PDA

View Full Version : 11th Circuit Court says NO to Corporate Insurance Mandate. SC Ruling Inevitable.



FORD
08-12-2011, 07:22 PM
Health Care Law Individual Mandate Ruled Unconstitutional By Appeals Court
Obama Health Care Law Ruling

By GREG BLUESTEIN 08/12/11 02:21 PM ET AP


ATLANTA -- A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.

The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, which is considered the centerpiece of the law, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn't go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.

Government attorneys can – and likely will – ask the full 11th Circuit to review the panel's ruling. They also can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which many legal observers expect to have the final say on the issue.

The states and other critics argued the law violates people's rights, while the Justice Department countered that the legislative branch was exercising a "quintessential" power.

The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that "the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power."

"What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals 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," the opinion said.

Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus said in a lengthy dissent that the majority ignored the "undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries, and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy."

The 11th Circuit isn't the first appeals court to weigh in on the issue. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the government's new requirement that most Americans buy health insurance, and an appeals court in Richmond has heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law.

But the Atlanta-based court is considered by many observers to be the most pivotal legal battleground yet because it reviewed a sweeping ruling by a Florida judge.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's ruling not only struck down a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, but he also 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.

The states urged the 11th Circuit to uphold Vinson's ruling, saying in a court filing that letting the law stand would set a troubling precedent that "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."

On Friday, the National Federation of Independent Business, which joined the 26 states in the challenge, urged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the rest of the health care overhaul. The federation has argued the federal health care law would cost small businesses millions by forcing them to provide health insurance for employees.

"Small-business owners across the country have been vindicated by the 11th Circuit's ruling that the individual mandate in the healthcare law is unconstitutional," the group said. "The court reaffirmed what small businesses already knew – there are limits to Congress' power. And the individual mandate, which compels every American to buy health insurance or pay a fine, is a bridge too far."

The Justice Department countered that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business. It said the legislative branch was exercising its "quintessential" rights when it adopted the new law.

During oral arguments in June, the three-judge panel repeatedly raised questions about the overhaul and expressed unease with the insurance requirement. Each of the three worried aloud if upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.

The 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 is considered either a stalwart conservative or an unfaltering liberal.

Dubina, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, is not considered to be as reflexively conservative as some of his colleagues. But he's been 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 law.

Marcus and Hull were both tapped by President Bill Clinton to join the court. Marcus also was previously appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Florida bench after several years as Miami's lead federal prosecutor. And Hull, a former county judge in Atlanta, is known for subjecting both sides of the counsel table to challenging questions.

Meanwhile Friday, an Ohio Supreme Court ruling appeared to clear the way for voters in that state to have a chance to reject parts of the health care law on Nov. 8. The Ohio high court in a unanimous decision rejected a liberal policy group's lawsuit challenging certification of the so-called Health Care Freedom Amendment. The lawsuit had claimed petitions carrying 69,000 signatures were flawed.

jhale667
08-12-2011, 09:52 PM
Here we go... :(

FORD
08-12-2011, 09:57 PM
If the so-called "Democrats" had any sense, they would let this piece of shit go, and use the opportunity to start over with a REAL healthcare system like the rest of the civilized world has.

Seshmeister
08-12-2011, 11:16 PM
Exactly. I agree to a point with the Republicans on this, it's a very silly idea trying to force people to take out insurance policies.

Such a stupid idea that you wonder if there could possibly be any connection between that ridiculous expensive impractical idea being chosen and the amount of money healthcare companies give to politicians.

Meanwhile the big debate is whether fags can get married. Ridiculous.

FORD
08-15-2011, 11:15 AM
Why the New Healthcare Law Should Have Been Based on Medicare (And What Democrats Should Have Learned By Now)
by Robert Reich (http://robertreich.org/post/8933121835)
Sunday, August 14, 2011

Two appellate judges in Atlanta — one appointed by President Bill Clinton and one by George H.W. Bush – have just decided the Constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to require individuals to buy health insurance.

The decision is a major defeat for the White House. The so-called “individual mandate” is a cornerstone of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s 2010 health care reform law, scheduled to go into effect in 2014.

The whole idea of the law is to pool heath risks. Only if everyone buys insurance can insurers afford to cover people with preexisting conditions, or pay the costs of catastrophic diseases.

The issue is now headed for the Supreme Court (another appellate court has upheld the law’s constitutionality) where the prognosis isn’t good. The Court’s Republican-appointed majority has not exactly distinguished itself by its progressive views.

Chalk up another one for the GOP, outwitting and outflanking the President and the Democrats.

