aware of the unpopularity of the individual mandate in her state.
In an interview, McCaskill said she’d “love to” modify the mandate and is “looking at different ways to try to” extend coverage without a mandate.
“We’re running numbers to see how many new people we can get into the pool with something less than a mandate, something that would be more limited enrollment periods with severe financial penalties for not signing up.”
McCaskill added that an alternative “may not be workable; it may be that the mandate is the only way we can do it. But I think we should explore it.”
Tester said his Western rural state of Montana is “libertarian in nature,” which he said explains the unpopularity of the individual mandate. The first-term Democrat said he’d be “open” to overhauling that provision if there’s an alternative that makes access to health care more affordable.
Unlike the other three senators, Manchin wasn’t in Congress to cast a vote on the legislation, though he voted last week with the rest of his Democratic colleagues against GOP efforts to repeal the entire law. But he’s looking to make other changes to the law, including paring back the state Medicaid expansion that covers insurance costs for lower-income families.
Health care issues aren’t the only way some Democrats are looking to distinguish themselves. Manchin, for one, introduced a bill to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent ruling against mountaintop mining, and he’s won over two other Democrats, fellow West Virginian Sen. John Rockefeller and Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu.
With federal spending issues expected to dominate the early battles between the GOP House and the Democratic Senate, a number of senators up for reelection are staking out hawkish stances on the debt. In early December, Democrats wrote to Obama and congressional leaders and called for tougher steps to reduce the budget deficit, including several who are facing reelection next year, like McCaskill, Tester, Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Delaware Sen. Tom Carper.
With bipartisan discussions led by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) now under way, endangered Democrats could very well jump on board whatever proposal eventually emerges to slash the debt.
In the meantime, some Democrats — like Colorado Sen. Mark Udall — aren’t waiting for an upcoming election to get in front of the spending issue.
In recent weeks, Udall has co-sponsored a GOP constitutional amendment to force Congress to balance its budget, has taken a hawkish stand against earmarks, signed onto Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain’s plan to give the president line-item veto authority and is pushing for an up-or-down vote on the presidential deficit commission’s proposals. And he was the driving force behind the push for Democrats and Republicans to sit next to one another at last month’s State of the Union address.
Udall said his recent push has nothing to do with moderating his image ahead of his 2014 reelection effort.
“What I heard from the voters is to focus on jobs, get the debt [under] control and work together,” Udall said. “And what I’ve been doing the last month reflects what the voters said.”
-
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216050263515.htm
Attack of the Commerce Clause
A new assault on regulation is gathering force—and it's deploying a constitutional weapon By Paul M. Barrett
On the afternoon of Jan. 31, Richard A. Epstein was in his office at New York University Law School when a request came in from a conservative website called Ricochet.com. A federal district court judge in Florida had just struck down the Obama Administration's health-care overhaul, and the site wanted Epstein's reaction. Judge Roger Vinson had ruled that in passing the bill last year, Congress exceeded the authority granted it by the so-called Commerce Clause: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which allows lawmakers "to regulate Commerce … among the several states." For Epstein, 67, a voluble and prolific scholar who for four decades has been arming conservatives with intellectual weaponry to attack regulation, it was an I-told-you-so moment. "The Commerce Clause challenge to Obamacare indeed has legs," he blogged. "The government played table stakes poker, and for the moment it has lost."
A central figure at the University of Chicago until he moved to NYU last year, Epstein has written over the years about a dizzying array of legal issues: zoning, banking, and job discrimination; product liability, patents, and pharmaceuticals; the environment, workers' comp, and taxation. Unifying his scholarship is a persistent theme: Government stifles capitalist ingenuity and generally screws things up. "It's amazingly consistent that way," he says amiably, ringed by a mountain range of papers in his Greenwich Village office.
The legal fight over health-care reform is likely to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court just in time for the 2012 Presidential race. (Federal appeals courts will have their say in coming months, making the issue a strong candidate for the justices' election-year docket.) Even with his cause riding high, though, Epstein isn't getting carried away with optimism. The high court lost its way on the topic of regulation back in the 1930s, he says. "We've been on the wrong track ever since."
For its first 150 years, the Supreme Court interpreted "among the several states" to mean that legislators could set rules only for trade that crossed state lines—via railroad, for example—and not for manufacturing, farming, or other business conducted exclusively within a state. In the face of the Great Depression's economic devastation and relentless political pressure from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, the court drastically shifted its understanding of the Commerce Clause (along with its view of a number of other parts of the Constitution). By 1942, in the landmark case of Wickard v. Filburn, the court upheld federal regulation of a farmer who grew wheat strictly for his own consumption. In a modern economy, the court reasoned, even subsistence crops affect demand in the national marketplace.
Does the logic of Wickard v. Filburn cover President Barack Obama's plan for health care, an industry responsible for 17 percent of the nation's gross domestic product? It's a dandy law school exam question. It's also the most important inquiry about the interplay of government and business percolating in the U.S. legal system. Two Republican-appointed federal judges—the one in Florida and another in Virginia—have answered "no," ruling that Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause authority when it imposed a requirement last year that all American adults obtain health insurance. Two Democratic judicial appointees—one in Michigan, another in Virginia—have disagreed, upholding the statute. When the battle reaches the high court, the fate of near-universal health care may hang on the swing vote of a single justice.
Take a step back, though, "and there's a much bigger fight here that goes way beyond health insurance," says Eric Lane, a liberal constitutional scholar at Hofstra Law School. It's a new assault on regulation being led by the ascendant Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Party leaders vow to use committee hearings and floor debates to make 2011 a year of misery for executive branch regulators. In Congress and the courts alike, skirmishes are under way over the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions and the legitimacy of last year's Wall Street reform legislation. And conservative legal tacticians who have rolled back government limits on campaign spending and gun ownership are seeking to extend those victories. Perhaps Professor Epstein should be in a more hopeful mood.
At the highest levels of the U.S. judiciary, there have always been jurists who sought to revisit America's long-settled understanding of the proper extent of congressional authority over economic affairs. The late Justice William H. Rehnquist kept the flame alive in a series of solo dissents in the 1970s and '80s, earning him the nickname "the Lone Ranger" before his elevation to Chief Justice in 1986 inclined him more toward cooperation. That year, President Ronald Reagan's Attorney General, Edwin Meese III, invited Epstein to make a presentation on the Commerce Clause at the Justice Dept. "The Reagan people knew me from Takings," Epstein explains, referring to a book he published in 1985 that laid out a controversial theory of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. That clause states that private property can't be "taken for public use, without just compensation." Epstein maintains that any regulation reducing the value of private property—such as zoning—requires compensation of the owner.
Epstein's research on the Commerce Clause produced an article published in 1987 in the Virginia Law Review. "The idea that Congress can restrict pretty much any economic activity that has a 'substantial effect' on commerce—which the Supreme Court announced in 1942 in Wickard—was always wrong," Epstein says, summarizing his findings. "I'd say it was a giant fraud, and it has stifled economic liberty ever since."
He remains in a distinct minority on this point. Most constitutional scholars— and judges—see the expansion of federal power as a natural outgrowth of the vastly increased complexity of the American economy brought on by industrialization, modern transportation, and improvements in communication. "Congress's power to regulate 'interstate commerce' became, in effect, the power to regulate 'commerce' generally," David D. Cole, a liberal law professor at Georgetown University, wrote late last month in The New York Review of Books. "The court rejected as empty formalisms the distinctions it had previously drawn between local and interstate, between production and commerce, and between 'direct' and 'indirect' effects."
Despite a concerted program of issue-oriented litigation and conservative judicial appointments—one supported by the Federalist Society, a private network of right-leaning lawyers and scholars—the Reagan Administration had little success pushing Epstein's views in court. In 1995, Douglas H. Ginsburg, a Reagan appointee on the federal appeals court in Washington, publicly mourned what he called "the Constitution-in-exile": provisions such as the Commerce, Takings, and Contract Clauses, which he argued had been unwisely marginalized by the Supreme Court. "The memory of these ancient exiles, banished for standing in opposition to unlimited government," Ginsburg wrote in the journal Regulation, "is kept alive by a few scholars who labor on in the hope of a restoration, a second coming of the Constitution of liberty—even if perhaps not in their own lifetimes."
Although the second coming has not occurred, the debate continues. In 1995 the Supreme Court struck down an obscure federal law prohibiting possession of a gun near a school. Without disturbing any precedent, Rehnquist wrote in U.S. v. Lopez that, under any definition, the mere possession of a firearm in a local school did not affect interstate commerce. The decision had little practical consequence, since gun infractions near schools were still covered by state laws. Still, Lopez caused a stir in legal circles because it marked the first time since the New Deal that the high court said the Commerce Clause did not accommodate something Congress wanted to do.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who sided with the Lopez majority, identified himself as the inheritor of Rehnquist's Lone Ranger hat. In a separate concurrence that echoed Epstein's 1987 Virginia Law Review article, Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court erred when it departed in the 1930s from 19th century legal doctrines that strictly limited federal regulatory power. In an open-ended invitation to litigants, Thomas wrote: "In a future case, we ought to temper our Commerce Clause jurisprudence in a manner that both makes sense of our more recent case law and is more faithful to the original understanding of that clause."
"What Justice Thomas was getting at—more aggressively than anyone else—was that the actual words of the Constitution don't say Congress can do whatever it wants in regulating the economy," says John Yoo, a constitutional law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. As a newly minted lawyer, Yoo was clerking for Thomas when Lopez was decided. "If the court wanted to get back to what the founders had in mind about commerce," he adds, "the text and history of the Constitution would support a big change in the doctrine." Thomas's presence on the country's top tribunal makes it more plausible for business interests and conservatives to argue in lower courts that one or another regulation deserves to be struck down.
Cass R. Sunstein, a Harvard law professor on leave while he runs Obama's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, takes the Thomas invitation seriously. In 2004 he warned about the return of what he called "Herbert Hoover's Constitution"—a liberal's derisive spin on Ginsburg's Constitution-in-exile. Under the Hoover Constitution, Sunstein wrote in Washington Monthly, "the powers of the national government were sharply limited." He accurately predicted that if fortified by second-term appointments by President George W. Bush, the Supreme Court might read the Second Amendment expansively to curb federal and state gun control laws. Led by Bush-nominated Chief Justice John G. Roberts, the court in 2008, and again last year, struck down firearm restrictions in Washington, D.C., and Chicago, declaring clearly for the first time an individual right to keep a handgun. Sunstein was also prescient in saying that a conservative majority might curtail campaign-finance regulation, as it did in 2010 in a ruling strengthening the First Amendment speech rights of corporate interests. On yet another front, Sunstein envisaged an assault on environmental regulations. That offensive is well under way as Texas spearheads litigation intended to hobble the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions.
The Hoover Constitution isn't likely to be restored in full, Sunstein acknowledged. "But don't be surprised if you see significant movement in its direction." A spokesman for Sunstein declined to comment.
The Supreme Court's more recent Commerce Clause pronouncements leave the fate of the health insurance mandate an open question. In 2000 the court said Congress exceeded its authority when it passed a law giving victims of gender-motivated violence a basis for suing attackers in federal court. Regardless of good intentions, the statute did not concern commerce, the majority concluded. Leaning in the opposite direction, the court ruled in 2005 that Congress could criminalize homegrown marijuana, even for medicinal use. "If the majority is to be taken seriously," Thomas wrote in dissent, "the federal government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states."
Federal regulation of quilting bees isn't being litigated, but Obama's attempt to create a health insurance system covering all Americans surely is. David B. Rivkin Jr., a lawyer who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, has been bothered by the idea of mandated insurance for nearly two decades. In 1993 he took to the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal to argue that Clinton Administration proposals for universal participation in a national health system would "draw the curtain on the Constitution of 1787," confirming "that there is nothing that Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause." In the 1990s, as Rivkin noted, some Republicans in Congress also supported the idea of requiring everyone to participate in the health system, so that costs would be spread across the entire population. The issue became moot when Clinton-era health reform died on Capitol Hill.
When Obama revived the campaign for comprehensive health coverage in 2009, Rivkin returned to the ramparts, arguing its unconstitutionality in the Journal and venues sponsored by the Federalist Society. He also provided legal advice to GOP state officials skeptical of the Obama plan. The counseling grew into a paid post at Baker Hostetler, the corporate law firm in whose Washington office Rivkin is a partner. He and a team of colleagues represent a coalition of 26 states challenging the health-care bill in Florida.
Born in 1956 in a small village in the former Soviet Union, Rivkin brings an immigrant's patriotic zeal to defending his vision of the U.S. Constitution. A classical bust of George Washington greets a visitor to his office. With characteristic zest, he declares that "the Obama health reform law is the most profoundly unconstitutional statute in U.S. history." At the same time, he insists, he is not trying to alter Supreme Court jurisprudence. Instead, he says the justices have always assumed that the Commerce Clause authorizes regulation of economic "activity." The health insurance mandate, Rivkin contends, is unconstitutional because it regulates "inactivity"—namely, individuals' decision not to buy insurance. "Inactivity cannot be regulated under the Commerce Clause," he argued before U.S. District Judge Vinson in Pensacola, Fla., on Dec. 16. Vinson agreed, and the activity/inactivity distinction became central to his ruling.
The Obama Administration has called mandatory coverage the health plan's financial linchpin because without it, some people would refrain from acquiring insurance until they get sick, driving up costs. Ian H. Gershengorn, the senior Justice Dept. attorney defending health reform in the courts, told Judge Vinson in oral argument that those who don't buy health insurance are making an economic decision to pay later or shift the cost to others. Everyone, at some point, takes part in the health-care market. "The uninsured are not inactive," Gershengorn argued. Striking down the overhaul would amount to "a return to the 1930s," he said.
Judge Vinson didn't buy it. He said that he wasn't deciding on the wisdom of health reform, but on a more abstract principle. "If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power," he wrote in his 78-page Jan. 31 ruling. "We would have a Constitution in name only."
Epstein has nothing but admiration for Vinson's bold move. Like some other Supreme Court watchers, he expects a 5-4 resolution, with the conservative but sometimes unpredictable Justice Anthony M. Kennedy casting the deciding vote. If pressed, Epstein forecasts that Kennedy will vote to uphold the legislation "on the ground that the mandate is but one part of a comprehensive health-care whole, so that the mandate has to be judged, to borrow from John Donne, not as an island, but as a piece of the main." On the other hand, he adds, maybe Kennedy will pleasantly surprise him and turn the court in Epstein's direction. Says the professor: "I have been wrong before."
-
CMS Official Confirms That Four States Have Been Granted ObamaCare Waivers
American Spectator ^ | 2/16/11 | Philip Klein
________________________ ________________________ _____-
An Obama administration official on Wednesday confirmed that four states -- including Florida, Tennessee and Ohio -- have been granted waivers from the regulatory requirements of the national health care law.
Steve Larsen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, confirmed the news under questioning from Rep. Cliff Stearns at an oversight hearing for the House Energy and Commerce committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
________________________ ________________________ _____________-
If ObamaCare is so great - why is everyone under the sun seeking to get out from under it?
-
If ObamaCare is so great - why is everyone under the sun seeking to get out from under it?
Because politically it is currently unpopular.
-
Because politically it is currently unpopular.
It has nothing to do with politics, and has everything to do with economic and mathmatical reality. Obamacare has always been the equivalent of a nuke against the public.
ObamaCare is worse than a madoff scheme. At least madoffs' scam was voluntary - this pofs is at the barrell of an IRS gun.
-
Because politically it is currently unpopular.
if that was really the case then the administration wouldnt be handing out waivers left and right to get out of it...
If it was simply about politics obama would just refute their points which he isnt doing...
-
if that was really the case then the administration wouldnt be handing out waivers left and right to get out of it...
If it was simply about politics obama would just refute their points which he isnt doing...
He can't because the facts are that obamaCare is single handidly one of the worst laws and policies EVER to have been passed.
Sorry you Obama Dildos, face it - you were conned.
But - thats' alright - he is the 1st black Prez - so its ok. Either I am racist; his plan must be ok if people like me are against it; or its a worldwide conspiracy against Obama. Anything he does is ok. Shit - bush did bad shit, so why complain when Obama follows in the same foot steps?
That must be it. Because there really can be no honest and justified criticism of the plans and programs of the messiah. We were told he was the most brilliant, smart, knowing, caring, seeing, all-being, and educated president of all time. so any critiques of his policies can't be based upon substanc, it has to be a CT or something like that.
-
if that was really the case then the administration wouldnt be handing out waivers left and right to get out of it...
If it was simply about politics obama would just refute their points which he isnt doing...
I have heard lots of people refute certain things... I heard a lot of people claim that the single payer system would be a problem, so hence we got the shitty healthcare overhaul we have.
It's always been political... We have what we have because politics and business didn't mix well, so more politics.
There's lots of "politics" in this bill and in the people against it.
I understand that healthcare costs...really... I get that... but so does every other thing in the government and you can't sit here and talk about the cost of the healthcare bill and not talk about the costs of all of the other crap.
Defense, Medicare, Social Security... the top 3 spends we have right?
The healthcare bill is not going to, nor will it bankrupt our country more than any of those 3 items.
-
What Health Reform Missed: The Doctor Shortage
By Elizabeth MacDonald
Health reform seeks to provide coverage for all Americans, adding to the system an estimated 30 million to 47 million, depending on how they are counted, who don’t have coverage today.
The demand side of the reform advocates' story goes like this: Health reform will pay for itself because of a new mandate penalty slapped on those who refuse coverage. That will ensure a massive influx of new insurance entrants, including healthy strapping young people who don't have coverage today, which means more revenue for the insurance industry. (And more tax revenue because of new taxes, including a tax on medical device makers and an increase in Medicare payroll taxes on the upper bracket, but that's for another day).
But D.C. policymakers have missed one key and crucial point in their narrative. The United States is facing a growing shortage of doctors, say two of the country's biggest doctor groups, the American College of Physicians and the Association of American Medical Colleges. And the missing doctor-shortage supply side of DC’s argument is worse than realized.
Because of this looming doctor shortage, health reform essentially will create market forces that will enact rationing of care, as more insured individuals flood into a system that sees a dwindling number of doctors to care for them. Picking up where insurers left off when it comes to rationing.
This is rationing by supply constraint, because the government cannot ration by price, try as it might.
And that shortage in supply of doctors becomes even more crucial, as health reform seeks to stop the insurance industry’s insidious practice of knocking out people from coverage if they have pre-existing conditions, which most everyone applauds. The doctor shortage becomes exponentially more serious as 71 million baby boomers approach retirement age, and as the creaky Medicare program faces serious strains to deal with a host of new beneficiaries with chronic diseases and fewer doctors to treat them.
The American College of Physicians [ACP], the nation’s top group of doctors notes that a recent peer-reviewed study estimates that there will be a shortage of 35,000 to 44,000 primary care physicians for adults by 2025. It expects long lines and wait times down the road once reform is enacted.
Notably missing will be doctors in key specialties, in general internal medicine and family medicine — the specialties that provide primary care to most adult and adolescent patients, says ACP.
And ACP says in a statement that’s “even before the increased demand for health care services that will result from near universal coverage is taken into account.” Primary care physicians number about 352,900 in the U.S.
Already, the Association of American Medical Colleges says the country could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors by 2025. The number of U.S. doctors now totals around 954,000.
The Association says about 45,000 more primary care doctors, who will face the brunt of the new health reform law, will be needed by 2020. It also projects a shortage of 33,100 doctors in specialties such as cardiology, oncology and emergency medicine by 2015.
Meanwhile, medical universities have seen a decline in the number of med school students signing up for family medicine courses, dropping more than 25% between 2002 and 2007, the Association says. Medicare pays about $9.1 billion annually to teaching hospitals in order to maintain residency programs and treatment of Medicare patients, but medical schools fear those subsidies could get cut back.
ACP says when it comes to doctor shortages, Massachusetts' attempt at a universal care model provides a case study of what can happen. There, “shortages of primary care physicians have led to long waits for appointments,” ACP says.
Moreover, ACP says “the demand for primary care in the United States is expected to grow at a rapid rate while the nation’s supply of primary care physicians for adults is dwindling and interest by U.S. medical school graduates in pursuing careers in primary care specialties is steadily declining.”
ACP says the shortage of primary care doctors presents a crisis situation. Primary care doctors provide more than half of “all ambulatory care visits, 80% of patient visits for hypertension, and 69% of visits for both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes,” ACP says, “yet they comprise only one-third of the U.S. physician workforce.” It adds: “If current trends continue, fewer than one out of five physicians will be in an adult primary care specialty.”
