it's hard for me to understand the ramifications of this. I mean, the 9th circuit rules on stuff all the time that I think is wrong, and it eventually just goes to the Supreme Court. Am I missing something thinking that I don't care what some circuit court somewhere rules on (even if I agree with the ruling) b/c it's not enforced anyway, and it'll be appealed again?
It's going to the supreme court soon enough. The Supreme Court may find the lower court's ruling to be wrong somehow, but this quote from the lower court is what I expect the supreme court to rule as well: "This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," a divided three-judge panel said.
MORE: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61218.html The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that the health care reform law’s requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance is unconstitutional, a striking blow to the legislation that increases the odds that the Supreme Court will have to review the law. The suit was brought by 26 states — nearly all led by Republican governors and attorneys general. The Department of Justice is expected to appeal. The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate. Judge Stanley Marcus, in a dissenting opinion, said the mandate is constitutional. He was also appointed by Clinton.
So, where are the Obama apologists regarding the lie about providing health care to illegal aliens (like we all knew it would)? From my perspective, the Democrats forced this through against the will of the vast majority of the voters, based on concealing the costs and lying about it covering illegal aliens. Maybe someone could spin it differently, so I'll feel like there was some Vaseline involved in this rape. It will be interesting to see if any of the big media outlets even report this. Go Blazers
Great stuff from the court's decision: http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...y-11th-circuit-struck-down-obamacares-mandate The essential question is: if courts uphold the individual mandate, what is the constitutional principle that would limit the U.S. Congress’s exercise of its Commerce Clause power? This issue has often been framed by asking whether the power being claimed could allow future Congresses to force Americans to eat broccoli or join a gym. Obama’s lawyers, while acknowledging that there’s no Supreme Court case that directly grappled with the issue, have countered by making the “health care is unique” argument. That is, since virtually everybody will need health care at some point, it’s a special case. Yet as I wrote in June, “simply saying the health care market is unique doesn't actually create a very clear or understandable limit to Congressional power.” “Ultimately, the government’s struggle to articulate cognizable, judicially administrable limiting principles only reiterates the conclusion we reach today: there are none,” the court wrote. “Presumably, a future Congress similarly would be able to articulate a unique problem requiring a legislative fix that entailed compelling Americans to purchase a certain product from a private company,” the opinion reads. “The government apparently seeks to set the terms of the limiting principles courts should apply, and then asks that we defer to Congress’s judgment about whether those conditions have been met.” The judges write that, “The government’s five factual elements of ‘uniqueness,’ proposed as constitutional limiting principles, are nowhere to be found in Supreme Court precedent. Rather, they are ad hoc, devoid of constitutional substance, incapable of judicial administration—and, consequently, illusory. The government’s fact- based criteria would lead to expansive involvement by the courts in congressional legislation, requiring us to sit in judgment over when the situation is serious enough to justify an economic mandate.” Later on, the court reiterates that: “We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers. ‘Uniqueness’ is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision.” And the judges add that “the difficulties posed by the insurance market and health care cannot justify extra-constitutional legislation.”
Good post, Denny. And the argument is true that this a truly extra-constitutional law that not only gives new and limitless powers of the executive & legislative branches of government over citizens, but it would also allow the government to deal punitively and punish those who do not or can not comply with a near limitless array of compulsory legislation. I might go so far as to suggest if the US Supreme Court allows this precedent to be established the ramifications with respect to future legislation aimed at all or part of the citizenry could at least make it legal to create the police state that people like Maris think we already have. Or at the very least it takes a dent out of freedoms we currently enjoy.
The interesting thing is that single-payer clearly isn't unconstitutional, so maybe if this gets overturned by the Supremes, then we'll have single-payer sooner rather than later. barfo
I thought about that. But the reason I doubt it is that it would take major revisions to the current Obamacare legislation and that will never pass the House. At least not this term.