Remember the health-care debate? Congressional Republicans refused to consider a single-payer system that would automatically pool risks. They wouldn’t even consider giving people the option of buying into it.

The President and the Democrats caved, as they have on almost everything. They came up with a compromise that kept health care in the hands of private insurance companies.

The only way to spread the risk in such a system is to require everyone buy insurance.

Which is exactly what the two appellate judges in Atlanta object to. The Constitution, in their view, doesn’t allow the federal government to compel citizens to buy something. “Congress may regulate commercial actors,” they write. “But what Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals 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.”

Most Americans seem to agree. According to polls, 60 percent of the public opposes the individual mandate. Many on the right believe it a threat to individual liberty. Many on the left object to being required to buy something from a private company.

Had the President and the Democrats stuck to their guns during the health-care debate and insisted on Medicare for all, or at least a public option, they wouldn’t now be facing the possible unraveling of the new health care law.

After all, Social Security and Medicare – the nation’s two most popular safety nets – require every working American to “buy” them. The purchase happens automatically in the form of a deduction from everyone’s paychecks.

But because Social Security and Medicare are government programs they don’t feel like mandatory purchases. They’re more like tax payments, which is what they are – payroll taxes.

There’s no question payroll taxes are constitutional, because there’s no doubt that the federal government can tax people in order to finance particular public benefits.

Americans don’t mind mandates in the form of payroll taxes for Social Security or Medicare. In fact, both programs are so popular even conservative Republicans were heard to shout “don’t take away my Medicare!” at rallies opposed to the new health care law.

Requiring citizens to buy something from a private company is entirely different. If Congress can require citizens to buy health insurance from the private sector, reasoned the two appellate judges in Atlanta, what’s to stop it from requiring citizens to buy anything else? If the law were to stand, “a future Congress similarly would be able to articulate a unique problem … compelling Americans to purchase a certain product from a private company.”

Other federal judges in district courts — one in Virginia and another in Florida — have struck down the law on similar grounds. They said the federal government has no more constitutional authority requiring citizens to buy insurance than requiring them to buy broccoli or asparagus. (The Florida judge referred to broccoli; the Virginia judge to asparagus.)

Social Security and Medicare aren’t broccoli or asparagus. They’re as American as hot dogs and apple pie.

The Republican strategy should now be clear: Privatize anything that might otherwise be a public program financed by tax dollars. Then argue in the courts that any mandatory purchase of it is unconstitutional because it exceeds the government’s authority. And rally the public against the requirement.

Remember this next time you hear Republican candidates touting Paul Ryan’s plan for turning Medicare into vouchers for seniors to buy private health insurance.

So what do Obama and the Democrats do if the individual mandate in the new health care law gets struck down by the Supreme Court?

Immediately propose what they should have proposed right from the start — universal health care based on Medicare for all, financed by payroll taxes. The public will be behind them, as will the courts.

Jagermeister
08-15-2011, 11:28 AM
This will go to the Supreme court and be found unconstitutional it's that simple. While I don't buy in to FORD's dream of a socialized health care plan I do believe something still must be done. I guess if I was offered a CHOICE, my current insurance or some type of medicare I would weigh the options. Sure if medicare offered a better value I would pay for it. But wait.... so I still pay for medicare out of my paycheck but have to pay for it again if I want to use it now? SO I pay that FICA guy twice. :umm:

Jesus Christ
06-26-2012, 05:12 PM
Resurrecting this thread in light of the impending decision by the Supreme Sanhedrin.......

jhale667
06-26-2012, 05:19 PM
I'll be surprised if the partisan hackfest that passes for a SCOTUS these days doesn't strike it down (even though the more people are educated about it the more they like it), but there is talk of staring over and trying for universal healthcare immediately if it happens, so it might be a good thing in the long run...

Nickdfresh
06-26-2012, 05:54 PM
If the so-called "Democrats" had any sense, they would let this piece of shit go, and use the opportunity to start over with a REAL healthcare system like the rest of the civilized world has.

Yep...

FORD
06-26-2012, 06:08 PM
Thom Hartmann was talking about this today. His suggestion was that (assuming the BCE court does kill the "Obamacare" act) is that the Democrats should just put it all on the table, knowing that as much as 72% of the American people were in favor of Single Payer in previous polls, and that the campaign frame should be a choice of Single Payer/Medicare for everyone, or else for NO ONE, because Mittens would likely implement Randtard Ryan's Medicare privatization voucher scam, if he were elected.

Remember all the ill informed teabaggers screaming "keep your government hands off my Medicare" a few years back? Wonder if they figured out yet who is REALLY trying to kill Medicare. That would be the assholes they handed control of Congress to in 2010.