ACP cites a way out. It says: a "new report by the Council on Graduate Medical Education recommends that compensation to primary care physicians be increased to 70 percent of the average payment for other physician specialties in order to train and retain a sufficient supply of primary care physicians." Question is, will that work? And will it be enough?
Print Close URL
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/02/15/health-reform-missed-doctor-shortage/
-
Alaska governor says he won't enact federal health care law; says it would violate his oath
star tribune ^ | 2/17/11 | BECKY BOHRER
________________________ ________________________ __
JUNEAU, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell says he will not enact the federal health care overhaul after a judge in Florida struck down the law as unconstitutional.
Parnell considers that ruling the law of the land, barring implementation in the state. He said the state will pursue options of its own instead.
It's not completely clear what practical impact Parnell's unusual decision will have. Alaska has a state-run plan for residents previously denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. The law's main expansion is pending.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
-
WWWTTTFFF? ? ? ? ?
FFFF UUUUU BBBB OOOOO ! ! ! ! !
________________________ ___________-
Feb 17, 6:17 PM EST
Obama admin. asks judge to clarify health ruling
PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) -- The Justice Department is asking a federal judge in Florida to tell states that they must continue to enact the Obama administration's health care overhaul despite his ruling that the law is unconstitutional.
In a motion to clarify filed late Thursday, attorneys for the Obama administration asked U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to make clear that states cannot ignore the new health care laws while his ruling is being appealed.
Vinson ruled on Jan. 31 that President Barack Obama's entire health care overhaul law is unconstitutional. The broad challenge seems certain to be resolved only by the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit was filed by Florida and 25 other states.
© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
-
The Looming Failure of Obamacare, Part 1: Information
Feb. 10 2011 - 5:22 pm | 1,207 views | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
By WARREN MEYER
http://blogs.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/2011/02/10/the-looming-failure-of-obamacare-part-1-information
________________________ ______
In order to protect the core of Obamacare, Congressional Democrats have recently begun to acquiesce to a few incremental changes to the legislation that fix some of the most egregious parts of the plan (e.g. the burdensome 1099 requirements). The implicit message is that yes, the legislation was rushed and has some flaws, but these flaws can be fixed by targeted tweaks around the edges.
Today I will begin the first of a three-part series explaining several reasons why any health care law that relies on the fundamental assumptions of Obamacare is doomed to fail, even if crafted by the smartest people through the best process. In this first installment, we will discuss information problems inherent in the law’s top-down approach. In the second segment, we will cover incentives issues that will breed a myriad of unintended consequences. In the final part, we will discuss the ever-powerful urge to rent-seeking among certain businesses that will likely turn Obamacare into the largest single corporate welfare program in the history of this country.
In this critique, I will (mostly) avoid any discussion of ethics or Constitutionality. Rather, I want to focus on the economic and behavioral issues that will doom any such government health care program, irregardless of its intentions.
Information
The computer keyboard I am typing on right now costs about $55 on Amazon.com. Is that a fair price?
At some level, the answer must be “yes.” Why? Because I bought it – simple as that. No one was compelling me to buy this particular model, so if I thought the price too high or the features too skimpy, I would have just passed on the purchase. If I desperately wanted or needed a keyboard, I might have bought one of literally hundreds of others for sale at Amazon, priced from a low of $1.49 (used) to a high of $2400 (I kid you not). After shopping through the various options, I chose my keyboard as the best match, for me, of price and features.
For decades, this seemingly prosaic act of individual “shopping” has been steadily eroded in health care with the growth of third party payers, particularly Medicare. How much did you pay for you last doctor visit? Your last x-ray? Your last blood test? Believe it or not, it is still possible to price-shop medical care — I do it myself, because I have a high deductible health insurance plan under which I pay all but the most bankrupting bills out of pocket. As an example, three x-rays last month of my son’s ankle would have been billed to my insurance company at over $100, but I asked for their cash price and they pulled a separate book from a hidden place under the counter and quoted me $35. I got a 70+% discount merely for caring about the price.
But my health plan, which includes this seemingly positive incentive to shop, will soon be illegal as high-deductible insurance plans, as well as medical savings accounts, are effectively banned. Under Obamacare, virtually all individual payments for medical products and services will cease — the government and a few large, highly regulated insurers will pay for nearly every visit, drug, or procedure. The government will be making price-value trade-offs for our care, and they will be doing it incredibly imperfectly, because by eliminating individual shopping they have cut off a, excuse the pun, priceless source of information.
Recognize that the price discovery process is a two way street. Sellers can propose whatever prices they like, based on their expectations, or even fantasies, about how they should be compensated for their efforts. These prices mean nothing without the act of shopping, of consumers providing feedback on these prices, in effect voting with their pocketbook for the price-value combinations they personally find compelling.
But now with a single buyer (or one government buyer and a few government regulated insurance company buyers) the feedback loop of millions of customers testing and voting on prices and features goes away. The government will be presented with prices that are the demand, or even the fantasy, of individual sellers. Do they accept these rates, or set their own? How can they know the rate is fair?
Many of those in power have convinced themselves that a group of smart enough people can figure this out, but they can’t. It’s simply too complex. Perhaps a two-year study might arrive at the perfect pricing level for a particular set of market facts (I doubt it, but lets assume for a moment) – but we all know things change constantly. A prefect price for oil today is likely wrong tomorrow.
That is why the Congress argues every year over the “doc fix,” which is essentially a price setting exercise for doctor’s time. The question drags on inconclusively for years because there simply is no way for some folks in Washington to gather in a room and set one price for all doctor visits. Doctors vary individually in their productivity, their skills, and their compensation expectations. Consumers differ in how they like and dislike certain doctors, and what they value in the visit.
Think back to the keyboard I bought. The one I chose is pretty popular, so I assume some other people make keyboard trade-offs similar to mine. But even so, the keyboard I chose has only a tiny fraction of the total market. In other words, the vast majority of consumers made price-value-feature trade-offs differently than I do.
Given this range of preferences, how likely is it that a government panel will make price-value trade-offs the same way you might for yourself? I might be happy when the government decides that keyboards should all be exactly like mine and sell for $55, but what about the other 97% of consumers who preferred something else? One health care consumer may want a doctor to spend lots of time with her; another, like myself, might pay extra to get in and out as fast as possible with a minimum of waiting and chit chat. In this context, the hubris of setting single reimbursement rates is insane.
Consider the FDA, which bans drugs as untried or potentially not efficacious enough. These blanket bans might make sense for a healthy person for whom the risk or cost of using unproven medication can be high, but what about a woman who is already dying of cancer? What does it mean for her that a drug might be unsafe? Again, don’t mistakenly label this as government incompetence of heartlessness. Bureaucrats may indeed be incompetent or heartless, but even if they were angels with 200 IQ’s, the problem of centrally adjusting to 300 million different preferences is simply impossible.
And the cost of failure here is enormous. The wrong government-set doctor pricing that is slightly too high can add tens of billions of dollars to the Federal deficit and substantially increase costs over a free-market alternative. A doctor pricing that is slightly too low could drive tens of thousands of doctors out of the profession, leading to long waits and poor quality (which not coincidentally are endemic to socialized medicine schemes in other countries). And whatever the chosen price, consumer options are inevitably narrowed drastically.
Who would have thought all these problems result from banning the simple act of shopping? Centralizing the payments for health care prevents price-value trade-offs from being made where they belong, by individuals themselves looking after their own money and health.
Of course, there are other problems that occur when a third party payer system is put in place. Not only do we lose all the valuable information in the pricing system, but our incentives for how we consume are totally altered. But that is our next installment.
-
The Looming Failure of Obamacare, Part 2: Incentives
Feb. 17 2011 - 6:58 pm | 787 views | 0 recommendations | 0 comments
By WARREN MEYER
Last week, I discussed information problems that were fundamental to third-party payer health care systems like Obamacare. By eliminating the prosaic act of shopping, the government has cut themselves off from critical information about the preferences and tradeoffs made by three hundred million Americans. As a result, any attempts to set pricing top-down are doomed to failure, as evidenced by the impossibility of implementing the “doc fix” to change Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors.
But eliminating shopping, or the process of individuals making price-value-feature tradeoffs in purchasing medical care, has more downsides than just making pricing impossible. It also creates terrible incentives that have tended to push every single state health care system towards bankruptcy.
Incentives
In the late 1960s, as part of the Great Society program, the US government constructed huge government housing complexes, with the goal of guaranteeing that everyone, no matter how poor, would have access to housing. By the turn of the century, most of these complexes had succumbed to the wrecking ball – the era of large public housing complexes was over.
Why? Well, there were a lot of reasons the program failed, but a big one was faulty incentives. By getting free housing, recipients had no “skin in the game,” no ownership, no financial participation in their housing. As a result, many treated their taxpayer-funded abodes with contempt. Why not? They weren’t paying for it. And if the property was in good shape at the end of the lease, they didn’t get any extra money.
I often compare Obamacare to the great failed public housing projects by warning folks that government health care is going to be much worse. With the housing projects, we taxpayers paid large sums of money but only a few actually had to live in the horrible government apartments — at least most of us were able to keep our own homes. With Obamacare, it is going to cost us even more money, and we are all going to have to move, figuratively, into the projects.
If we are all forced to have the same, low deductible, first-dollar health plans, what incentive is one going to have to stay out of the health care system, even for something minor? What is to stop you from going to the doctor every day because you are hypochondriacal, or you are lonely, or bored, or just because you want to save on buying your own subscription to Highlights Magazine? The buffet will be open and everything will be essentially free – what’s to stop people from gorging themselves?
You might say that you are more responsible than that, and perhaps you are. But think about this: Twenty years ago we used to all complain about the 2 or 3 pieces of junk mail we might find a day in our mailbox. That was when the each piece of mail cost real money to send. Today, junk mail in the form of email is essentially free to send. How many pieces of junk mail do you get today? Even if you are not hitting the system up for free health care, you know someone else will be spamming the system, and eventually all of us as taxpayers will have to pay for it.
The only way to stop this behavior is for the government to create a department of “No” to head off this behavior — what Sarah Palin so famously called “Death Panels.” I already discussed why this centralization of making price-value health care tradeoffs can never have the information it needs to work. But another reason it is bound to fail is that politicians simply do not have the intestinal fortitude to say “no.”
It is a particular irony to me that perhaps the biggest source of disatisfaction with private insurance that likely drives support for Obamacare are the sometimes seemingly arbitrary decisions by private health insurers not to cover certain expenses. But if Obamacare is to be anything but a financial disaster, the government is going to have to say “no” at least as frequently as private insurers. I don’t think they are up to it.
In fact, the political pressure will be on the Administration to say “no” to voters, err consumers, less frequently, and then try to make up cost savings by beating on suppliers (doctors, drug-makers, device manufacturers) for larger discounts. And here we face what is perhaps the biggest incentive problem of them all — what happens to the incentive for drug makers to seek new cures or for doctors even to keep practicing when the government inevitably tries to balance budget deficits on their backs?
While I suppose we would all like to believe that politicians would never threaten future life-saving innovation or our kids’ ability to find a medical professional to close a near term budget hole, can you actually deny the possibility looking at how Congress and the Administration are approaching the current budget mess?
Look around the world today — not one country with a government health care system pays drug reimbursement rates at a level that provides any incentive for new drug development. In fact, almost all of the world’s health care R&D is paid for by Americans. What happens when politicians, trying to close an exploding health care spending hole in the Federal budget, do exactly what every other country in the world has done and use their power to drive drug prices down to marginal cost?
In fact, to be confident that there will continue to be health care innovation in the future at all, one has to believe that the US Government will act completely differenlty in running its government health care system than does every other government in the world, despite the fact it will have the incentives to behave identically to all of them. Is this a bet you feel good about?
Of course, there likely will be a few corporations and health care businesses that will be winners under Obamacare — those with the political muscle to get special treatment under the law. Rent-seeking will be the topic of my third installment next week.
-
House bans funding for healthcare reform law, Planned Parenthood
The Hill ^ | 2/18/2011 | Julian Pecquet
The House on Friday voted largely along party lines to prohibit funding for the healthcare reform law and eliminate funding for family planning.
In a quick succession of two-minute votes, the House adopted three amendments to their stop-gap budget bill that eliminate healthcare reform funding through the end of the fiscal year. The House also approved, 240-185, an amendment barring federal Title X family planning grants that was aimed squarely at Planned Parenthood.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
-
Obama Justice Department Appeals Judge's Health Care Ruling
Published April 03, 2011
Associated Press
ATLANTA -- The Obama administration has appealed a judge's ruling that found the federal overhaul of the health care system unconstitutional.
The Justice Department filed a 62-page motion Friday to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta that said there's clear and well-established precedent that Congress acted within its authority in adopting the overhaul. It said Congress mad "detailed findings establishing a foundation" for exercising the authority.
Florida and 25 other states filed the lawsuit that said Congress exceeded its authority by requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson agreed in a Jan. 31 ruling that said Obama's entire health care overhaul is unconstitutional. It is considered the most sweeping ruling against the health care law.
Some states, including Alaska, have cited the decision in refusing to cooperate with the health care law. But Vinson issued another ruling last week ordering states to continue implementing the law while the case makes its way through the courts.
Either way, the broad challenge seems certain to be resolved only by the Supreme Court. Two other U.S. district judges have previously upheld the law, both Democratic appointees to the federal bench.
Vinson's rulings have found that lawmakers do not have the power to penalize citizens for not doing something. But he has acknowledged that the 11th Circuit could disagree with him.
"It is likely that the Court of Appeals will also reach divergent results and that, as most court-watchers predict, the Supreme Court may eventually be split on this issue as well," he wrote in the March 3 ruling.
Other states that joined Florida in filing the lawsuit were: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/03/obama-justice-department-appeals-judges-health-care-ruling/
-
1200 waivers bitches.
-
Democrat in Missouri to Oppose Health Care Law
NY Times ^ | April 11, 2011 | A. G. SULZBERGER and KEVIN SACK
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Missouri’s Democratic attorney general broke with his party on Monday and urged a federal judge to invalidate the central provision of the new health care law.
The filing of the court brief by Attorney General Chris Koster, a onetime Republican state legislator who switched to the Democratic Party in 2007, underscores the act’s political tenuousness in a critical Midwestern swing state.
Mr. Koster’s action followed months of pressure from state Republicans that he join attorneys general from other states who are challenging the constitutionality of the law.
Rather than join the litigation, however, Mr. Koster chose to file a “friend of the court” brief, or legal argument, in the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, which is reviewing one of five challenges to the act that have moved into the midlevel appellate courts.
Three lower court judges have upheld the law, while two have ruled that its central provision — the requirement that most Americans obtain insurance — is unconstitutional.
The 11th Circuit is hearing a case filed in Pensacola, Fla., by Republican governors and attorneys general from 26 states. The federal district judge in that case, Roger Vinson, decreed that the entire health care act should be invalidated, but stayed his ruling until the Supreme Court...
--snip--
His central argument echoed those made by plaintiffs in a number of the lawsuits, but it was noteworthy coming from a Democrat. The only Democratic state official who has joined the litigation as a plaintiff, Attorney General Buddy Caldwell of Louisiana, switched to the Republican Party in February...
--snip--
Known as a Republican moderate, he became a Democrat just months before announcing his candidacy for attorney general, succeeding despite criticism of the move from both parties, including being pinned with the nickname “Koster the Imposter.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
-
I think Obama's reelection prospects are already in serious jeopardy, and if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court then his single best "accomplishment" as president will have fizzled. He'll definitely be done.
-
GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDER PROHIBITS STATE AGENCIES FROM IMPLEMENTING OBAMACARE
Idaho Governors Office ^ | April 20. 2011 | Mark Warbis
C.L. “Butch” Otter
GOVERNOR
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Jon Hanian
April 20, 2011 (208) 334-2100
11:028
GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDER PROHIBITS STATE AGENCIES FROM IMPLEMENTING OBAMACARE
(BOISE) – Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter issued an executive order today imposing a State prohibition on receiving federal funding for or otherwise implementing the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – often called “Obamacare.”
Executive Order 2011-03 uses portions of House Bill 298, a so-called “nullification bill” that was approved by the Legislature this year. The executive order directs State agencies not to establish new programs, promulgate rules or accept federal funding to implement Obamacare. It also bars State agencies from assisting federal agencies in implementing the law.
A copy of the executive order can be found here.
“The Legislature clearly wanted to send a message to the national government this session, expressing its frustration with Obamacare. I agree with the message and know the debate about Obamacare would be vastly different, if not completely unnecessary, if the national government adhered to the Tenth Amendment,” Governor Otter wrote in a three-page letter to Secretary of State Ben Ysursa, explaining his veto of House Bill 298, which sought to entirely “nullify” the federal law’s application in Idaho.
“I also agree with the Legislature and the sponsors of this bill that now is not the time to implement Obamacare. However, it is equally unacceptable to forego exploring viable state solutions to our healthcare needs and allowing the national government to assert more control over Idahoans,” the Governor wrote. A copy of his letter can be found here.
While Executive Order 2011-03 bars State agencies from implementing Obamacare, it does allow the Idaho departments of Insurance and Health and Welfare to continue developing a State health insurance exchange. The Governor said that would prevent the federal government from controlling the state’s insurance market by administering an exchange of its own in Idaho.
“I had worked in the health insurance field for over 30 years and applaud the Governor for allowing Idaho to remain in control and giving our citizens the reins for our own solution to healthcare reform,” Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Director Richard Armstrong said. “I am confident that Idaho’s expertise and can-do attitude will design an exchange that provides better access for families and employers, while also preserving the health insurance marketplace.”
Wayne Hoffman, executive director of the Idaho Freedom Foundation – which worked closely with legislative sponsors of House Bill 298 – said the executive order was a positive alternative.
“When we started the year, our No. 1 priority was to stop the operability of Obamacare in Idaho. The Governor’s executive order meets our objectives by using our language from House bills 117 and 298 to send a powerful message that the State of Idaho will not be a willing partner in the implementation of an unconstitutional federal law,” Hoffman said. “It is an important step in the right direction for Idaho and for freedom. We are grateful to the Governor for his action as well as the hard work of Senators Pearce, Fulcher, Vick and Nuxoll, and Representatives Barbieri and Boyle, on this issue.”
Senator Russ Fulcher of Meridian, one of the Senate cosponsors, also welcomed Governor Otter’s action.
“The intent of H298 was to lawfully discourage the implementation of Obamacare in Idaho,” he said. “To me it doesn’t matter if that happens through legislation or executive order. I am just thankful to have the Governor’s support on the issue.”
-
Appellate court set for health care review
By Bill Mears, CNN
May 9, 2011
(CNN) -- A federal court in Richmond, Virginia, is scheduled to conduct the nation's first appellate review of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul Tuesday, giving the controversial legislation a major legal test.
Federal judges across the country have been divided over the constitutionality of the law's "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties.
The law also mandates the expansion of Medicaid, the low-income health care program administered by the states.
The Supreme Court could be asked to take formal jurisdiction of one or more health care appeal by this fall and perhaps decide the matter by 2012, a presidential election year.
The three-judge appeals panel will hear two cases Tuesday, one filed by the state of Virginia and the other by private Liberty University, a Christian evangelical institution.
The Liberty University plaintiffs, among other things, contend the law would allow taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, a claim the Obama administration rejects.
Virginia state officials argue the Constitution's Commerce Clause does not give government the authority to force Americans to purchase a commercial product, like health insurance, that they may not want or need. The state equates 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.
The Justice Department counters that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not "choose" to participate in the health care market. Federal officials have cited 2008 figures of $43 billion in uncompensated costs from the millions of uninsured people who receive health services -- costs which are shifted to insurance companies and are passed on to consumers.
Appeals courts in Atlanta and Cincinnati are set to tackle the divisive issue next month.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/09/health.care.courts/index.html
-
This could really be the nail in the coffin for Obama and Congressional Democrats. If his signature, partisan piece of legislation is deemed unconstitutional on the eve of the election, he's toast.
Virginia AG Cuccinelli: Supreme Court Will Rule on Obamacare Before Elections
Tuesday, 10 May 2011 06:02 PM
By David A. Patten
The Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare initiative is on a collision course with the 2012 election calendar.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, speaking to the media after a hearing in Richmond, Va., on the latest legal challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, says the “most likely” target date for a Supreme Court ruling is June of 2012 — the precise point when the presidential race shifts into high gear.
“It will be teed up right when the fall of 2012 rolls around,” Cuccinelli said. “So the timing is kind of extraordinary — but not of our own making.”