unfortunately plenty of votes from both sides of the aisle were & are bought off by the healthcare industry. Those currently robbing the country blind are willing to pay the freight to obstruct any sort of real change to their looting of America. While it can be argued that the legislation that passed is a step in the right direction, it's not the legislation that the Obama administration proposed or wanted, it's what they settled for. Half assing anything is a recipe for failure which is probably why this bill was allowed to pass by those who didn't want it to go the public option direction that was gaining traction in the general population. The answers seem pretty obvious but money corrupts our politics to the core. Leaches used to getting a large piece of the pie don't want to give their pie up. Pretty hard to see how to root it ($) out when those in charge own the media too and obviously we have some Americans buying the BS hook line and sinker. Socialized medicine works here in the states on a limited basis (the VA, medicare) and in many countries as the primary basis. Certainly we can do far far better then our current system, but those profiting from the current system are willing to pay out the wazoo to insure there is no change. STOMP
It seems likely to me that this supreme court, when it gets around to it, will indeed declare it unconstitutional. And then we'll be back where we started, only the problem will be worse. Costs will still be going up. Coverage will still be going down. Eventually, everyone who isn't making a living off the healthcare industry will have had enough. If you (people who have a vested interest in the current system) want to preserve it, you'd better start reforming it yourselves. Otherwise, it will be done for you, and the results will be much less favorable to you than "Obamacare". barfo
Costs are going up for reasons that are out of insurance companies control. Out of control lawsuits without merit and false reform to prevent the ones that are purely legal extortion. [As a med mal claims adjuster, I estimate 90% of the lawsuits I see are 100% without merit], liberal judges and state insurance commissioners forcing carriers to pay for rising costs... laying it all at the feet of the carriers is both false and disingenuous. If you want to reasonably debate, fine, but if you want to just lie, then there is no debate. We do try. But the plaintiff attorney lobby is too strong. Remember, many of our legislators are attorneys and they are generally loathe to back common sense reform. Instead, more and more is forced on insurance carriers- same sex marriages that force carriers to take on people that are high risk, refusal to reform tort in meaningful ways [at our company over 60% of the money we receive from insures goes directly to fighting lawsuits- 90% of which are fraudulent], tilting the scale to the plaintiff unreasonably [as an example, in Oregon the laws set up decades ago tell a doctor the one way they can defend themselves is to fully inform the patient of the procedure, alternatives, risks and answer their questions. That's those forms you often sign. But, in the 1990's the Oregon judicial system determined that it was unreasonable for doctors to be able to use that as a defense. That decision alone in this state probably costs well over $100,000,000 per year alone. Who's going to pay for that? You & I. And that's one of many examples], refusal to allow for many stream lined processes..... Now, barfo, to be sure we're not completely innocent in this mess, but insurance companies are force fed so much that the vast amount of costs are beyond our control. We beg and scream for reform, but it falls prey to special interest lobbyists and liberal politicians. I have several cases on my desk I'm well over $150,000 each to defend and they have zero value. But if I pay "go away" money (say, $10,000), I now can be sued by my insured for breach of contract or bad faith for settling a fully defensible case, and those lawsuits are typically in the low millions. What am I suppose to do? I raise rates to cover the damn costs, that's what I do or we're out of business. And if we all go out the doctors have no insurance. And when that happens are people are suing their brains out, they go out of business. All for the sake of liberal politics.
So much for lobbying your incorruptible govt. to force everyone to buy barfo's chili or face a fine. Single payer isn't the answer. A system like the VA is.
I prefer state run programs for those who are completely unable to have healthcare otherwise. I like it to also be considered a loan that is only repayable in part under certain circumstances so there is no undue hardship on the person. The feds will contribute to that state run system (like the OHP) yearly/ In other words, the feds heavily contribute to something that I think is a state issue.
Feel guilty do you? Well, you should. But I never said it was all the insurance companies fault. I said "those who make a living from the current healthcare system". You sort of jumped to the conclusion that I meant only the insurance companies. barfo
What in the world would I feel guilty for??? I just clean up the messes promulgated by progressive policies and judges.
It's going to the Supreme Court, and in reality, Anthony Kennedy is going to decide it. So, I guess it's how he feels that morning. My only warning is, if this expansion of the Commerce Clause is enacted, it may lead to a whole bunch of things the Left doesn't like. For example, Congress could pass a banning of abortions and all kind of birth control. Congress could force every new immigrant to take English lessons. Congress could force every American to purchase a Bible (no separation of church and state; it becomes an economic issue only). Congress could force every child to purchase school uniforms. The list goes on and on and on and on. Welcome to the new dictatorship. It's cool when you're in power, but not so neat when the other side is.
A nice discussion of Wickard v. Filburn, which is--before Obamacare--the greatest expansion of the Commerce Clause. http://volokh.com/2011/08/14/distinguishing-wickard/