One indication of the national significance of the ongoing legal challenges to Obamacare: Tea party protesters held a “Hands Off My Healthcare Rally” outside the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, where Cuccinelli and federal attorneys fielded questions from a three-judge panel looking into whether the individual mandate — the requirement that citizens either purchase insurance or pay a penalty — exceeds the federal government’s enumerated powers under the Constitution.
Some legal scholars had predicted the case would not reach the Supreme Court until 2013. And Cuccinelli received a setback last month when the Supreme Court announced it would wait for the case to work its way through the appellate courts before beginning deliberations.
The various lawsuits filed against the federal government have progressed rapidly, however. Cuccinelli concedes federal attorneys could delay the appellate process. But he doubts it could stall the plethora of lawsuits now aiming to block Obamacare.
“It’s only partially within their control . . . they can try to delay it somewhat in some cases, but the last count I knew of there were 31 cases running across the country, all at various points. By June 8, four of them will have been argued at the circuit court level, and the 2010 [Supreme Court] term isn’t even over yet,” Cuccinelli said.
“It strikes me as not terribly likely that this will get past the 2011-2012 term of the Supreme Court. It’s possible, but the odds are in favor of the next term,” he added.
If the Supreme Court were to void key provisions of the president’s primary legislative accomplishment during the heart of the 2012 election season, it would toss a serious monkey wrench into the president’s re-election campaign.
Cuccinelli credited the healthcare debate with having an “enormous, enormous” political impact on the midterms, which led to the broadest GOP landslide in nearly 70 years.
“It remains to be seen how big an impact it will have in 2012,” he added. “But it’s hard to imagine that the president, for whom this is the crowning achievement legislatively so far, wouldn’t see it have a great impact one way or the other.”
Cuccinelli’s remarks followed oral arguments presented Tuesday to the three-judge panel on the Fourth Circuit court. There are 13 judges on Virginia’s 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Eight are Democratic appointees, and five are Republican appointees. The three judges assigned to hear Virginia’s lawsuit at the appellate level were determined by random computer selection.
The luck of the draw wasn’t in Cuccinelli’s favor Tuesday. President Obama appointed two of the three judges assigned to hear the appeal. The third was appointed by former President Bill Clinton.
That didn’t appear to faze Cuccinelli, however. He knows the various lawsuits against Obamacare are headed for a Supreme Court review anyway.
“We really play with the cards we’re dealt, and make the best case we can,” he said. “These chips will fall where they may, and then we’ll be off to the Supreme Court.”
Cuccinelli expects the 4th Circuit Court to render its verdict on the case by June.
The appeal stems from a December 2010 ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson that Obamacare’s requirement that individuals must purchase healthcare “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”
In throwing out the individual mandate, Hudson allowed implementation of other aspects of healthcare reform to continue.
Cuccinelli wants the entire Affordable Care Act nixed, however, because the legislation lacked a severability clause, or language that specifies the remainder of the bill will take effect even if one part of it is struck down.
Federal attorneys, on the other hand, want the three-judge panel to throw out Cuccinelli’s lawsuit altogether, on the grounds that the state lacks the legal standing to challenge a federal law. Cuccinelli agrees that usually would be true. But when a law is unconstitutional, the supremacy of the federal government in law making no longer holds, he said.
The 4th Circuit panel also heard arguments Tuesday in a separate appeal related to Obamacare, brought by Liberty University.
In November 2010, U.S. District Judge Norman Moon dismissed Liberty University‘s legal challenge to Obamacare.
Moon ruled that not purchasing healthcare insurance represented an economic choice, and therefore could be regulated under the Commerce Clause of the constitution.
Cuccinelli said it was obvious from the judges’ questions Tuesday that they “struggled with the unprecedented nature” of the government’s argument that it has the right to regulate commerce — the purchase of insurance — that is not actually taking place.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
If the government had power to enact regulations forcing citizens to engage in economic activity, its authority would be “virtually unlimited,” said Cuccinelli.
“What we are fighting for is the system of limited government established by our Founding Fathers . . . even the president and the Congress must operate within the restrictions placed on them by the Constitution,” Cuccinelli said.
In January, another federal judge, Roger Vinson, issued a ruling in a Florida lawsuit that was joined by 25 other states.
Vinson declared that ObamaCare was unconstitutional, and struck down the entire law.
The Justice Department has appealed that ruling to the 11th Circuit Court, which is expected to rule on the case in June.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/supreme-court-obama-health/2011/05/10/id/395892
-
Groups Target Thomas' Wife's Work to Force Him to Sit Out High Court Rulings on Health Care
Published May 30, 2011
FoxNews.com
Eyeing a potential 5-4 decision on President Obama's Affordable Care health care reforms, some Democratic lawmakers are trying to pressure Justice Clarence Thomas to sit out any health care case that may come before the Supreme Court.
And in an added tack to influence the court's decision-making, one election watchdog has demanded an FBI probe of the justice over a 2010 campaign finance ruling.
The months-long efforts to target Thomas focus on his financial disclosure forms, of which amended versions were filed earlier this month and released publicly on Friday. In them, Thomas reveals that his wife, Ginni Thomas, received a salary in 2010 from Liberty Central, a group that she helped found and which supports the repeal of the health care law.
"We knew that Justice Thomas' family had a financial stake in opposing health care reform. Now we know even more," Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. "It's pretty clear the justice has one option here: recusal."
Ginni Thomas announced last fall that she was leaving Liberty Central, less than a year after its creation, to join Liberty Consulting. According to IRS documents released by Liberty Central, she earned $150,000 from the organization in 2010.
Thomas has also earned income from Hillsdale College and the Heritage Foundation, the latter being proof enough, Weiner argued, that the justice is unable to participate in the eventual cases to reach the court.
Defenders of Justice Thomas note that nothing in the ethics rules compels Thomas to report the sums his wife earned on his financial disclosures. They add that it's no secret where Ginni Thomas worked.
Supporters of Thomas also say the effort to remove the justice from the court is an attempt to extract rulings -- 4-4 decisions at the high court leave appellate court decisions in place -- that they may not otherwise get on a divided court.
"If there's anyone who needs to recuse themselves from the health care cases it's Elena Kagan," said Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network
Severino, a former clerk to Thomas, told FoxNews.com that the only "reasonable explanation" for the recent attacks on Thomas is fear that Justice Elena Kagan, former solicitor general for the Obama administration, is going to have to recuse herself from future health care cases before the court.
"I'm not sure she will need to recuse herself, either, but there's a lot of questions out there," she added. "Already we've seen that she was involved at a supervisory level with strategizing to defend this law."
Severino said just because a spouse has an opinion -- or even earns a living off a position that may be debated before the court -- doesn't mean a jurist loses impartiality. If Mrs. Thomas had filed a case or brief in the issue, or was involved in the case, that'd be one thing, Severino said. But that's not the case here.
"All of them have spouses and opinions. There has to be a rational stopping point for this kind of effort," she said.
At the same time that Democrats go after Thomas for his wife's interests, another group is using those same disclosure forms to argue that the justice should be investigated by the FBI.
ProtectOurElections.org, run by Kevin Zeese, argued in a letter sent last week to the FBI that Thomas deliberately excluded his wife's income over the past 20 years and "engaged in judicial corruption" by receiving $100,000 in support from Citizens United during his nomination in 1991.
The group alleges that Thomas then paid up on a quid pro quo 19 years later when the court voted in favor of Citizens United in a campaign finance ruling that enables corporations and unions to donate to candidates without naming its contributors.
"The Citizens United decision has a major impact on elections by allowing unlimited funding by corporations, and the Citizens United Foundation financial support shows a conflict of interest for Justice Thomas in a 5-4 decision," Zeese told FoxNews.com.
But Severino said that such an in-kind donation "is so absurd it's hard to even respond to such an exaggerated allegation."
"They are about 20 years too late," she said. "Frankly, most of these (charges) are so far-fetched that they almost don't merit a response."
ProtectOurElections.org also alleges that Thomas "conspired with his wife in a form of 'judicial insider trading' by providing her with information about the result of the court's decision in Citizens United prior to its issuance, which she then used to launch a new company to take financial advantage of that decision to benefit her and her husband."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/30/groups-target-thomas-wife-seek-ouster-high-court-rulings/
-
The nerve. >:(
Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money
Share Print By: Philip Klein 06/02/11
Senior editorial writer Follow Him @Philipaklein
President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.
Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center. (Listen to oral arguments here.) The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government's defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last month in Richmond. The Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself.
During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.
Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.
“They’re in the business,” Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”
Kaytal responded by noting that the there's a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.
“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”
Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”
The so-called “hardship exemption” in the health care law is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So earning less isn't necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold.
Throughout the oral arguments, Kaytal struggled to respond to the panel's concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something.
Sutton said it would it be “hard to see this limit” in Congressional power if the mandate is upheld, and he honed in on the word “regulate” in the Commerce clause, explaining that the word implies you're in a market. “You don’t put them in the market to regulate them,” he said.
In arguments before the Fourth Circuit last month, Kaytal also struggled with a judge's question about what to do with the word “regulate,” to the point where the judge asked him to sit down to come up with an answer. (More on that exchange here). Kaytal has fallen back on the Necessary and Proper clause, insisting that it gives broader leeway to Congress.
Judge James Graham, a Reagan district court appointee who is temporarily hearing cases on the appeals court, said, “I hear your arguments about the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and I’m having difficulty seeing how there is any limit to the power as you’re defining it.”
Kaytal responded by referencing United States v. Morrison, in which the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, and United States v. Lopez, which struck down gun free school zones. In those cases, Kaytal responded, the Supreme Court set the limit that the Commerce Clause had to regulate economic activities.
The health care market is unique, Kaytal insisted, because everybody will eventually participate. With the mandate, Kaytal said, “What Congress is regulating is not the failure to buy something. But failure to secure financing for something everyone is going to buy.”
Graham acknowledged Kaytal's arguments, yet reiterated that he was “having trouble seeing the limits.”
The problem with the “health care is unique” argument – and this is me talking – is that it just creates an opening for future Congresses to regulate all sorts of things by either a) arguing that a particular market is also special or b) finding a way to tie a given regulation to health care.
For instance, the example that's come up often is the idea of a law in which government forces individuals to eat broccoli.
During the Sixth Circuit argument, Kaytal said that such an example doesn't apply, because if you show up at a grocery store, nobody has to give you broccoli, whereas that is the case with health care and hospital emergency rooms.
Yet that argument assumes that Congress passes such a law as a regulation of the food market. What if the law was made as part of a regulation of the health care market? It isn't difficult to see where that argument can go.
The broccoli example is really a proxy for a broader argument about whether the government can compel individuals to engage in healthy behavior – it could just as well be eating salad, or exercising. There's no doubt that a huge driver of our nation's health care costs are illnesses linked to bad behavior. People who are overweight and out of shape cost more because they have increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and so on. Those increased costs get passed on to all of us, because government pays for nearly half of the nation's health care expenses, a number that's set to grow under the new health care law. Is it really unrealistic to believe that future Congresses, looking for ways to control health care costs, could compel healthy behavior in some way? More pertinently, is there any reason why that would be unconstiutional under the precedent that would be set if the individual mandate is upheld?
With most experts expecting the case to go before the Supreme Court, it seems the biggest obstacle for the Obama administration is figuring out where power would be limited if the mandate were upheld. Those challenging the law have made a clear and understandable limit by drawing a distinction between regulating activity and regulating inactivity (i.e. the decision not to purchase insurance). But simply saying the health care market is unique doesn't actually create a very clear or understandable limit to Congressional power.
The 11th Circuit hears the case next week brought by 26 states led by Florida.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/obama-solicitor-general-if-you-dont-mandate-earn-less-money
-
Typical of this disgusting admn.
-
Court Grills Government on Obamacare 'Mandate'
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/court-grills-government-obamacare-mandate ^ | June 8, 2011 | Kenric Ward |
Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2011 6:05:30 PM by sheikdetailfeather
A business plaintiff in the legal challenge to Obamacare said opponents had "a good day" at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal on Wednesday.
Presiding over a packed courtroom in Atlanta, a three-judge panel heard oral arguments from both sides over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
A coalition of 26 states, led by Florida and the National Federation of Independent Business, argued that the ACA's mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance was an unprecedented overreach of federal power.
Attorneys for the U.S. Justice Department countered that the program is constitutional, but they ran into skeptical inquiries from the panel.
(Excerpt) Read more at sunshinestatenews.com ...
-
US judges seem receptive to health care challenge
AP – Mike Griffith, of Canton, Ga., holds a sign during a protest against President Barack Obama's health …
By GREG BLUESTEIN, Associated Press Greg Bluestein, Associated Press – 17 mins ago
ATLANTA – Judges on a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday repeatedly raised questions about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, expressing unease with the requirement that virtually all Americans carry health insurance or face penalties.
All three judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel questioned whether upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.
The Atlanta panel did not immediately rule on the lawsuit brought by 26 states, a coalition of small businesses and private individuals who urged the three to side with a federal judge in Florida who struck down the law.
But the pointed questions about the so-called individual mandate during almost three hours of oral arguments suggests the appeals court panel is considering whether to rule against at least part of the federal law to expand health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans.
Federal appeals courts in Cincinnati and Richmond have both heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law within the last month, and lawyers on both sides agree the case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
At issue Wednesday was a ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Florida to invalidate the entire law, from the Medicare expansion to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' insurance. The government contends that the law falls within its powers to regulate interstate commerce.
Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was tapped by Republican President George H.W. Bush, struck early by asking the government's attorney "if we uphold the individual mandate in this case, are there any limits on Congressional power?" Circuit Judges Frank Hull and Stanley Marcus, who were tapped by Democratic President Bill Clinton, echoed his concerns later in the hearing.
Acting U.S. Solicitor Neal Katyal sought to ease their concerns by saying the legislative branch can only exercise its powers to regulate commerce if it will have a substantial effect on the economy and solve a national, not local, problem. Health care coverage, he said, is unique because of the billions of dollars shifted in the economy when Americans without coverage seek medical care.
"That's what stops the slippery slope," he said.
Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor representing the states, countered that the federal government should not have the power to compel residents to buy to engage in commercial transactions. "This is the case that crosses the line," he said.
Hull also seemed skeptical about the government's claim that the mandate was crucial to covering most of the 50 million or so uninsured Americans. She said the rolls of the uninsured could be pared significantly through other parts of the package, including expanded Medicare discounts for some seniors and a change that makes it easier for those with pre-existing medical conditions to get coverage. Dubina nodded as she spoke.
The appeals court panel, which did not indicate when it would rule, has several options. But Hull and Dubina asked the lawyers on both sides to focus on a particular outcome: What could happen to the overhaul, they asked separately, if the individual mandate were invalidated but the rest of the package were upheld?
Parts of the overall law should still survive, said government lawyer Katyal, but he warned the judges they'd make a "deep, deep mistake" if the insurance requirement were found to be unconstitutional. He said Congress had the right to regulate what uninsured Americans must buy because they shift $43 billion each year in medical costs to other taxpayers.
Clement, however, argued that the insurance requirement is the "driving force" of the broader package, which he said violates the Constitution's legitimate authority. Without it, he said, the rest of the package should collapse.
"If you take out the hub, the spokes will fall," Clement said.
Marcus, meanwhile, said the case struck him as an argument over individual liberties, but questioned whether the judicial branch should "stop at the water's edge" or intervene.
So far, three Democratic-appointed federal judges have upheld the health care law and two Republican-appointed judges, including Vinson, have ruled against it.
Wednesday's arguments unfolded in what's considered one of the nation's most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel represents different judicial perspectives. None of the three are considered either stalwart conservatives or unfailing liberals.
Dubina, who came to the bench as a federal magistrate in 1983, is not considered to be as reflexively conservative as some of his colleagues. But he's under particular scrutiny because of his daughter's outspoken opposition to the health care overhaul. U.S. Rep. Martha Dubina Roby, a Montgomery, Ala., Republican elected in November, voted to repeal the health care ban because she said it was "less about providing health care for all citizens, and more about expanding federal government."
Marcus was nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Florida bench after several years as Miami's lead federal prosecutor; he was later elevated by Clinton. And Hull, a former county judge in Atlanta, is known for subjecting both sides of the counsel table with challenging questions.
A crush of people gathered outside the 11th Circuit nearly three hours before the arguments were held to guarantee a spot, and the court opened an adjoining courtroom for the spillover crowd. The cramped room was packed with high-profile attorneys and politicians, including Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens, who sat in the front row. In a rare move, the court decided to sell $26 audiotapes of the arguments for those who missed out.
As the arguments took place, about 75 people staged a rally outside the downtown Atlanta building urging the appeals court to strike the law down, waving signs including one that read "Hands Off My Health Care."
___
Bluestein can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/bluestein
________________________ __________________-
Hoax & Chains
-
Hoax & Chains
lol :)
-
Healthcare overhaul fight in pivotal Atlanta court
By The Associated Press
http://www2.alabamas13.com/news/2011/jun/08/3/healthcare-overhaul-fight-pivotal-atlanta-court-ar-1944861
ATLANTA (AP) - The latest round in the fight over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul was held Wednesday in the federal appeals court in Atlanta.
A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on whether to reverse a Florida judge's ruling that struck down the law. The judges seemed receptive to arguments from critics challenging the health reforms as unconstitutional during the three-hour hearing.
Some 26 states opposing the law and an alliance of small businesses argue that Congress didn't have the power to require virtually all Americans to maintain health insurance. The Justice Department says the legislative branch exercised its "quintessential" right.
A three-judge federal appeals court panel in Cincinnati heard arguments last week about whether the law's mandate to buy health insurance went beyond congressional authority, and a federal appeals court based in Richmond, Va. heard oral arguments May 10 in another legal challenge to the law.
Lawyers on both sides have said the cases ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. But the appeal court panel's decision in Atlanta is being closely watched and could help shape the debate.
There's considerable legal firepower on both sides of the argument. Former U.S. Solicitor Paul Clement represents the challenging states and current U.S. Solicitor Neal Katyal will speak for the government.
It unfolded in what's considered one of the nation's most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel includes two appointees of Democratic President Bill Clinton, and observers say it's hard to predict how they'll decide. The Clinton appointees are circuit Judges Frank Hull and Stanley Marcus, while Chief Judge Joel Dubina was tapped by President George H.W. Bush.
Two similar lawsuits are pending in Virginia. Three federal judges, all Democratic appointees, have upheld the law. Two federal judges, both Republican appointees, have invalidated it.
At issue Wednesday is a ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, a Republican-appointed judge in Florida. It not only struck down a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, but it threw out other provisions ranging from Medicare discounts for some seniors to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' coverage.
A crush of people gathered outside the 11th Circuit nearly three hours before the arguments were held to guarantee a spot, and the court opened an adjoining courtroom for the spillover crowd. The courtroom was packed with high-profile attorneys and politicians, including Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens, who sat in the front row.
The court also decided to temporarily suspend some of its own rules to sell $26 audiotapes of the arguments to those who want recordings of the court sessions.
Outside the federal courthouse in Atlanta, about 75 people gathered on the sidewalk carrying signs ranging from "Hands off my health care" to "No taxpayer funded abortion" and "Throw the socialist out of the White House." No chanting was permitted. One woman who repeated "No more Tea Party" was escorted away by a courthouse security officer.
-
Judges sharply challenge healthcare law
LA Times ^ | June 8, 2011 | David G. Savage
________________________ ________________________ ____
A top Obama administration lawyer defending last year's healthcare law ran into skeptical questions Wednesday from three federal judges here, who suggested they may be ready to declare all or part of the law unconstitutional.
And in an ominous sign for the administration, the judges opened the arguments by saying they knew of no case in American history where the courts had upheld the government's power to force someone to buy a product.
"I can't find any case like this," said Chief Judge Joel Dubina of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. "If we uphold this, are there any limits" on the power of the federal government? he asked.
Judge Stanley Marcus appeared to agree. "I can't find any case" in the past where the courts upheld "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market…. Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?"
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
-
"I can't find any case like this," said Chief Judge Joel Dubina of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. "If we uphold this, are there any limits" on the power of the federal government? he asked.
Judge Stanley Marcus appeared to agree. "I can't find any case" in the past where the courts upheld "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market…. Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?"
Finally, the court needs to slap the federal government back to reality with this power grab
-
I cant wait till the day I get to rub this pofs bill in every obots face as being declared unconstitutional.
-
I cant wait till the day I get to rub this pofs bill in every obots face as being declared unconstitutional.
They need to order that this piece of crap stop being implemented until a decision is rendered. We saw the last judge didn't specifically say that they had to stop, even though being unconstitutional would seem to imply that.
-
By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR.
AND LEE A. CASEY
When we first articulated ObamaCare's fundamental constitutional flaws in these pages nearly two years ago, our objections were met with derision by the law's defenders. Those who have been following the unfolding litigation are no longer laughing.
Three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are poised to render decisions on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the coming months. Despite hundreds of briefing pages and numerous oral arguments, government lawyers have yet to address the law's most basic constitutional infirmity. Only a "general police power"—the right to enact laws alleged to be in the public interest without regard to interstate commerce or some other federal legislative authority—can support the law's centerpiece, the "individual mandate" that all Americans purchase health insurance. The Constitution denies that power to the federal government, reserving it to the states alone.
In enacting the individual mandate, Congress purported to rely on its power to regulate interstate commerce and, in the process, reach individuals who are already engaged in that commerce. But the individual mandate does not regulate commerce, interstate or otherwise. It simply decrees that all Americans, unless specially exempted, must have a congressionally prescribed level of health-insurance coverage regardless of any economic activity in which they may be engaged. Requiring individuals to act simply because they exist is the defining aspect of the general police power that Congress lacks.
The government's lawyers, recognizing this fundamental constitutional reality, have tried to rewrite the law so that it can withstand judicial scrutiny. They have claimed that the individual mandate is a tax, despite common sense, judicial precedent, and numerous statements to the contrary by the law's sponsors and President Obama. They have also argued that ObamaCare does not actually impose a mandate on inactive citizens, but rather regulates how individuals will pay for their health care. As Solicitor General Neal Katyal recently put it, the mandate is "about failure to pay, not failure to buy." This is plainly wrong. The law requires that everyone have health insurance—without regard to whether or how they buy or pay for medical services.
Congress, of course, could regulate how actual, not hypothetical, health care is bought or paid for. There are also ways in which Congress could, constitutionally, achieve the near-universal health-care coverage it sought by passing ObamaCare. Most directly, it could raise taxes to pay for universal coverage. But this option would carry far higher political costs than the scheme Congress actually adopted, which effectively shifts the costs (and ultimately the inevitable need to raise taxes) to the states.
That's why ObamaCare is so constitutionally pernicious. Our Framers adopted a dual-sovereignty architecture, dividing powers between the national government and the states. As Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy explained in United States v. Lopez (1995), this division achieves two goals. It protects individual liberty, and it ensures that voters can identify which level of government is responsible for what policies so that a proper accounting can be made at the ballot box.
Consistent with the fundamental principle that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers, more than 220 years of case law requires that exercises of the commerce power be grounded in a meaningful, judicially enforceable, limiting principle. ObamaCare's defenders can't articulate such a principle.
They began with the claim that there was no difference between activity and inactivity, since both involved decisions, and thus could be reached under the commerce power. Having largely abandoned this unwinnable argument, they now claim that the mandate does not really compel individuals to buy insurance, but merely regulates their inevitable future health-care consumption.
But because the future consumption of nearly all existing goods and services is inevitable across the entire population, this argument means that Americans can then be compelled to purchase an infinite variety of goods and services chosen by Washington. Far from limiting what government can do, this is the ultimate enabling principle. Even Soviet apparatchiks, who told producers what to make, did not dare tell people what to buy.
ObamaCare's defenders have sought to manufacture another limiting principle. They claim that health care is unique because everyone will use medical services, health-care costs can be financially ruinous for uninsured individuals, and others will then have to pick up the slack by subsidizing consumers who do not pay their medical bills. Yet any number of national markets, including the housing market, share these same characteristics.
Thus the administration's position comes to this: What is one unconstitutional law, more or less, among friends? Health care is simply more important than any other issue. And Congress can be trusted to act responsibly, imposing purchase mandates only when they are essential. That's why Congress can mandate medical insurance but would never require Americans to buy broccoli. The courts have always found such promises constitutionally insufficient.
The courts will also see through claims by ObamaCare supporters that the law's opponents are trying to "re-litigate" the New Deal. The New Deal is not at issue. Both before and after the Supreme Court accepted the constitutionality of federal economic regulations in the late 1930s, it has consistently stated that there are limits on federal power and, in particular, on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. It has upheld those limits in a number of cases, making clear that federal regulation cannot reach into areas too remote from legitimate federal concerns.
If ObamaCare is to be upheld, then the Supreme Court will have to abandon these precedents, along with the plain meaning of the Constitution. It will also have to concede that our federal system is in fact not one of divided authority between federal and state governments, but one in which the states merely act as Washington's administrative enforcers. There is every reason to believe the court would never entertain such a notion.
Messrs. Rivkin and Casey served in the Justice Department in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. They represent 26 states in one of the lawsuits challenging ObamaCare's constitutionality.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303714704576383443814815916.html
________________________ ____
Cant wait till obama gets his ass handed to him on this.
-
Federal appeals court rules health care reform bill is constitutional
From Bill Mears, CNN
June 29, 2011
Washington (CNN) -- The political and legal future of the sweeping health care reform bill received a big boost Wednesday after a federal appeals court in Cincinnati ruled in favor of the Obama administration and Congress, concluding a key provision in the landmark legislation was constitutional.
The "individual mandate" requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties -- was challenged in federal courts by a large number of individuals and groups, who said people should not be forced to purchase a product like medical coverage. A partially divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit disagreed.
"We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause," said the three-judge panel on Wednesday, in a 64-page opinion.
Federal court expresses concern over health care reform law
The opinion is the first of three rulings that will emerge from federal appeals courts around the country in the coming weeks over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The issue is almost certain to eventually reach the Supreme Court, perhaps by year's end. More than two dozen other legal challenges to the law are floating in lower federal courts.
Toobin: Fight over health care law will end up at Supreme Court
The health care reform act was passed by the Democratic Congress last year, and championed by President Barack Obama.
A key part of the ruling was written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a President George W. Bush appointee and considered a conservative on the court. He said the health care field is different from other streams of "commerce."
"Regulating how citizens pay for what they already receive (health care), never quite know when they will need, and in the case of severe illnesses or emergencies generally will not be able to afford, has few (if any) parallels in modern life. Not every intrusive law is an unconstitutionally intrusive law," he said. "Time assuredly will bring to light the policy strengths and weaknesses of using the individual mandate as part of this national legislation, allowing the peoples' political representatives, rather than their judges, to have the primary say over its utility."
Sutton added, "The government has the better of the arguments." He was supported by Judge Boyce Martin -- who is considered a liberal and was named to the bench by President Jimmy Carter. He turned aside the argument by opponents of the law that economic "inactivity" cannot be regulated by the national legislature.
"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," he said. "The provision regulates active participation in the health care market, and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity."
Judge James Graham -- a Reagan appointee -- agreed with most of the opinion but expressed some concern that Congress could go too far in other economic arenas, under limits imposed by the Constitution's commerce and spending clauses.
"If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress's Commerce Clause authority would be. What aspect of human activity would escape federal power?" he asked. "Such a power feels very much like the general police power that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and the people. A structural shift of that magnitude can be accomplished legitimately only through constitutional amendment."
Various state and private challenges to the law are also before federal appeals courts in Atlanta and Richmond, Virginia.
Another challenged provision mandates expansion of Medicaid, the low-income health program administered by the states.
Supreme Court won't jump into health care fray -- for now
The high court could be asked this fall to take formal jurisdiction over one or more health care appeals, and it could decide the matter perhaps by 2012, a presidential election year.
The issue could ultimately turn on whether forgoing medical insurance or coverage represents economic "activity," an area long considered proper for congressional oversight in interstate commerce. Opponents, including more than two dozen states, argue it is not.
The Justice Department countered that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not "choose" to participate in the health care market. Federal officials cite 2008 figures of $43 billion in uncompensated costs from the millions of uninsured people who receive health services, costs that are shifted to insurance companies and passed on to consumers.
CNN poll: Majority oppose individual mandate
In the case before the 6th Circuit, four individual plaintiffs from Michigan say the government has no business interfering with their individual health care decisions.
The court's ruling would technically affect only those states covered by the 6th Circuit: Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. But it would help set the tone for other courts considering similar issues.
The Obama administration applauded the ruling.
"We will continue to vigorously defend the health care reform statute in any litigation challenging it," said a Justice Department statement. "Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed. We believe these challenges to health reform will also fail."
One pressing concern is whether parts of the law already in effect can continue to be enforced. Those sections currently being administered include small business tax credits, federal grants and consumer protection measures. The federal government wants to know whether these provisions can continue while the issue is under appeal, particularly in the 28 states that have filed suit.
Other questions that could prompt a high court review include:
-- If one provision of the law is found unconstitutional, does the entire act become invalidated?
-- Should employers be forced to provide some level of health insurance to their workers?
-- Can religious, moral, and other objections to the law be considered?
-- Do states and private groups have "standing," or legal authority to bring their claims, or is congressional taxing authority ultimately exempt from such lawsuits?
Oklahoma and a range of private groups have also filed separate legal challenges that are concurrently working their way through federal courts around the country.
The Affordable Care Act has about 450 components, placing a number of new or revised regulations on states, private insurance companies, employers and individuals.
Federal judges in Florida and Virginia in recent months found parts of the law unconstitutional, while colleagues in Michigan and Virginia upheld the provisions.
Federal judge tosses out health care reform act
Health care reform, a top Democratic priority since the Truman administration, was passed by the last Congress in a series of virtually party-line votes. Obama signed the act into law in March 2010. The law is widely considered to be the signature legislative accomplishment of the president's first two years in office.
Among other things, the measure was designed to help millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans receive adequate and affordable health care through a series of government-imposed mandates and subsidies. The federal government stated in court briefs that 45 million Americans last year were without health insurance, roughly 15 percent of the country's population.
Analysis: Health care repeal will cost $230 billion
Critics have equated the measure to socialized medicine, fearing a bloated government bureaucracy will result in higher taxes and diminished health care services. About two dozen challenges have been filed in federal courts nationwide.
Opponents derisively labeled the measure "Obamacare." Republican leaders, who captured the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, have vowed to overturn or severely trim the law.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/29/health.care.appeal/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
-
Absurd ruling.
-
Absurd ruling.
That is putting it mildly, I don't know what fucking constitution they are reading but it isn't the US constitution. This BS never ceases to amaze me. The commerce clause has been posted here before and gives the congress no such power. Fucking ridiculous.
-
Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law
1:18pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/12/us-usa-healthcare-idUSTRE77B4J320110812
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.
The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.
The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.
(Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky and James Vicini, editing by Will Dunham)
________________________ ________________________ ___
Great news!!!!
FUBO!!!!
:)
-
I bet they try and push this past the election, while encouraging the release of the Osama movie before the election.
White House Faces Political Dilemma on Health Law Challenge
By Jim Angle
Published August 19, 2011
FoxNews.com
AP2011
(http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Politics/396/223/obama%20wipes%20brow_081511.jpg)
President Obama wipes his brow as he speaks during a town hall meeting at Lower Hannah's Bend Park in Cannon Falls, Minn., Monday, Aug. 15, 2011.
The Obama administration now faces a key legal and political dilemma -- what to do about the recent decision from a federal appeals court that said the new law's mandate that every uninsured American must buy health insurance is unconstitutional.
Many political analysts think the White House will try to delay Supreme Court consideration as long as possible.
"They definitely don't want to see it go to the Supreme Court until after the elections,” said Kirsten Powers, a former Democratic operative and a Fox News analyst. “So my expectation is they would do whatever they can to slow walk this so that this does not get to the Supreme Court where possibly the individual mandate could be struck down which would be very damaging for the administration."
There is no doubt the health care law is headed for the Supreme Court -- the only question is when. The recent decision by a panel of judges from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta is only the broadest challenge to the law, brought by 26 states and the nation’s largest association of small business owners. But there are multiple, conflicting appellate court rulings and huge stakes for the case.
"This is the most important constitutional cases of the decade, " said Greg Katsas, one of many lawyers challenging the new law. "You have two conflicting opinions, and you have one Court of Appeals striking down a federal statute. Either of those makes the case appropriate for Supreme Court review."
The 11th Circuit only invalidated the individual mandate, arguing Congress did not have the power to force people to buy insurance or any other product. As far as the rest of the health care law is concerned, its ruling only said Congress did have the power to create the other provisions.
But would they work without the individual mandate? Neither the president nor the critics think it would and that's one reason the administration may want to avoid an early Supreme Court decision.
"Regardless of whether the courts ultimately strike down the entire law, if they strike down the individual mandate as unconstitutional, the reform doesn't hang together and ultimately Congress will have to rework it in its entirety," said former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin.
The president seems to agree, arguing on the campaign trail in Minnesota this week that the new law could not work without the individual mandate.
"If an insurance company has to take you, has to insure you, even if you're sick," the president explained, "but you don't have an individual mandate, then what would everybody do? They would wait until they get sick, and then you'd buy health insurance, right?"
"You can't not have health insurance," the president continued, "then go to the emergency room, and each of us, who've done the responsible thing and have health insurance, suddenly we now have to pay the premiums for you. That's not fair."
So one might think the president has some interest in getting a quick decision from the Supreme Court.
But most analysts believe the White House will try to delay a decision as long as it can-- first, by asking the full appeals court to rehear the case, which could postpone a final decision there for months. Then, the administration could take the maximum time to request Supreme Court consideration, hoping to push a final decision past the 2012 election.
"It's not a politically-winning issue for them," Powers said. "All anybody cares about right now are jobs and economic growth and they don’t want to be reminded about health care."
So the administration's strategy may be to postpone final judgment until after the election, and save the president potential embarrassment, but one of the lawyers challenging the law says the country deserves to know sooner rather than later.
"People have to invest millions if not billions of dollars in revamping the Medicaid program, re-designing health insurance programs, saving for the mandate,” said Katsas said. “All of those sorts of decisions have to be made now by people who need to know what the rules are."
So an early decision would prevent money from being squandered if the law were eventually struck down after all that spending. And that is a judgment the president may be reluctant to face while running for reelection.
"That would be a major blow in the middle of a campaign season where they would have to then ... re-litigate the whole healthcare debate in a way that they just don’t want to," Powers said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/19/white-house-faces-political-dilemma-on-health-law-challenge/
-
Looking for Limits (Obamacare precedent would give U.S. government unlimited power over population)
Reason ^ | 2011-08-17 | Jacob Sullum
Posted on August 19, 2011 8:01:32 PM EDT by rabscuttle385
The power to mandate health insurance is the power to mandate almost anything.
(snip)
Under our system of government....Congress has only those powers that are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, with the rest "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"....An all-encompassing Commerce Clause that authorizes any mandate, restriction, or prohibition aimed at behavior that might affect interstate commerce (subject to specific limits such as those imposed by the Bill of Rights) is plainly inconsistent with this federal system.
he Obama administration therefore needs to explain why its constitutional rationale for the health insurance mandate—that the failure to obtain medical coverage, in the aggregate, has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce—does not amount to such an open-ended license...
(snip)
...if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the unprecedented policy of mandating purchases in the name of regulating interstate commerce, future Congresses could decide there are sound reasons to make people buy other forms of insurance (to prevent cost shifting), exercise equipment (to reduce health care costs), double-pane windows (to conserve energy), or American cars (to stimulate the economy and support domestic manufacturers).
"Every day," the 11th Circuit observed, "Americans decide what products to buy, where to invest or save, and how to pay for future contingencies such as their retirement, their children's education, and their health care. The government contends that embedded in the Commerce Clause is the power to override these ordinary decisions and redirect those funds to other purposes."
Given the potential for wide-ranging controls over heretofore private decisions, you can see why this debate is not simply about arcane legal doctrines or arbitrary distinctions between state and federal powers. "While these structural limitations are often discussed in terms of federalism," the appeals court noted, "their ultimate goal is the protection of individual liberty."
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Obamacare is already on its deathbed
Washington Examiner ^ | Mon Aug 22, 2011 | Conn Carroll
Posted on August 22, 2011 5:42:40 AM EDT by markomalley
When the United States Supreme Court examines the individual-mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act sometime next spring, it will undoubtedly give great weight to the text of the United States Constitution and relevant Commerce Clause case law.
But, whether or not any justice will ever admit it, some on the court may be hesitant to invalidate the new law because of the significant strain it would place on an already divided Congress.
These worries are misplaced. Obamacare is already a very sick patient whose symptoms will inevitably require major action by Congress. A Supreme Court decision invalidating some, or all, of the law would only hasten the inevitable.
The signs that Obamacare was never long for this world began to appear soon after the bill became law last spring. Reports began leaking about large employers securing waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Seems many firms were considering dropping their insurance plans since their policies didn't meet the new law's minimum annual benefit requirements. Almost 1,500 waivers have been granted since then, covering more than 3.2 million Americans.
Obamacare's next blow came in December when Congress needed money to prevent Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors from falling by almost 30 percent.
Earlier versions of Obamacare had included a permanent fix for the doctor reimbursement issue, but the provision was stricken from the final bill because Democrats were unwilling to reduce spending elsewhere in the federal budget in order to pay for it.
The $19 billion Congress used to pay for the one-year fix in December came from increased penalties on consumers whose eligibility for Obamacare health insurance subsidies decreases midyear because of income fluctuations.
Then in May this year, Congress increased the Obamacare health exchange subsidy penalties by another $19 billion. This time Congress had to pay for the repeal of the law's 1099 provision, which would have required small-business owners to file tax-reporting documents for almost all of their vendors.
Fast-forward to Aug. 12, when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found Obamacare's individual mandate unconstitutional. That same day, the Treasury Department issued new regulations rendering millions of Americans ineligible for health insurance subsidies based on a technical definition of "affordable."
Judy Solomon of the liberal Center for Budget Priorities think tank said, "The proposed rule would mean that many spouses and dependents who are uninsured today because they can't afford family coverage would remain uninsured in 2014."
Treasury promised to mitigate the problem by exempting affected families from the law's insurance mandate. But while these families might not have to pay penalties for violating the mandate, they still have to cope with an insurance market where premiums will be much higher because of Obamacare's other insurance regulations.
Congress will have to find some way to help these families. Congress must also find a long-term solution to the Medicare reimbursement problem. Not to mention the impending backlash from the millions of Americans who will be forced to pay $38 billion in health exchange fines just because they managed to get a raise.
And we haven't even touched the inevitable controversy and litigation that will come when the Independent Payment Advisory Board begins making cuts to Medicare and refusing to reimburse providers for selected procedures.
Obamacare has never been popular. It debuted with a barely 50 percent favorable rating, which sunk to the low 40s by the time it passed, and stands in the high 30s today.
The law is unmanageable, unsustainable, unpopular and, according to the 11th Circuit, unconstitutional. If the justices on the Supreme Court have any sense of mercy, they will officially put the law out of its misery and invalidate the entire law.
-
Appeals Court Dismisses Virginia's Challenge to Obama Health Care Law
Published September 08, 2011
FoxNews.com
A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected Virginia's challenge to President Obama's health care law, saying in a ruling that the state doesn't have a right to bring a lawsuit.
The unanimous decision from the three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a lower court's decision to declare the law unconstitutional and is the second appellate court ruling in favor of the government's right to require individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.
But the court on Thursday stopped short of ruling whether the individual mandate in the health care law is constitutional; it strictly examined Virginia's right to sue.
The court also dismissed a second lawsuit from Liberty University for the same reason.
The Supreme Court will likely have the final say on the health care law after more than 30 lawsuits were filed and contradictory rulings were issued from appellate courts in other parts of the country. Last month, an appeals court in Atlanta ruled against the law, saying the provision to buy health care insurance is unconstitutional. But an appeals court in Cincinnati has upheld the law.
Virginia filed its lawsuit in March 2010, the same day that Obama signed the legislation. The following day, the state passed its own law, known as the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act (VHCFA), declaring that individuals cannot be forced to buy health insurance and sued on that basis.
But the court ruled Thursday that the VHCFA does not create the kind of conflict that allows for a challenge in federal court.
"The individual mandate in the health care law does not affect Virginia's ability to enforce VHCFA," the court opined. "Rather, the Constitution itself withholds from Virginia the power to enforce VHCFA against the federal government."
All three judges on the Virginia panel were appointed by Democratic presidents -- two by Obama and one by Bill Clinton.
White House senior adviser Stephanie Cutter hailed the decision as "another victory for the Affordable Care Act and the tens of millions of Americans already benefiting from this landmark law."
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli vowed to appeal the ruling.
"Obviously, we are disappointed in the ruling," he said. "Our disappointment not only stems from the fact that the court ruled against us, but also that the court did not even reach the merits on the key question of Virginia's lawsuit -- whether Congress has a power never before recognized in American history: the power to force one citizen to purchase a good or service from another citizen."
Stephen Presser, a law professor at Northwestern University, called the ruling a "highly technical decision."
"This decision might well be questionable, but the court did note that important constitutional issues were involved, and even the court conceded that those issues should be resolved in an appropriate forum," he said.
"This is a further indication that the United States Supreme Court should soon resolve this issue, now that both the district courts and the court of appeals have issued contradictory decisions both on the standing and substantive issues," he said.
Elizabeth Wydra, the chief counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, said that Thursday's decision is a "clear indication" that the challenges from Virginia and Liberty University to the law were a "flawed vehicle for debating this important law."
"The procedural obstacles that the plaintiffs tried to hurdle in bringing these cases in the first place show their challenges to be far more about politics than constitutional law," she said.
Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute said the ruling doesn't affect any other case and should only speed up the Supreme Court's consideration of the case.
"All of the constitutional issues attending the individual mandate have now been exhaustively ruled upon by three federal appellate courts in four separate cases," Shapiro said. "While the D.C. Circuit will hear argument in yet another suit later this month, there's no reason for the Supreme Court to delay its review.
"As President Obama unveils yet another plant to stimulate job creation, it's time to finally put an end to the uncertainty over the fate of his most economically damaging piece of legislation."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/08/appeals-court-dismisses-virginias-challenge-to-obamacare/
-
Obama appointed judges - what a surprise!
-
Obama appointed judges - what a surprise!
How do you know this?
-
How do you know this?
I read the articles on this. 3 were appointed by the black plague Obama.
-
I read the articles on this. 3 were appointed by the black plague Obama.
Article says two by Obama, one by Clinton:
"All three judges on the Virginia panel were appointed by Democratic presidents -- two by Obama and one by Bill Clinton."
-
Article says two by Obama, one by Clinton:
"All three judges on the Virginia panel were appointed by Democratic presidents -- two by Obama and one by Bill Clinton."
My mistake, as if it makes a difference. Libs always try to expand state power over the citizen.
-
My mistake, as if it makes a difference. Libs always try to expand state power over the citizen.
Seriously... this is a Lib thing? Come on... You know the Cons do the exact same thing.
Name ONE President in the past 30 years who has shrunk state power?
-
Seriously... this is a Lib thing? Come on... You know the Cons do the exact same thing.
Name ONE President in the past 30 years who has shrunk state power?
not on economic issues like this.
-
not on economic issues like this.
It's all economic... because it's always about "money".
-
It's all economic... because it's always about "money".
Demo Judges are the ones upholding the mandate.
-
Demo Judges are the ones upholding the mandate.
I think they are shitty for doing so, but is it any worse than a Repub judge automatically saying how evil it is?
I don't personally agree with it, but I do understand that every single Republican Judge can't think it's completely horrible... There has to be some party lines there.
-
I think they are shitty for doing so, but is it any worse than a Repub judge automatically saying how evil it is?
I don't personally agree with it, but I do understand that every single Republican Judge can't think it's completely horrible... There has to be some party lines there.
I wish it were not that way. The idea that the govt can FORCE you to buy a private product is so obscene to me it's not funny.
-
Even these judges did not declare the law constitutional. They ruled that Virginia did not have a right to sue the Federal government. But, on the issue of the constitutionality of Obamacare they didn't even attempt to address the issue.
From the article:
But the court on Thursday stopped short of ruling whether the individual mandate in the health care law is constitutional; it strictly examined Virginia's right to sue.
Stephen Presser, a law professor at Northwestern University, called the ruling a "highly technical decision."
"This decision might well be questionable, but the court did note that important constitutional issues were involved, and even the court conceded that those issues should be resolved in an appropriate forum," he said.
"This is a further indication that the United States Supreme Court should soon resolve this issue, now that both the district courts and the court of appeals have issued contradictory decisions both on the standing and substantive issues," he said.
Even these judges realize that there is a constitutional problem with obamacare. Government can not force anyone to buy a product. That is a fact. Based on that, I don't know how the Supreme Court would even rule in favor of this measure, unless politics has finally destroyed the objectivity of the court system.
-
Pa. Judge Strikes Obamacare Insurance Mandate
Tuesday, 13 Sep 2011
The insurance-buying mandate in President Barack Obama’s health-care reform legislation is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled.
U.S. District Judge Christopher C. Conner in Harrisburg today said Congress exceeded its powers under the federal constitution when it included in the act Obama signed into law last year a provision requiring almost all Americans to have medical insurance starting in 2014.
“The federal government,” Conner said, “is one of limited enumerated powers, and Congress’s efforts to remedy the ailing health care and health insurance markets must fit squarely within the boundaries of those powers.”
Three federal appeals courts have weighed in on the issue since June 29. A Cincinnati panel backed the provision, 2-1, while one in Atlanta voted it down by the same margin. The U.S. appeals court in Richmond on Sept. 8 rejected two separate challenges on jurisdictional grounds.
The Harrisburg ruling, if appealed, would be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, which hasn’t yet ruled on the merits of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Justice Department, didn’t immediately reply to voice-mail and e-mail requests for comment.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/BBEXCLUDE-BNALL-BNSTAFF-BNTEAMS/2011/09/13/id/410829
-
'Obamacare' Closer to Supreme Court Review After Administration Declines to Appeal Latest Ruling
Published September 26, 2011
Associated Press
The Obama administration has decided not to ask a federal appeals court in Atlanta for further review of a ruling striking down the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care overhaul.
The administration's decision makes it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would hear a case on the health care overhaul in the court's term starting next month, and render its verdict on the law in the midst of the 2012 presidential election campaign.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler disclosed the administration's decision. She declined to elaborate on next moves.
The Atlanta circuit ruling sided with 26 states that had sued to stop the law from taking effect. In another case, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld the individual mandate in June.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., rejected two lawsuits on technical grounds. In one, it ruled that the penalty for not buying insurance amounts to a tax and that a tax can't be challenged before it's collected. In the other, the panel said the plaintiff, the state of Virginia, lacked legal standing to file its lawsuit.
In a ruling in August, a divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta concluded Congress overstepped its authority when lawmakers passed the individual mandate provision that requires people to buy health insurance. The administration could have asked the full 11th circuit court to hear the case, potentially delaying high court review.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the fourth appeals court to deal with a case over the law, heard oral arguments last Friday but hasn't issued a ruling.
The Supreme Court is widely expected to have the final say on the law, especially now that the appeals courts that have considered the law have disagreed, and one of them has struck down a key provision.
The real question has been over timing, which has political as well as legal ramifications.
In order to hear and decide the case by late June, when the court wraps up its work until resuming in October, the justices would have to act by January to accept and schedule an appeal.
It typically takes a couple of months or more from the time an appeal is filed at the court until the justices decide whether or not to hear it.
In arguments leading up to the appeals court decision in Atlanta, the Obama administration said the legislative branch was using a "quintessential" power -- its constitutional ability to regulate interstate commerce, including the health care industry -- when it passed the overhaul law. Administration officials said at the time they were confident the 11th Circuit ruling would not stand.
In that August ruling, Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull said that lawmakers cannot require residents to "enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die."
In a lengthy dissent, Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus accused the majority of ignoring the "undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries." He wrote that Congress generally has the constitutional authority to create rules regulating large areas of the national economy.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/26/obamacare-closer-to-supreme-court-review-after-administration-declines-to/
-
Damn, how scary is Marcus' dissent. The government's been taking more and more so we should just keep giving them more and more. ::)
-
Damn, how scary is Marcus' dissent. The government's been taking more and more so we should just keep giving them more and more. ::)
Scary indeed.
-
Obama's Healthcare Law Appealed to Supreme Court
Wednesday, 28 Sep 2011
Twenty-six states and a small business group appealed Wednesday to the Supreme Court seeking to strike down all of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law while the administration defended it.
The states and National Federation of Independent Business argued the entire law should be invalidated because Congress exceeded its powers requiring that Americans buy health insurance or face a penalty.
They urged the high court to quickly decide the issue in its upcoming term, which begins next week and lasts through June 2012.
The Obama administration filed its own appeal in which the Justice Department argued the so-called individual mandate was constitutional and said the issue was appropriate for Supreme Court review.
"Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed," the Justice Department said.
"We believe the challenges to Affordable Care Act ... will also ultimately fail and that the Supreme Court will uphold the law," the department said in a statement.
White House adviser Stephanie Cutter said the administration asked the Supreme Court to hear the case "so that we can put these challenges to rest and continue moving forward implementing the law to lower the cost of health care and make it more secure for all Americans."
At issue was a ruling by a U.S. appeals court in Atlanta in August that declared unconstitutional the individual insurance requirement, but refused to strike down the entire law.
The ruling by the appeals court in Atlanta conflicted with rulings by other appeals courts that have upheld the law or have rejected legal challenges, including a lawsuit by the state of Virginia that was dismissed earlier this month on procedural grounds.
The law, passed by Congress and signed by Obama in 2010 after a bruising political battle, is expected to be a major issue in the 2012 elections as Obama seeks another four-year term. Republican presidential candidates oppose it.
EXPANDING COVERAGE
Obama, a Democrat, has championed the law as a major accomplishment of his presidency and as a way to try to slow soaring healthcare costs while expanding health insurance coverage to the more than 30 million Americans without it.
The Supreme Court long has been expected to have the final word on the law's constitutionality. The dispute has important legal, political and financial implications for companies in the healthcare field.
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said the states sought Supreme Court review of their lawsuit.
"This health care law is an affront on Americans' individual liberty, and we will not allow the federal government to violate our constitutional rights," she said.
Legal experts have said the nine-member Supreme Court, with a conservative majority and four liberals, most likely will be closely divided on whether the individual mandate requiring insurance purchases exceeded the power of Congress.
The Obama administration earlier this week said it decided against asking the full U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit to review the August ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that found the insurance requirement unconstitutional.
That decision cleared the way for the administration to go to the Supreme Court.
The states in their appeal also argued the law's expansion of Medicaid, a federal-state partnership that provides health care to low-income Americans, was unconstitutionally coercive, forced upon the states. (Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky and Karen Pierog in Chicago, Editing by Will Dunham and Jackie Frank)
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-health-supreme-court/2011/09/28/id/412630
-
Health Care Law Looms Over New Supreme Court Term
Published October 01, 2011
Associated Press
In this March 23, 2010 file photo, President Barack Obama is applauded after signing the health care bill in the East Room of the White House in Washington
The nine justices of the Supreme Court, who serve without seeking election, soon will have to decide whether to insert themselves into the center of the presidential campaign next year.
The high court begins its new term Monday, and President Obama's health care overhaul, which affects almost everyone in the country, is squarely in its sights.
The Obama administration's request last week that the justices resolve whether the health care law is constitutional makes it more likely than not that they will deliver their verdict by June 2012, just as Obama and his Republican opponent charge toward the fall campaign.
Already, GOP presidential contenders use virtually every debate and speech to assail Obama's major domestic accomplishment, which aims to extend health insurance to more than 30 million people now without coverage.
If as now expected the justices agree to review the law's constitutionality, those deliberations would certainly define the court's coming term. Their decision could rank as the court's most significant since the December 2000 ruling that effectively sealed George W. Bush's election as president.
Health care is only one of several issues that the court could hear that would make for a "fantastic Supreme Court term," said former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, now in private practice at the Hogan Lovells law firm.
Other high-profile cases on the horizon concern immigration and affirmative action, hot-button issues at any time and only more so in an election year.
Less likely, though still with a chance to make it to the court this year are cases involving gay marriage and the landmark Voting Rights Act that some Southern states argue has outlived its usefulness.
Decisions about whether to even to consider health care, affirmative action and immigration are a month off or more.
In the meantime, the justices will take up a First Amendment case looking at the regulation of television broadcasts as well as a couple of appeals involving the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. One of those cases is a digital age dispute over the government's power to track a suspect's movement using a GPS device, without first getting a judge's approval.
Among the cases involving criminal defendants is one from an inmate awaiting execution in Alabama who missed a deadline to appeal his death sentence because the big-firm lawyers in New York who had been handling his case for free moved on to new jobs and letters from the court clerk sat in the firm's mailroom before being returned to sender.
The case of Cory Maples, convicted 15 years ago in the shooting deaths of two men, presents the question: "How much poor representation can one criminal defendant receive" before it violates the Constitution? said University of Maryland law professor Sherrilyn Ifill.
A lawsuit over a baby's passport also will be before the court in a case that has a taste of Middle East politics and a fight between the president and Congress.
Jerusalem-born Menachem Zivotofsky's parents want his U.S. passport to list his birthplace as Israel even though U.S. policy does not recognize the once-divided city as belonging to Israel. Congress, though, passed a law in 2002 giving Jerusalem-born U.S. citizens that option. Presidents of both parties have directed the State Department to ignore the law, saying it wrongly interferes with the president's powers.
Just over a third of the 48 cases the court has so far agreed to hear are of interest to the business sector, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But that list includes few big-ticket cases, unlike last term's victories for business interests in major cases seeking to limit consumer and employee access to the courts. Foremost among those was the decision to throw out a class-action lawsuit on behalf of up to 1.6 million female Wal-Mart employees.
The absence of high-profile business cases comes as something of a relief to Allison Zieve, the general counsel for Public Citizen, a not-for-profit group that calls itself a countervailing force to corporate power.
"The court seems more open to the plaintiffs' side in smaller civil rights cases. Smaller cases may be better for consumers," Zieve said.
The nation's major broadcasters are focused on one case that has the potential to reshape regulation of the airwaves. The federal appeals court in New York threw out the Federal Communications Commission's rules that apply when children are likely to be watching. That includes a ban on the use of curse words as well as fines against broadcasters who showed a woman's nude buttocks on a 2003 episode of ABC's "NYPD Blue."
The television networks argue that the policy is inconsistently applied and outdated, taking in only broadcast television and leaving unregulated the same content if transmitted on cable TV or over the Internet.
"Singling out broadcast television doesn't make much more sense anymore," said Jonathan Cohn, a former Justice Department official. Cohn's law firm, Sidley, Austin, represents Fox Television Stations in the case. The administration is defending the FCC's indecency policy.
In an earlier version of the same case, the justices and lawyers discussed the policy for an hour without uttering any of the offending words.
The court is beginning its second year with the same complement of justices after consecutive terms of welcoming new members, Sonia Sotomayor and then Elena Kagan.
Those two justices, on the liberal-leaning side of the court, voted together on almost every case last year. The same was true for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito on the other side of the ideological spectrum.
Last year, Kagan sat out seven of the 12 cases the court heard in its first month because of her prior work as the Obama administration's top Supreme Court lawyer. This October, she will be absent from just one case, involving Congress' power to give copyright protection to works by foreign composers, directors and other artists, among them Sergei Prokofiev's "Peter and the Wolf," that long have been in the public domain.
There have been various calls for Kagan, as well as for Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, to sit out the health care case, but no indication that any of those justices intends to do so. Critics cite Kagan's former administration position, Scalia's address to the U.S. House tea party caucus, which opposes the law, and the public advocacy against the law by Thomas' wife, Ginny.
Also unlikely in the next year, with the presidential election imminent, is a retirement, At 78, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the oldest justice, but has said repeatedly she's not going anywhere anytime soon.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/01/health-care-law-looms-over-new-supreme-court-term/
-
Kagan, Thomas Targeted in Hopes of Swaying Supreme Court's Health Care Ruling
Published October 02, 2011
FoxNews.com
FILE: In this Oct. 8, 2010, file photo, members of the Supreme Court gather for a group portrait at the Supreme Court in Washington. Seated from left are: Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Standing, from left are: Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito Jr., and Elena Kagan.
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court hasn't even agreed yet to take the case questioning the constitutionality of the individual mandate -- the centerpiece of President Obama's health care law -- but already arguments are lined up to remove justices from trying to weigh in on deliberations.
Justice Elena Kagan's role in the Obama administration as it was formulating the legal defense for the health care law disqualifies her from participating in the decision, say groups who call the former solicitor general incapable of being objective. Kagan says she was not involved in developing the legal strategy of the Affordable Care Act, but opponents of the law have requested records of the administration's deliberation process to see who participated.
Conversely, liberal groups and some Democrats in Congress say Justice Clarence Thomas can't be jurisprudent because his wife worked for organizations that actively opposed the health care law. On Thursday, 20 House Democrats requested a federal investigation into whether Thomas broke federal disclosure laws by not listing his wife's pay on a disclosure form for 21 years -- even though her job at the time was no secret.
"The forms are simple and straightforward. Given that we now know he correctly completed them in at least five earlier years, it's hardly plausible -- indeed it's close to unbelievable -- that Justice Thomas did not understand the instructions," said Common Cause President Bob Edgar.
On Thursday, the Obama administration requested the court take up the case and deliver its verdict by June 2012, as Obama and his Republican opponent gear up for the fall campaign. That request got the backing of retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, suggesting that the court could be inclined to take it.
Twenty-six states and the National Federation of Independent Business would be opposing party to the case.
Tom Dupree, a former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, said the justices will likely decide in the next few months when and whether it will hear the case, but a lot of combined factors "make it a pretty difficult invitation for the Supreme Court to turn down."
"You have a case that presents very important constitutional questions arising from the administration's signature domestic initiative and now you have both the states that are challenging the law as well as the administration itself telling the Supreme Court you need to decide this issue now," Dupree told Fox News.
If it does take the case, pressure to sit it out will be especially acute on Kagan and Thomas, and possibly Justice Antonin Scalia, who spoke to a Tea Party group about potential weaknesses in the law last year.
No mechanism exists to force a justice to sit out a case, though Kagan sat out 28 cases in her first year on the court last year because of her prior work as the Obama administration's top Supreme Court lawyer.
This October, she has already announced she will be absent from one case, regarding Congress' power to give copyright protection to works by foreign composers, directors and other artists, among them Sergei Prokofiev's "Peter and the Wolf," that long have been in the public domain.
But calling it a "humongously important case," Dupree said he doesn't think any justice will will decline to participate.
"Absolutely not," he told Fox News. "There's a good possibility it could be decided by a one-vote margin, and in that circumstance, where you have folks lining up on both sides of the political aisle trying to get whatever advantage they can, it doesn't surprise me that there are calls for recusal. But I think at the end of the day, Kagan and Thomas are both deciding this case."
Texas attorney general Greg Abbott, whose state is one of the parties in the suit, said the calls for recusal are "very predictable whenever you're dealing with a case of this magnitude."
But he projected that "when it's all said and done, all nine justices on the court will participate in the case."
Abbott added that the decision will likely come down to a 5-4 ruling, meaning only Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, will be the swing vote.
"Here's the very important thing," he said. "Twice in the past 16 years, Justice Kennedy has voted to strike down and act of Congress as going beyond the limit of the Commerce Clause. That is the legal theory upon which the states rest their claim. If Justice Kennedy votes again saying that Congress exceeded their authority on the Commerce Clause, I think that should prove a victory for the states in our challenge against Obamacare."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/02/kagan-thomas-targeted-in-hopes-swaying-supreme-courts-health-care-ruling/
-
Court Ruling Proves: Kagan Must Recuse
Townhall.com ^ | October 19, 2011 | Terry Jeffrey
U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle, a Clinton appointee, ironically provided evidence last week that seals the case that Justice Elena Kagan is required by law to recuse herself from cases challenging Obamacare.
The law in question is 28 U.S.C. 455. It mandates that a justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned" or "(w)here he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings ..."
Here is why Kagan must recuse:
In December 2009, the Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- or "Obamacare." Its fate then moved to the House. Within days, states were threatening to challenge Obamacare in court if it were enacted.
Kagan was then President Obama's solicitor general. Her job was to defend his administration's positions in federal court disputes.
Anticipating the threatened lawsuits, Obama's Justice Department did not waste time.
CNSNews.com gained documentation of this from the limited number of documents DOJ did release as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request CNSNews.com filed on May 25, 2010. (DOJ initially stalled on releasing any documents in response to this FOIA. On Nov. 23, 2010, the Media Research Center, of which CNSNews.com is a division, sued DOJ over the mater. On March 15, 2011, DOJ released 65 pages of emails and withheld others.)
The released documents included a Jan. 8, 2010, email that Brian Hauck, senior counsel to Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, sent to Neal Katyal, Kagan's top deputy.
"Tom wants to put together a group to get thinking about how to defend against inevitable challenges to the health care proposals that are pending, and hoped that OSG (Office of Solicitor General Kagan) could participate," Hauck wrote. "Could you figure out the right person or people for that? More the merrier. He is hoping to meet next week if we can."
Three minutes after receiving this, Katyal responded enthusiastically. "Absolutely right on. Let's crush them," he wrote. "I'll speak with Elena and designate someone."
Thirty-eight seconds later, Katyal forwarded Hauck's email to Kagan, suggesting Kagan assign him to this case.
"I am happy to do this if you are okay with it," Katyal said to Kagan.
About three minutes later, Kagan personally assigned her top deputy to handle the Obamacare issue. "You should do it," she emailed Katyal.
More than two hours then passed. Then at 1:05 p.m., Katyal sent another email to Hauck indicating no ambiguity about what he understood to be Kagan's intentions.
"Brian," Katyal wrote, "Elena would definitely like OSG to be involved in this set of issues. I will handle this myself, along with an Assistant from my office, (here the name of the assistant is redacted) and we will bring Elena in as needed."
Katyal went on to say: "I will be out of the office from Jan. 12-15 though, so if we could do it the following week, it'd be ideal."
Hauck responded: "Great. We may end up having to go ahead with the meeting without you ..."
DOJ did hold the meeting without Katyal. But someone -- apparently from Kagan's office -- reported on the meeting to Katyal via email. This person's name has been redacted.
"I attended the meeting today," the unnamed person emailed Katyal. "Tom P(erreli) led it, and there were folks from Civil, OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) and Antitrust. The basic plan is to do some anticipatory thinking about claims that will be asserted and how we will defend against them. It turns out that Civil has already started this, and hopes to produce some model briefs or memos. The big areas of possible litigation are --"
Here heavy black ink covers more than two lines redacted from the email.
After the redaction, the email says: "The expectation is that a bill could pass and be signed by mid-February, so we could be in litigation soon after."
Further down, the email says: "I spoke to Ian (Gershengorn, the deputy assistant attorney general in the civil division) afterwards and told him we would like to be involved and to please keep us in the loop."
Five minutes later, Katyal emailed back: "Great. I appreciate it. I want to make sure that our office is heavily involved even in the dct (District Court). Also one random q -- (here the text is redacted again)."
Judicial Watch also filed a FOIA with DOJ seeking Kagan-related documents. Like Media Research Center, Judicial Watch also sued seeking to make DOJ comply. The court joined the two cases.
DOJ argued it could redact the lines it removed from the email the unnamed DOJ official sent to Kagan's deputy describing the January 2010 meeting planning the defense of Obamacare because they were covered by attorney work-product privilege. Judicial Watch argued DOJ could not do this because Obamacare had not been enacted then, let alone challenged.
Judge Huvelle let the redaction stand -- accepting the conclusion that in January 2010 people working under Kagan's supervision were working as "advisers" on the anticipated Obamacare litigation.
"Rather, when government attorneys act as 'legal advisers' to an agency considering litigation that may arise from challenge to a government program, a specific claim is not required to justify assertion of this privilege," Huvelle wrote in an opinion blocking the release of any further Kagan-related documents as a result of the FOIA requests.
"In this case," she said, "DOJ has explained -- and the unredacted material makes clear -- that the emails, including the redacted material, discussed legal defense of the forthcoming health care legislation in response to an anticipated court challenge."
Five months before Obama nominated Kagan to the Court, Kagan assigned her top deputy to do work that made him a "legal adviser" on the anticipated Obamacare cases. That deputy went on to argue some of those cases in federal court.
Can Kagan's impartiality in these cases be reasonable questioned? It would be unreasonable not to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Sounds like she shouldn't be involved.
-
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/kagan-tribe-day-obamacare-passed-i-hear-they-have-votes-larry-simply-amazing
She needs to recuse herself.
-
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/kagan-tribe-day-obamacare-passed-i-hear-they-have-votes-larry-simply-amazing
She needs to recuse herself.
Agree. She was giddy over the bill being passed.
-
Sen. Lee: Justice Must Disclose Kagan-Obamacare
Saturday, 12 Nov 2011
By Henry J. Reske
The Justice Department must disclose all documents relating to any work Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan may have been involved in regarding the formulation of the legal defense for President Barack Obama’s signature health care law so a fair assessment of whether she should step aside from the case can be made, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said.
Lee’s comments came in a question and answer session following his speech to the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention. Before ascending to the Supreme Court, Kagan had served as the nation’s solicitor general, responsible for representing the federal government before the Supreme Court. The office had worked on strategy for defending Obamacare, but Kagan has maintained she did not play any substantial role and should not remove herself from considering the case should in come before the high court.
“I haven’t seen enough to be able to make that assessment,” Lee said when asked if she should recuse herself. “I think it is a legitimate question that is why I asked Attorney General (Eric) Holder whether he intends to comply fully with the requests for documents submitted by the House Judiciary Committee a week ago today.
“I think this is immensely important because as you know Justice Kagan served as solicitor general prior to going on to the Supreme Court and the solicitor general is responsible not just for handling litigation in which the United States is a party before the Supreme Court but also in managing the federal government’s efforts in all appellate litigation everywhere and frequently the solicitor general is brought in to consult on issues that are either pending in lower courts or in some cases even litigation that is contemplated but not yet field. So I think it’s important that the attorney general respond to this.”
Lee said that Holder, in response, maintained that Kagen has been “walled off” from the issue and it’s not a problem. Lee said he then told him, “If that’s the case Mr. Holder I’m sure you will feel very comfortable responding to our request for documents.”
The issue of recusal on Obamacare has become a key sticking point between the right and the left because both sides fear the case could be decided by a single vote. Conservatives have been pressing for Kagan’s recusal for her previous work while defenders of the law are pressing for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse because of his wife’s work with groups that oppose the law. The decision to recuse is generally up to the individual justice. While the court has not yet decided to hear a case concerning the constitutionality of the law, it is widely expected to soon.
In his formal address to the Federalist Society, Lee focused on the role of the Constitution in the formation of the U.S. government and limited government. Lee said he refused to believe the power of Congress goes so far as to require citizens to buy health insurance and where to go to the doctor and how to pay for it, adding, “I refuse to concede that Congress’ power goes that far.”
“We in the political branches of government who are died in the wool advocates of federalism need to stick to federalism,” he said. “Federalism is the answer not just because it leads to right results but because it is the right result and it is the law.
"At the end of the day it may be that we’ve simply allowed the political branches to get away with this too long. They haven’t’ had to answer these difficult questions. As Benjamin Franklin was often quoted as saying, ‘they will cheat without scruple who can without fear.’ As long as members of Congress aren’t ever asked the question, even if it’s only by a small handful of their constituents where do you get this power to vote for bill X or resolution Y. As long as they don’t feel that pressure they’re not going to restrain their own power.”
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Lee-Justice-Kagan-Obamacare/2011/11/12/id/417752
-
:)
Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law
Published November 14, 2011
FoxNews.com
A new wrinkle has surfaced in the implementation of the federal health care law that critics argue will impose a significant penalty on women and marriage.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Obama's signature law on health care, it said Monday in an announcement that has nearly as much impact on partisan politics as the final decision has on the law itself.
The challenge in the case, brought by 26 states out of Florida, is based on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the Patient Accountability and Affordable Care Act, which requires that all Americans purchase health insurance.
The nine-member court will also look at severability, meaning if the mandate falls, could the rest of the law survive since it is primarily built on the revenues collected by forcing people to buy health care.
"We look forward to presenting oral argument and defending our position that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, that the entire law fails if one part fails, that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply, and that Medicaid's expansion is unlawfully coercive," said Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The case is one that all sides want heard. But hearing the case this session -- arguments could come in March -- means that a ruling will come in June -- in the heat of the 2012 election cycle.
Some argue that a defeat for Obama would be as beneficial as a victory since it would take away an economic and philosophical argument that Republicans have used to bash the law that will impact roughly 18 percent of the nation's annual gross domestic product. Others say nothing good could come for Obama if his premier legislative victory is declared unconstitutional.
If the mandate is wiped off the map but the law itself isn't, the president would be able to promote aspects that most Americans say they accept, including leaving 26 year olds on their parents insurance and not allowing insurers to reject clients with pre-existing conditions.
"Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 1 million more young Americans have health insurance, women are getting mammograms and preventive services without paying an extra penny out of their own pocket and insurance companies have to spend more of your premiums on health care instead of advertising and bonuses," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement.
The 11th Circuit Court, where the case comes from, has ruled in favor of the opponents. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, said the high court brings the challenge one step closer to elimination.
"Given the substantial implementation costs associated with this 2,700-page law--and the unconstitutional mandate that it will impose on all Americans -- we are pleased that the Supreme Court has moved quickly and agreed to hear this very important case," he said.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican presidential candidate who has made repeal and replacement of the law the first plank of his economic plan, tweeted that he is "pleased" the court has agreed to hear the case.
-
I wonder if Clarence Thomas will recuse himself (rhetorical question alert - I'm well aware that he won't or at the very least will fight it every step of the way)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/house-democrats-say-justice-th.html
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all
-
Sen. Sessions: 'Deeply Disturbed' Over Kagan's Role in Obamacare
Wednesday, 16 Nov 2011
By Martin Gould
More ways to share... Mixx Stumbled LinkedIn Vine Buzzflash Reddit Delicious Newstrust Technocrati Share: More . . . A A | Email Us | Print | Forward Article 0
inShare inShare0 Republican pressure is growing for Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to step down from the vital hearing that will decide the future of America’s healthcare next year.
Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions is leading the charge saying that newly released emails seem to show that Kagan was heavily involved in policy discussions on how to make sure Obamacare passed through Congress.
Now Sessions is putting pressure on embattled Attorney General Eric Holder – who, at the time was Kagan’s boss – to come clean on what she knew and when she knew it.
Sessions, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Holder he is “deeply disturbed,” that the emails were not released at Kagan’s confirmation hearings in June last year.
Kagan is responsible for making the decision whether she should recuse herself from the case when the Supreme Court hears challenges to President Barack Obama’s signature law next spring. A decision on the constitutionality of the law is expected by late June or July, just in time for the two political parties’ National Conventions.
She has to decide whether her role as Obama’s Solicitor General at the time the law was drawn up and passed could be seen as an unacceptable conflict of interest. The law says, “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
It goes on to say they should also quit a case “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”
Sessions, who was attorney general of Alabama before he took his seat in the Senate in 1997, fired off a letter to Holder on Tuesday, demanding written testimony on why the emails were not presented before.
“I am deeply disturbed by these developments and believe that the Justice Department should have provided these documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee during Justice Kagan’s confirmation hearing,” he wrote.
“The Department’s failure to provide this information to Congress … as well as your apparent inattention to these matters, is unacceptable.”
In the emails, Kagan expresses her delight that the act was passing through Congress and is kept up to date with its progress.
In perhaps the most damaging email chain from January 2010, two weeks before Obamacare was passed by the Senate, Brian Hauck, the senior counsel to Associate Attorney General Tom Perelli wrote to Kagan’s deputy Neal Katyal, saying that Perelli wanted “to put together a group to get thinking about how to defend against the inevitable challenges to the health care proposals that are pending.”
Katyal immediately replied, “Absolutely right on. Let’s crush them. I’ll speak to Elena and designate someone,” and forwarded Hauck’s email to Kagan with a note saying, “I am happy to do this if you are ok with it.”
Within minutes Kagan responded, “You should do it.” And Katyal, who went on to become acting solicitor general after Kagan was elevated to the Supreme Court, emailed Hauck saying, “Brian, Elena would definitely like OSG (Office of the Solicitor General) to be involved in this set of issues.”
He told Hauck “I will handle this myself,” along with an assistant “and will bring in Elena as needed.”
Kagan has said that she first became aware that she was being considered as a potential Supreme Court justice on March 5, 2010. Seventeen days later the House of Representatives passed Obamacare and she sent an email to Justice Department adviser Laurence Tribe saying, “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”
Holder told the Senate Justice oversight committee that he recalled instances in which staff members would “physically, literally move” Kagan out of the room when Obamacare was being discussed. During her confirmation hearings she said her involvement in the matter was limited to one meeting where the matter came up briefly.
Another conservative who thinks Kagan has a conflict of interest in the case is Newt Gingrich , who told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview that she should step down from the case.
“It is unconscionable that a person who actually advised in the writing of Obamacare will now sit in judgment on what they help write," the presidential candidate said. “I think clearly Kagan should recuse herself. It’s clearly a conflict of interest, and I think a very bad judicial setting for her to now be rendering judgment on the bill she helped write.”
As to how the high court will rule in the case, Gingrich says: “You never quite know, but my hunch is that they are going to decide that it is unconstitutional to have a mandate” to buy health insurance.
If Kagan planned to recuse herself the court would normally have announced that she took no part in deliberations when it announced it would hear the case. On Monday the court docket showed that she had taken no part in several cases, but not the vital one “Florida et al vs. Department of Health and Human Services.”
The left has also called on conservative Justice Clarence Thomas to step down as his wife Virginia heads the lobbying group Liberty Central which has been at the forefront of challenges to Obamacare. He too has shown no sign that he will.
But the case against Thomas is not seen to be as strong as that against Kagan, who conservatives say helped craft the law’s defense.
Utah’s two Republican senators, Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, have both questioned whether she should hear the case. And Louisiana GOP Rep. John Fleming said this week, “Before the Supreme Court case is heard, we need to know if Justice Elena Kagan helped the Obama administration prepare its defense for Obamacare when she was solicitor general.
“The Justice Department must answer serious questions about whether Justice Kagan has an inherent conflict of interest, which would demand that she recuse herself from the Obamacare case,” Fleming added.
But Russell Wheeler, visiting fellow at the Brookings Institute, told The Christian Post, “If she really thought her impartiality was compromised, she would step down.
“No justice wants to say that he or she didn’t have prior contact with the case only to be proven wrong in the near future. No Justice is going to try and pull a fast one, especially in today’s high tech society where the truth will eventually be found out.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/sessions-kagan-obamacare-emails/2011/11/16/id/418276
-
Obama Health Care Law: Supreme Court Sets Dates To Hear Oral Arguments
First Posted: 12/19/11 12:05 PM ET Updated: 12/19/11 01:06 PM ET
WASHINGTON -- March madness is coming to the Supreme Court next year. The justices have designated three days, March 26 to March 28, as the oral argument dates for the health care cases.
The Court agreed to hear the challenges to the Affordable Care Act in November, setting aside an extraordinary five and a half hours for oral argument.
The main event will be on Tuesday, March 27, when the Court will take up the constitutionality of the health care law's minimum coverage requirement. That provision, commonly called the individual mandate, requires virtually all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. The Court has set aside two hours for argument over whether Congress' passage of the individual mandate exceeded the legislature's powers to regulate interstate commerce or lay and collect taxes under Article I of the Constitution.
On Monday, March 26, the Court will hear an hour of argument over whether a Reconstruction-era federal statute, the Anti-Injunction Act, bars the justices from making a decision on the individual mandate's constitutionality until after the provision goes into effect in 2014.
The Court will consider two additional issues on Wednesday, March 28. Ninety minutes will be dedicated to whether the individual mandate is so central to the health care overhaul that the entire law must fall should the justices find the mandate itself unconstitutional. An additional hour of argument will address 26 states' claim that the law improperly expands Medicaid by coercively conditioning states' receipt of federal funds on their participation in the new health care exchange system.
These three days of oral argument will occur almost exactly two years after President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, sparking a slew of lawsuits across the country.
The four courts of appeals to consider the issues now before the Supreme Court have split on the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, but have all rejected the challengers' arguments about state coercion and the centrality of the individual mandate.
The justices' decision in the health care cases will likely come down at the end of June.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/obama-health-care-law-supreme-court_n_1158039.html
-
Going down in flames. I hope.
Obama Administration Defends Health Care Overhaul in First Supreme Court Brief
By Lee Ross
Published January 06, 2012
FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON – Arguing that President Obama's health care law was designed to fix an intractable national problem of exploding costs during a crisis, the administration submitted its opening brief to the Supreme Court Friday defending the law as both necessary and constitutional.
The 63-page brief is the first salvo in one of four cases accepted by the high court challenging the controversial health care law. Those cases will be heard in March. This filing is specifically focused on the suit challenging the law's so-called individual mandate, or requirement to buy health insurance.
Critics of the law, including the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which struck it down, contend the Affordable Care Act goes too far in forcing Americans to obtain insurance or face a financial penalty.
The government continued to argue that the law is permissible under the Constitution's Commerce Clause allowing the feds to regulate economic activity in the states. "As Congress found, the minimum coverage provision is thus necessary to achieve Congress's concededly valid objective of reforming the interstate market in health insurance," wrote Solicitor General Don Verrilli.
Those reforms include forcing insurance providers to relax their coverage standards and ultimately make their coverage more affordable. Without the premiums coming in from all people now forced into the system, the law collapses. "The minimum coverage provision is key to the viability of the Act," Verrilli said, calling the law's focus on the insurance aspect of health care eminently reasonable.
A fundamental question before the court is whether this law, or any, can force Americans to buy something or face a penalty. Opponents say that's a step too far for the government to take. In this instance, they say the government can't force Americans who choose not to buy health insurance into paying for coverage.
In separate briefs, Florida and 25 other states urged the Supreme Court to throw out the entire health care law if the individual mandate is struck down. Dozens of GOP senators also filed a brief critical of the law.
The administration contends that health care is unique because all people, regardless of their insurance coverage, must eventually participate in the health care marketplace and that the collective costs from the uninsured drive up the costs for the rest -- $1,000 per family, according to the government. Verrilli said "this is classic economic regulation of economic conduct."
Another issue before the court in this case is how to punish people who don't obtain insurance. The law says people are to be penalized for non-participation. Opponents say there is no justification for such a penalty. They wonder how else could the government punish citizens, be it for not eating a certain vegetable or any number of non-actions.
It's a non-issue, according to government. "That Congress used the word 'penalty' in the minimum coverage provision, rather than 'tax,' is immaterial to whether it was a proper exercise of Congress's power over taxation," Verrilli explained.
In a background discussion with reporters before the brief was submitted, a senior administration official answered critics, saying it is "wildly unrealistic" that Congress would pass, for instance, a compulsory broccoli consumption law. The key, he argued, is that the health care law is specifically targeted to the economics of 17.6 percent of the U.S. economy, and is therefore covered under the Commerce Clause.
The response from the 26 states and others challenging the individual mandate is due next month.
Two other primary briefs are expected at the court Friday in the cases challenging whether the rest of the Affordable Care Act can survive if the individual mandate is struck down and whether federal tax law prohibits litigation until the ACA goes into effect.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/06/obama-administration-makes-health-care-overhaul-case-to-supreme-court/?test=latestnews
-
it's funny. Dems advocate punishing people who burden society with ER walk-in visits. Repubs want to just take care of anyone with a boo-boo for free.
It's a sad state of affairs when the Repubs are the party of "we'll take care of you - no need for personal responsibility!"
I used to like you 240.
Look at what you have become.
Every single post Ive read from you reads like this "yes, they are doing this, but (insert whatever name) did it before and you didnt complain, so its ok."
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
Youve become pathetic 240, pathetic. You remind me of Brian from Family Guy.. its not that you give a shit about whats going on, you just have to be on the other side of whoever youre talking to.
Sad.
-
The obamabots defend the mandate saying that poor and middle class people will get subsidies if they can't afford it. well what happens when the govt goes broke and can't afford to provide the subsidies any longer? the lower and middle class slobs will be mandated to buy private insurance they can't afford by force of law!
Only the most evil person could defend this economic slavery.
-
Supreme Court Allows New Plaintiffs in Health Care Law Challenge
by Shannon Bream | January 17, 2012
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the addition of two new business owners to a suit challenging the health care law that was in question because one of the original business owners attached to the case has gone bankrupt.
Supporters of President Obama’s health care law argued that her bankruptcy made Mary Brown ineligible to continue on as a plaintiff, suggesting the entire case could fall apart because of a lack of standing.
Other business owners were attached to the case, but the Justice Department would not stipulate that they met the standards for establishing standing in this case.
But the Justice Department did not formally challenge the addition of business owners Dana Grimes and Dave Klemencic. Grimes lives in Greenwich, N.Y., and owns a building/home contracting services business. Klemencic is from West Virginia and owns a flooring company.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/01/17/supreme-court-allows-new-plaintiffs-health-care-law-challenge/?test=latestnews
-
Debate heats up over whether Kagan should participate in Supreme Court's health care law ruling
By Shannon Bream
Published January 26, 2012
FoxNews.com
With just weeks until the U.S. Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law, there are new calls for Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the case.
Her critics point to a 2010 case regarding a San Francisco health measure, in which then-Solicitor General Kagan's office filed an amicus brief touting the newly passed health care law.
In May 2010, after Kagan had been nominated to the nation's highest court, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal sent her a memo outlining the cases in which she had "substantially participated." Kaytal specifically referenced the Golden Gate case, noting that it had been "discussed with Elena several times."
That's enough to convince Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky that Kagan shouldn't take part in the current health care case before the high court.
"I don't see how any ethical lawyer adhering to professional codes of conduct could not consider that they need to recuse themselves from this case," he said.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court denied a motion by the group Freedom Watch, which has called for Kagan's recusal. Freedom Watch's motion asked for permission to take part in the oral arguments scheduled for March 26 to 28. That motion was denied, and Kagan took no part in its consideration.
Other legal scholars say Kagan is in the clear, noting that the issues in the Golden Gate case are distinct from those in the case now pending at the Supreme Court.
"Absolutely different cases, absolutely two different sets of issues, and it does not in any way support the idea that Justice Kagan should recuse herself," Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center said.
Wydra says repeated attempts by Freedom Watch could hurt their credibility with the court, adding, "The arguments are, frankly, looking a little desperate."
Kagan isn't the only justice under scrutiny. A number of Democratic lawmakers have also called for Justice Clarence Thomas to take himself off the case. They say his wife's work for a group looking to repeal the health care law creates a conflict of interest.
Chief Justice John Roberts, clearly aware of recusal calls by outside groups, addressed the issue in his yearend report issued in December. In it, Roberts stated that he has "complete confidence" in the capability of his colleagues to make their own decisions.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/26/debate-heats-up-over-whether-kagan-should-participate-in-supreme-courts-health/?intcmp=trending
-
Quinnipiac: Most Americans Want Obamacare Repealed
Friday, 24 Feb 2012
By Paul Scicchitano
A new poll by Quinnipiac University finds that most Americans, including independent voters, believe that the U.S. Supreme Court should strike down Obamacare.
The poll, released late Thursday, found that 50 percent of voters and 51 percent of independent voters want the high court to overturn President Obama’s controversial healthcare reform law. In contrast, only 39 percent of voters and 37 percent of independent voters do not want the high court to take action.
The poll found that most voters — 66 percent — believe the economy is in a recession while a slight majority — 54 percent — believe it has begun to recover.
"Voters have begun to change their minds about the economy. They are humming, not yet singing, 'Happy Days Are Here Again,' but there seems to be a sense that things are getting a bit better. But President Barack Obama is not singing along as there is little uptick in his job approval numbers and the share of voters who think he deserves a second term in the Oval Office," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, which conducted the national poll.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/quinnipiac-poll-repeal-obamacare/2012/02/24/id/430515
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-23/swing-states-health-care-obama/53260222/1
Getting killed in the swing states on thugbamacare.
-
Florida AG Bondi to Newsmax: How We’ll Defeat Obamacare
Friday, 23 Mar 2012
By Martin Gould and Kathleen Walter
President Barack Obama’s healthcare initiative is the biggest attempt at a government overreach in U.S. history, Pam Bondi, Florida’s attorney general, who is leading the fight against the program, tells Newsmax.TV.
And that is why Bondi is confident the Supreme Court will vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act after three days of hearings next week.
“We’re optimistic that they will rule in our favor because this is so much bigger than healthcare,” said Bondi in an exclusive interview. “It’s the biggest attempt at an overreach in our history. So we have to fight it and we have to stop it.
“That’s why 26 states, along with the National Federation of Independent Business, are challenging this and that’s why we have been given an unprecedented amount of time, six hours, in front of the court.”
The hearing will start on Monday and go through Wednesday. Attorney Paul Clement will argue the states’ case before the nine justices, while solicitor general Donald Verrilli will defend the law.
“The bottom line is this: the Constitution’s limits on the federal power are real and they must be respected, even if they are inconvenient for the Obama administration’s goal to take over one-sixth of our economy,” said Bondi, a Republican.
The states’ main case is that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to insist that citizens buy anything, including health insurance. “If they can force us to do this, they can force us to do anything,” said Bondi.
Part of Bondi’s optimism is that there has already been a bipartisan decision in favor of striking down the law in the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. “People were playing the numbers game … saying we were going to lose because they had two Clinton appointees and a Bush appointee and look at the opinion we got out of it.”
She is confident that all Supreme Court justices will follow the law and not be guided by their own political views. “I believe when they hear our argument that they will know that this is such an overreach by the federal government,” she said.
Bondi said the Supreme Court case will be split into four distinct parts:
• Monday there will be arguments on the anti-injunction aspect of the case, which states that a tax cannot be challenged until it is paid;
• Tuesday is “the big day” when arguments on the constitutionality of the individual mandate will be heard;
• Wednesday morning is on severability – whether any part of the act can remain if the individual mandate is struck down;
• Wednesday afternoon will be arguments whether Washington can instruct states to expand Medicaid.
On the lesser-known aspects of the case, Bondi said she believes the government should accept the states’ argument about anti-injunction, otherwise, she said, it would mean there could be no arguments about the law until it is fully up and running. “What are they saying? It’s not a tax, it’s not a tax, it’s not a tax. How many times have you heard our president say that?”
And she said she is also confident about the Medicaid issue. “Our argument’s going to be that Congress cannot force us to increase our Medicaid that would put our state out of business or threaten all the states by losing all of our funding. It’s clearly coercion by the federal government and our Constitution protects us from coercion.”
At the end of it all, Bondi said she believes that “Obamacare will be no more.”
“That’s our hope. That’s what the law should be. It’s unconstitutional and we’re going to do everything in our power to present the best argument possible.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/BondiObamacareSupremeunconstitutional/2012/03/23/id/433728
-
Bachi?
White House claims Supreme Court will find health care law 'constitutional'
Published March 25, 2012
FoxNews.com
A top adviser to President Obama insisted Sunday that the federal health care overhaul will be upheld after the Supreme Court hears arguments in a landmark challenge to the policy this coming week.
"We're confident that it'll be constitutional," senior White House adviser David Plouffe told "Fox News Sunday."
Plouffe also claimed Republicans will rue the day they branded the overhaul "ObamaCare," suggesting that years into the future they will "regret" not being able to claim credit for the fundamental changes to health care in America.
He said a "small portion" of people are experiencing those changes now, but predicted many more Americans would realize the benefits by the end of the decade.
The health care law will eventually require most Americans to buy health insurance, while providing federal subsidies for millions. The so-called "individual mandate" to buy insurance is at the heart of the Supreme Court challenge, with critics calling the requirement unconstitutional.
Plouffe claimed Americans ultimately don't want to "refight" the battle over the law, or "start over" the health care reform process.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/25/white-house-claims-supreme-court-will-find-health-care-law-constitutional/
-
Supreme Court signals it won't punt on ObamaCare decision
By Lee Ross
Published March 26, 2012
FoxNews.com
One thing was clear out of the Supreme Court's opening session Monday on the federal health care overhaul -- the justices are eager to issue a ruling, and unlikely to punt.
The anticipation over how the court might rule on the merits of the law will have to wait another day, as the justices revealed very little about their views during opening arguments. What came out of the day's 90-minute session -- the first of three days covering four unique challenges -- is that the justices are poised to decide this year on the constitutional validity of the controversial law.
The justices were presented with a challenge Monday that, if upheld, could push the case off until early 2015. The issue before the judges was whether an obscure 1867 tax law prohibits lawsuits, like the ones challenging the health care law, from going forward.
The justices signaled that the technicality would probably not hold up the case, or prevent the justices from issuing a ruling on whether the law's controversial individual mandate is constitutional. The argument over that volatile issue is scheduled for Tuesday.
The idea that lawsuits challenging the law could be blocked was held by several lower federal court judges and was assigned to Washington, D.C., lawyer Robert Long to defend Monday. It is premised on the belief that the 1867 law known as the Anti-Injunction Act forbids lawsuits against federal tax policies until after someone has actually paid the tax.
But from the outset of Monday's arguments it was clear the justices weren't too sympathetic to that view because of the language Congress eventually used in crafting the law. The Affordable Care Act says the cost for not complying with the requirement to obtain health insurance is a penalty -- not a tax.
"Congress has nowhere used the word 'tax,'" Justice Stephen Breyer said to Long. "What it says is penalty."
Breyer was hardly the only justice to suggest the designated penalty isn't a tax.
"This is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it's successful, they won't -- nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
Justice Elena Kagan also noted to Long that there are other parts of the law where the provisions of the AIA are specifically addressed. "It does not say that here. Wouldn't that suggest that Congress meant for a different result to obtain?" she said.
None of the justices seemed to think the AIA bar should be applied, perhaps leading to a unanimous opinion on this issue. There was also much discussion over a very technical question on the appropriate jurisdiction of handling these types of tax challenges.
The justices seemed a bit more divided on this matter, but their resolution of this part of the case shouldn't impact their ability to get to the heart of the health care cases.
Perhaps the most telling exchange of the day came when Solicitor General Don Verrilli presented the government's case.
He argued that the specific language Congress used -- penalty rather than tax -- prevents an AIA inquiry. But Justice Samuel Alito asked how that position can also square with the government's view that when determining whether the ACA is legal under the Constitution's taxing authority, the exact words Congress used are less significant.
"General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax," Alito asked. "Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act? "
Alito's question suggests that he will further challenge Verrilli on Tuesday.
The tax-versus-penalty issue has been debated and discussed since the ACA passed two years ago. Even Verrilli himself got tripped up in using the nomenclature. In an exchange with Kagan, Verrilli said a person who fails to get insurance and pays the fine wouldn't have to admit to a violation of federal law. Kagan pressed, him asking why that was the case. Twice, he made mention of someone paying a tax. Breyer jumped in to ask, "Why do you keep saying tax?"
Stepping over the laughter in the courtroom, Verrilli clarified himself to say "tax penalty" and thanked the justice for calling the error to his attention.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/26/supreme-court-signals-health-care-case-wont-be-held-up-over-technicality/
-
CNN’s Toobin: Supreme Court Was ‘Train Wreck’ for Obama
Tuesday, 27 Mar 2012
By Paul Scicchitano
Following two hours of oral arguments before the Supreme Court today, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin declared “this was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it’s going to be struck down.”
Toobin, author of “The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court,” said he was forced to reverse his earlier prediction on the case based on the poor performance of U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.
“I’m telling you all of the predictions — including mine — that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong,” Toobin told viewers, adding that Verrilli did a “simply awful job” defending the individual mandate, which was the focus of today’s proceedings.
“He was nervous. He was not well-spoken,” explained Toobin. “The argument got off to a very bad start for the administration and it was really the liberal justices who carried the argument much more than the lawyer.”
Pressed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Toobin acknowledged that the best hope of the Obama administration was that the four liberal justices of the court would be joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. in upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Based on the line of questioning, he said it was unlikely that Justice Anthony Kennedy would provide the swing vote to give the liberals a 5-4 majority.
“I don’t know if they have a fifth vote. I think Kennedy is a lost cause after listening to his comments,” observed Toobin. “Roberts is to me — to what I heard — the only possibility and that would certainly be a big surprise to see him joining with the liberals in such an important case. But based on the comments, I think that’s the only hope for this law being upheld.”
http://www.newsmax.com/US/obamacare-scotus-train-wreck/2012/03/27/id/434015
-
This is good. She's the same person who predicted Democrats would maintain control of the House right before the 2010 elections.
Pelosi's specific Supreme Court health care prediction
Posted by
CNN's Kevin Liptak
(CNN) – House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi bucked the assessment of Supreme Court analysts and pundits Tuesday by predicting a favorable ruling from the court on President Barack Obama's sweeping health care law.
Speaking at a luncheon meeting in New York, Pelosi predicted the court would uphold the Affordable Care and Prevention Act's constitutionality with a 6-3 decision.
– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
"I'm predicting 6-3 in favor, but we shall see. It's a lesson in civics, and I respect it. I respect the court and judicial review," Pelosi said. She made the remarks at the Paley Center for Media and video of the event was posted on their website.
Last week, many analysts offered a grave appraisal of the law's chances after hearing oral arguments on various aspects of the Affordable Care and Prevention Act, specifically the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" which requires all citizens to obtain health insurance or pay a fine.
Pelosi said her party was more than willing to go through the process of defending the mandate in courts, and said the law was written to withstand judicial scrutiny.
"We've always respected judicial review, and the Constitution, and we wrote the bill in an iron-clad way in terms of its constitutionality," Pelosi said. "But you never know what the court will do. I have confidence, since we're talking about the law of the land, and our compliance with it, that we will be OK."
The California Democrat said the bills provisions, including allowing young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance plans and disallowing insurance companies to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, had already benefited more than 80 million Americans.
"We can't roll that back, so we have to find a way to keep it," Pelosi said. "Again, we're speaking in the theoretical. I think the bill will be upheld. But we really do have to find a way to keep what's in the bill."
Pelosi also pointed to aspects of the health care measure that impacted women, including a provision that allows for greater access to contraception. Pelosi labeled the women-specific measures "enormously popular with the public."
Pelosi described a phone call with Obama following the law's passage in 2010.
"The day after it passed the president called us and said, 'Last night when you passed the bill I was happier than when I was elected president of the United States.' What a beautiful thought," she said.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/04/pelosis-specific-supreme-court-health-care-prediction/
-
Even Democrats Dislike Most of Obamacare
Wednesday, 11 Apr 2012
By Greg McDonald
Only 39 percent of Democrats say they want Obamacare upheld by the Supreme Court, while some 50 percent say they want parts of it or the whole thing struck down, according to a new poll conducted for Investor’s Business Daily.
“Even taking into account that some of those may be liberals who dislike Obamacare because it isn’t more expansive, it’s a striking rejection of the president’s main accomplishment by his own party,” writes the newspaper’s Sean Higgins.
The same poll found that in general only 22 percent of Americans say they want the entire law upheld, while 37 percent would like to see all of it struck down.
Another 30 percent said they would like to see only the individual mandate requiring people to buy health insurance declared unconstitutional.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamacare-democrats-health-care/2012/04/11/id/435476
-
AP Poll: Just a Third Favor Obama Health Care Law
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/APPoll-HealthCare/2012/06/20/id/442947
-
Reuters Poll: 73% of Independents Oppose Obamacare
Sunday, 24 Jun 2012
Most Americans oppose President Barack Obama's healthcare reform even though they strongly support most of its provisions, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Sunday, with the Supreme Court set to rule within days on whether the law should stand.
Fifty-six percent of people are against the healthcare overhaul and 44 percent favor it, according to the online poll conducted from Tuesday through Saturday.
The survey results suggest that Republicans are convincing voters to reject Obama's reform even when they like much of what is in it, such as allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26.
Strong majorities favor most of what is in the law.
A glaring exception to the popular provisions is the "individual mandate," which forces all U.S. residents to own health insurance.
Sixty-one percent of Americans are against the mandate, the issue at the center of the Republicans' contention that the law is unconstitutional, while 39 percent favor it.
"That's really the thing that has come to define the (reform) and is the thing that could potentially allow the Supreme Court to dismantle it if they decide it's not constitutional," Ipsos pollster Chris Jackson said.
In good news for Republicans at November's congressional elections, 45 percent said they were more likely to vote for a member of Congress who campaigned on a platform of repealing the law, versus 26 percent who said it would make them less likely, the survey showed.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the 2010 healthcare reform, Obama's signature domestic policy achievement, this week, possibly as early as Monday.
The political stakes are sky-high on an issue that has galvanized conservative opposition to the Democratic president, and how the court's decision is framed politically could influence the outcome of the November 6 general election.
Support for the provisions of the healthcare law was strong, with a full 82 percent of survey respondents, for example, favoring banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
Sixty-one percent are in favor of allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26 and 72 percent back requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employees.
PARTISAN DIVISION
Americans are strongly divided along partisan lines. Among Republicans, 86 percent oppose and 14 percent favor the law and Democrats back it by a 3-to-1 margin, 75 percent to 25 percent, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.
But in what could be a key indicator for the presidential contest, people who describe themselves as political independents oppose the law by 73 percent to 27 percent.
Opposition among independents has been growing. In a survey conducted in April, two weeks after the Supreme Court heard the case, 63 percent of them opposed the measure, and 37 percent favored it.
"Republicans have won the argument with independents and that's really been the reason that we see the majority of the public opposing it," Jackson said.
Republicans have dominated the political message on healthcare with calls to "repeal and replace" the law, condemned by conservatives as a government intrusion into private industry and the lives of private citizens. It passed in March 2010 with no Republican support in Congress.
Mitt Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, has promised to repeal the law if he defeats Obama, although he has not offered a plan of his own. Obama, who says he modeled the measure on a healthcare plan Romney passed as governor of Massachusetts, has defended it.
Obama critics - some from within his own party - have also questioned the president for focusing on healthcare reform early in his term instead of doing everything he could to fix the struggling U.S. economy.
Democrats back the measure as an effort to improve the lives of Americans and essential to control spiraling costs that are undermining the country's overall economic health. Healthcare expenditures in the United States neared $2.6 trillion in 2010, over 10 times the $256 billion spent in 1980, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
A good portion of the opposition to the healthcare law is because Americans want more reform, not less of it.
The poll found that a large number of Americans - including about one-third of Republicans and independents who disagree with the law - oppose it because it does not go far enough to fix healthcare.
Seventy-one percent of Republican opponents reject it overall, while 29 percent feel it does not go far enough, while independent opponents are divided 67 percent to 33 percent. Among Democratic opponents, 49 percent reject it overall, and 51 percent wish the measure went further.
"If you add the people that oppose it because they think it doesn't go far enough, you get a majority of Americans, so it doesn't mean that healthcare reform is dead," Jackson said.
There was party division in Americans' view of the individual mandate. Overall, 61 percent of Americans oppose requiring all U.S. residents to own health insurance. Among Republicans, the percentage rose to 81 percent, and it was 73 percent among independents. But a majority of Democrats - 59 percent - favor the individual mandate.
The survey of 1,043 Americans was conducted from June 19-23. The precision of the Reuters/Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/independents-oppose-healthcare-law/2012/06/24/id/443279
-
we warned everyone.
-
Liberal Second-Guessing Won’t Make ObamaCare Constitutional
Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary 06.24.2012 - 2:56 PM
With only days and perhaps even just a few hours left before the Supreme Court rules on the constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act, the second guessing has already begun among Democrats. Though the outcome is known only to the justices and their clerks and secretaries, in the months since the oral arguments revealed there was a good chance it would be overturned, the president’s party has sunk deeper and deeper into depression over the possibility. Though they may yet win, as today’s front-page feature in the New York Times reveals, many on the left are already starting the recriminations, with the White House and the congressional Democrats getting the lion’s share of the blame.
The president and congressional leaders such as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are being lambasted for not taking the challenge to the bill’s constitutionality seriously as they forced it through the legislature. Pelosi’s response to the suggestion that there was any doubt about its legality was a now famous, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” But though that is a remark that will go down in the history books if the judges say no to ObamaCare, scapegoating her, the president or the Justice Department lawyers who did not anticipate the possibility is a waste of time. So, too, are some other liberal responses, such as liberal law professor Jonathan Turley’s suggestion in Friday’s Washington Post that the problem is that nine is too small a number of judges to make such a momentous decision, a solution Democrats won’t embrace if Mitt Romney wins in November and is the one doing the nominating of the extra judges.
The problem wasn’t the tactics pursued by ObamaCare advocates either in court or outside it. The problem was a bill that proposed an expansion of federal power that even the Commerce Clause — that catchall mechanism used to justify every new federal power grab for a century — couldn’t support.
The bill did help generate a political earthquake in the form of the Tea Party that led to the Republican landslide in the 2010 midterms that erased the Democratic majority who passed the act. But better advocacy on the part of the bill’s supporters would not have prevented conservatives and libertarian lawyers from bringing forth the successful challenges that two lower federal courts have already accepted.
If Democrats like Pelosi couldn’t imagine anyone taking those challenges seriously it is not just because they live in a liberal echo chamber where conservative ideas are viewed with as much contempt as conservative politicians. It is because after nearly 100 years of liberal judicial activism that created the current federal leviathan, they had come to believe there were no limits on that power. If Congress could regulate any kind of commerce, why wouldn’t liberals think that this extended even to commerce that didn’t already exist or even inactivity and thereby make it legal for the government to demand that individuals purchase health insurance?
Since for decades liberals have treated a more libertarian approach to the constitution with scorn, why would anyone, especially that former law professor sitting in the White House, have thought differently?
Of course, as the Times points out, the constitutional challenge would have been avoided if the legislation had been framed more explicitly as a tax which the federal government has the right to levy. But Obama and Pelosi had a hard enough time getting a Democrat-controlled Congress to pass it without explicitly selling it as a massive tax increase though that is, in effect, what the bill is. In that form, it would never have been adopted.
As for Turley’s court-packing scheme, the transparently political nature of his appeal renders it absurd. He’s right that there’s nothing sacred about the number nine but since the current format has been in place since 1869, there’s no reason to change this tradition. Any expansion would be inherently political, an attempt to overturn the current court majority by a president and a Congress that didn’t like their opinions on the constitution. If Franklin Roosevelt couldn’t get away with such an idea in 1938 when he proposed it, does anyone seriously believe Barack Obama or Mitt Romney or any other president in the foreseeable future can do so?
The liberal dilemma has no more to do with the number of justices than it does with supposed shortcomings in the strategy adopted by the White House or Congressional Democrats. If the bill goes down this week it will be because a majority on the court have realized that a government that is given the power to invent as well as to regulate commerce is a threat to our liberty. And no clever tactic can make that acceptable to the majority of Americans who oppose ObamaCare or the judges who will vote against it.
-
Any day now the decision will be announced. Supposedly if not today, it will be Thursday. Is this correct?
-
Any day now the decision will be announced. Supposedly if not today, it will be Thursday. Is this correct?
If not today then by Thursday, not necessarily on Thursday.
-
What happened with the Medicare issue the states were arguing about?
-
What happened with the Medicare issue the states were arguing about?
Sort of struck down, but still there. Said that states cant get funding pulled if they dont go along a the medicade expansion.
What a fiasco between this and AZ - a total fiasco.
-
Sort of struck down, but still there. Said that states cant get funding pulled if they dont go along a the medicade expansion.
What a fiasco between this and AZ - a total fiasco.
Thanks. Sounds like somewhat of a victory for the states?
-
Thanks. Sounds like somewhat of a victory for the states?
not really since you are going to have the peeps demanding more free shit and we have already seen how obama thugs it up to the states so he will find ways to punish states not going along w this.
obama is a ghetto thug and a liar. He is no different than the lawless gangbangers and drug dealers in chi town.
-
I wouldn't hold my breath.
The Courts May Yet Destroy Obamacare
by KEITH KOFFLER on DECEMBER 3, 2013
Obamacare is still being challenged in the courts. And the problem presented by one of the challenges is very, very serious.
The argument, which is being heard today by a federal judge in the District of Columbia, is being being brought as part of several cases launched by states like Indiana and Oklahoma as well as business owners and individuals.
You see, Healthcare.gov may have a bigger problem than page load timeouts. According to the text of the Obamacare law, the federal exchange program the website offers to the public is not supposed to hand out subsidies. And yet, without subsidies, Obamacare is not workable.
The Affordable Care Act provides that subsidies will be available to those who “were enrolled in through an exchange established by the State.” But 36 states refused to set up exchanges. And so their citizens must participate in the federal exchanges. And, according to the letter of the law, they can’t have subsidies and have to pay the sticker price for insurance. Which is unaffordable.
Opponents of the suit don’t deny the plain language of the law. They claim that if you look at the law in its entirety, including the provision of a federal exchange, it’s clear that Congress was creating a federal program intended for everyone to get subsidies.
But the climate is bad for such arguments.
The case may well go to the Supreme Court, where there are five justices who tend to take the specific wording of legal documents – like, say, the Constitution – seriously. One of them, John Roberts, will be under extraordinary pressure to reverse the damage he did by failing to agree that the individual mandate was unconstitutional.
What’s more, the suits target the federal nature of the law, which has been shown unworkable so far, particularly with respect to Healthcare.gov. There’s an argument to be made that the law as written would avoid just such a debacle – the state exchanges work much better – and that it is both a logical and legal matter that a federal exchange is ruled out.
And there has been growing outcry, no doubt heard by the Justices, that the administration is implementing the law without regard to its provisions – delaying statutory start dates and so forth – and in general acting without regard to the will of Congress on this and other matters.
Hold onto your seats. The judiciary might just strike down Obamacare.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/12/03/courts-destroy-obamacare/
-
House Republicans Hire Third Lawyer For Obamacare Lawsuit
The Huffington Post | By Igor Bobic
Posted: 11/18/2014
House Republicans have hired constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley to lead their lawsuit against President Barack Obama over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
The George Washington University Law School professor announced the news on his blog Monday night. He explained that, as an advocate of the separation of powers, he is concerned about what he views as the excesses of the executive branch.
"Unilateral, unchecked Executive action is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in our constitutional system. This case represents a long-overdue effort by Congress to resolve fundamental Separation of Powers issues. In that sense, it has more to do with constitutional law than health care law," he said.
The self-described liberal noted that he voted for Obama in 2008 and even supported "national health care." But, Turley added, the House "had me at hello" with the merits of the case.
Republicans charge that the administration acted without congressional authority in delaying the employer mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act. Two previous law firms sought out by Republicans have already dropped the case, fueling criticism that the motion was nothing more than a publicity stunt.
Democrats quickly criticized the hire on Tuesday, noting Turley's many appearances on Fox News, where he frequently criticizes the administration on health care and immigration reform.
"Even for $500-per-hour in taxpayer dollars, Speaker [John] Boehner has had to scour Washington to find a lawyer willing to file this meritless lawsuit against the President," said Drew Hammill, spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "Now, he's hired a TV personality for this latest episode of his distraction and dysfunction. When Speaker Boehner can't legislate his way, he shuts down the government and files lawsuits."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/gop-lawsuit-jonathan-turley_n_6178112.html
-
Is the Left Helping SCOTUS Destroy Obamacare?
Dismissing the latest legal challenge as a debate over a typo could backfire.
BY SAM BAKER
November 30, 2014 The Supreme Court doesn't care whether you think the latest Obamacare case is ridiculous.
For the second time, there's a very real chance that the Court could tear the Affordable Care Act apart. And, also for the second time, some liberals are making the mistake of treating that existential threat like it's a joke.
Simon Lazarus, senior counsel at the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center, says Obamacare supporters lost the public-relations battle over the 2012 challenge to the law's individual mandate. He says they made a strategic mistake by waving off the lawsuit in its early days, treating it like a frivolous open-and-shut issue and underestimating its damaging potential.
Long before the Supreme Court agreed to hear the latest challenge, which is aimed at Obamacare's insurance subsidies, Lazarus was urging liberals to take the cases seriously—to avoid making the same mistakes that last time helped challengers define so much of the debate.
And while no one is denying that the subsidies challenge would be devastating to the health care law if it succeeds, some of the rhetoric from the law's defenders could backfire.
The case centers around one line in the Affordable Care Act, which authorizes tax subsidies to flow through insurance exchanges "established by the State." The challengers say Congress only intended to provide subsidies to people whose states set up their own exchanges, and not in the states that left the job up to the federal government.
According to the Left, that line is routinely portrayed as a drafting error, a simple mistake that arose when multiple versions of the Affordable Care Act were hastily crammed into one. "Death by Typo: The Latest Frivolous Attack on Obamacare," read the headline on a Nov. 4 Paul Krugman column.
But by downplaying the challenge in this way, referring to the sentence in question as a "typo" or a "drafting error," Obamacare's supporters risk playing right into the challengers' hands, Lazarus argues. His fear is that this rhetoric is setting the groundwork for the Court's conservative justices to say, in effect, that their hands are tied—that they see they error, are powerless to fix it, and so must dismantle the statute.
"If they see that the entire public discussion in the media assumes that there was a drafting error and that is the problem with the statute, then they can gain greater confidence that they can defuse criticism by saying, 'You're right, there is a drafting error, but it's not up to the courts to correct it,' " Lazarus argued.
That might give them cover to eviscerate the law while providing some insulation from the perception that such a ruling would be nakedly political.
There are two sides to the challengers' case. The first is strictly textual—the statute says "established by the State," case closed. The second and more difficult argument is that Congress actually intended for subsidies to only be available in certain states, making Obamacare unworkable in others. And the "typo" criticism is aimed at the second line of attack.
But Obamacare supporters have a pretty strong argument on the textual side because judges—even strict constructionists like Justice Antonin Scalia—have consistently said that courts should read the entire law as one unit when handling questions of statutory interpretation. And if you read the whole Affordable Care Act, taken together, the "established by the State" line loses its clarity.
“Great news in short form along with much needed humor."Patrick, President of private healthcare consulting firm Sign up form for the newsletter
This is the crux of the Justice Department's argument, and Lazarus said it's the stronger one: Essentially, not to concede that Congress wrote something, intentionally or not, that looks like it limits subsidies to state-run exchanges. What Congress wrote, he argues, is the entire ACA, and focusing the analysis at that level makes it less important to figure out whether "established by the State" was a mistake and whether it's one the courts can correct.
"The Affordable Care Act has significant textual provisions that collide directly with the opponents' interpretation," he said.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/is-the-left-helping-scotus-destroy-obamacare-20141130
-
The Latest Gruber Video Could be the Most Damaging of All
by KEITH KOFFLER on DECEMBER 3, 2014
I know, another Jonathan Gruber video. That’s so yesterday, like Ebola, you’re thinking. But this one may be worse than the derisive pomposity and shameless admissions of deception that marked Gruber’s previous performances.
Because in the new video, Gruber provides stunning evidence favoring the side that is seeking to destroy Obamacare in a case headed to the Supreme Court.
Here’s what he said in January 2012:
If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, “you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country.”
Here’s why this is so important.
The Supreme Court agreed last month to hear arguments in a case that claims subsidies for people under Obamacare are only for people who, as spelled out in the law, use an exchange established by a state. The infamous federal exchange was really a backup mechanism that the law’s writers didn’t expect to be used because, you know, what state would refuse federal subsidies and fail to set up an exchange?
Thirty six, as it turned out. So as you can see, if people in these states can’t get subsidies because of a ruling by the Supreme Court, a central component of Obamacare falls apart, and possibly the law itself.
Nobody contests the language of the law. Liberals claim, though, that the “intent” of the Affordable Care Act was to cover everybody, so the law’s clear text is moot. But what Gruber, the central architect of the law – despite efforts by the administration and top Democrats to pretend he was merely making runs for pizza and coffee – seems to be confirming is that, yes, this is what the law says, and this is the effect: You don’t set up a state exchange, your citizens don’t get subsidies.
The Court is expected to rule in the spring. It apparently is too late to include the video as evidence in the case. But the Justices, who are known to read newspapers and watch TV, may well be aware of this video, and influenced by its contest.
Here are Gruber’s remarks, followed by some good commentary by a panel on Fox.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/12/03/latest-gruber-video-damaging/
-
Let's see if they get it right this time.
As Supreme Court takes up ObamaCare, GOP offers alternatives, Dems warn of 'massive damage’
Published March 04, 2015
FoxNews.com
Congressional Republicans are proposing long and short-term alternatives to ObamaCare as the Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments Wednesday in a case that has the potential to unravel the health care law.
The plaintiffs, four Virginia residents, argue that Americans who bought insurance through the federal ObamaCare exchange are not entitled to subsidies because the law says only those who bought policies in state exchanges are eligible.
At least 5.5 million Americans last year bought insurance on the federal exchange and received the subsidies.
Both sides in the case -- known as King v. Burwell -- generally agree that if the high court decides that millions of recipients are no longer eligible, they likely will no longer be able to afford insurance under ObamaCare and exit the system.
However, whether their departure would topple the entire health care law remains a matter of debate ahead of the expected high court ruling by June.
Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said nullifying the subsidies would cause "massive damage to our health care system" and that the administration would have no way to fix it.
The administration and Democrats who enacted the 2010 law over unanimous GOP opposition also largely back studies showing the number of people who would loses the subsidies, in the form of tax credits, is as high as 7.5 million.
And a recent analysis by the health care firm Avalere found that those who would lose their subsidies as a result of the court ruling would have their premiums increase an average 225 percent.
Ed Haislmaier, a health care policy expert with the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, on Tuesday predicated some fallout, or “dislocation’ but not to such an extent.
“Is the sky going to fall?” he asked. “No, but it’s probably going to rain in some places.”
Several top Capitol Hill Republicans have in the past few days announced pending, short-term alternatives if the court invalidates the subsidies for residents of the 34 states that use the federal ObamaCare exchange, not their own.
Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said last week that his plan will set the stage for a “more permanent fix” but did not provide specifics.
On Sunday, Hatch was joined by fellow GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Barrasso of Wyoming in a Washington Post opinion piece saying they have a plan.
“We would provide financial assistance to help Americans keep the coverage they picked,” the senators wrote. "It would be unfair to allow families to lose their coverage, particularly in the middle of the year."
However, they also provided no specifics on how to pay for the lost subsidies -- estimated at $36.1 billion.
Most of the 34 states in question are GOP-run and represented in Congress by Republicans.
On Tuesday, an opinion offering by Reps. John Kline, R-Minn., Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Fred Upton, R-Mich., appeared in The Wall Street Journal also presenting alternatives - but in more detail.
“No family should pay for this administration’s overreach,” the congressmen, chairmen, respectively, of the House committees on Education and Workforce, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce wrote.
“That is why House Republicans have formed a working group to propose a way out for the affected states if the court rules against the administration.”
The congressmen said their ObamaCare “off-ramp” will in part allow states to opt out of coverage requirements that are driving up costs, let Americans buy the policies they want and make insurers compete for customers, rather than force Americans to buy a government-approved health plan “under the threat of IRS fines.”
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/04/as-supreme-court-takes-up-obamacare-gop-offers-solutions-dems-warm-massive/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Federal Judge Blasts Obama Lawyers Arguing Obamacare Case
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=c0a3a339-08ce-4115-9392-4ad63a5eedfe&SiteName=Newsmax)
Image: Federal Judge Blasts Obama Lawyers Arguing Obamacare Case U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (Charles Dharapak/AP)
Thursday, 28 May 2015
A U.S. judge on Thursday blasted the Obama administration's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives over the implementation of the Democratic president's signature healthcare law.
Republicans in the House filed a lawsuit in November, saying administration officials unlawfully bypassed Congress.
At issue are executive changes authorizing Treasury payments to healthcare insurers without the funding being agreed by Congress and delaying implementation of the law's employer mandate, which required employers with more than 50 employees to provide healthcare coverage.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, appointed by Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, repeatedly interrupted U.S. Justice Department lawyer Joel McElvain during the hearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Justice Department lawyers argue that the House lacks standing to sue, citing a section of U.S. law that means the House would have to prove it has been directly harmed.
"So it is your position that if the House of Representatives affirmatively voted not to fund something ... then that vote can be ignored by the administration, because after all, no one can sue them?" she asked.
McElvain argued that the merits of the case were not being discussed at the hearing, and that any perceived injury was "abstract."
"I'm not asking you to give me your brief. I want you to explain ... why it's not an insult to the Constitution?" Collyer said.
McElvain argued that the House could pass new legislation if it disagreed with the administration's changes, which he said were legal under "pre-existing permanent appropriation."
At another point, Collyer admonished McElvain: "You can't just shake your head and not deal with the question."
The lawsuit is one of a flurry filed against the Obama administration in the past few months challenging executive actions on healthcare and immigration as Republicans seek to amp up pressure on the president.
Jonathan Turley, a lawyer for the House Republicans, said the lawsuit should go forward to show the power of the purse "should not be decorative."
The judge, while appearing sympathetic to the Republicans' decision to bring the lawsuit, said she had not yet decided on the standing issue before her.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamacare-lawsuit-federal-judge/2015/05/28/id/647231/#ixzz3bT4QebWK
-
Good thing the former "constitutional law professor" respects the separation of powers.
Obama says Supreme Court should never have taken up health law case, in blunt challenge
Published June 08, 2015
FoxNews.com
President Obama bluntly challenged the Supreme Court over a pending ruling on the validity of ObamaCare subsidies, complaining Monday that the court should never have taken up the case -- and warning that a ruling against subsidies would be a "twisted interpretation" of the law.
The president and his administration's legal team for months have fought the Affordable Care Act court challenge, which is over whether people who enrolled through the federal HealthCare.gov are entitled to subsidies.
But the president's comments on Monday, during a press conference on the sidelines of the G-7 summit in Germany, were perhaps his toughest to date. He strongly suggested the court would be running afoul of established legal guidance if it rules against the administration, and took the rare step of saying the court should have stayed out of this fight.
"This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn't even have been taken up," Obama said.
The administration has argued in court that the subsidies are valid through both state-run exchanges and exchanges run through HealthCare.gov. Foes argue that the Affordable Care Act stipulates subsidies are only intended for those buying insurance on state-run exchanges.
The court decision, expected any day, could have far-reaching implications because millions would lose their insurance if the court rules against the administration.
Yet the Obama administration has faced criticism for declining the spell out what its contingency plan is if the court rules that way, instead voicing confidence that the Supreme Court will keep the program as is.
Obama again voiced that confidence on Monday, and urged the court not to rule otherwise.
He said it's safe to "assume" the court will do what most legal scholars expect and "play it straight." Obama said it has been well-documented that Congress never intended to exclude people who went through the federal exchange.
To rule the other way, the president said, would be a "contorted reading of the statute" and a "twisted interpretation."
But if that does happen, Obama said, "that throws off how that exchange operates" and millions of people would lose subsidies.
"It's a bad idea," Obama said.
The president went on to mount a robust defense of the law itself, saying "none" of the alleged "horrors" associated with ObamaCare have "come to pass."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/08/obama-says-supreme-court-should-never-have-taken-up-health-law-case-in-blunt/
-
Scalia is right: SCOTUScare.
Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare subsidies
Published June 25, 2015
FoxNews.com
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld ObamaCare subsidies nationwide, in the second major court victory for President Obama on his signature health care law.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that subsidies are valid even in states that did not set up their own insurance exchanges.
A ruling against the administration would have threatened subsidies worth millions in nearly three-dozen states and imperiled the program itself. For months, though, the administration said it had no back-up plans, confident the Supreme Court would rule in its favor.
With yet another challenge to ObamaCare now cleared away, Obama urged critics to move on.
"The Affordable Care Act is here to stay," he declared in the Rose Garden.
But Republicans continued to blast the program, and vowed to keep up the fight. "ObamaCare is fundamentally broken, increasing health care costs for millions of Americans. Today's ruling doesn't change that fact," House Speaker John Boehner said. "[W]e will continue our efforts to repeal the law and replace it with patient-centered solutions that meet the needs of seniors, small business owners, and middle-class families."
The Supreme Court had previously upheld the law's individual mandate in 2012, in a 5-4 decision. This time, the justices tackled the law's tax credits and ruled that subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive do not depend on where they live.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who was the key vote in 2012, again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority on Thursday.
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
Conservative-leaning justices, though, issued a scathing dissent to the decision, referencing the several times the high court has had to rule on the health law.
"We should just start calling this law SCOTUScare," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The challenge devised by opponents of the law centered on four words -- established by the state -- in the more than 900-page law. The passage technically said subsidies were for those exchanges established by the state.
The law's opponents argued that the vast majority of people who now get help paying for their insurance premiums are, therefore, ineligible for their federal tax credits. That is because roughly three dozen states opted against creating their own health insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, and instead rely on the federal Healthcare.gov to help people find coverage if they don't get insurance through their jobs or the government.
In the challengers' view, the phrase "established by the state" demonstrated that subsidies were to be available only to people in states that set up their own exchanges. Those words cannot refer to exchanges established by the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees Healthcare.gov, the opponents argued.
But the majority opinion effectively said Congress intended the subsidies to be available for all.
"Had Congress meant to limit tax credits to State Exchanges, it likely would have done so in the definition of 'applicable taxpayer' or in some other prominent manner," Roberts wrote. "In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase."
He added: "Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid."
Scalia wrote that if that's the case, "words no longer have meaning."
Nationally, 10.2 million people have signed up for health insurance under the Obama health overhaul. That includes the 8.7 million people who are receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their insurance premiums.
Of those receiving subsidies, 6.4 million people were at risk of losing that aid because they live in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges.
The case is King v. Burwell, 14-114.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/25/supreme-court-upholds-obamacare-subsidies/