Alex Blaze

Health care bill ruled unconstitutional

Filed By Alex Blaze | December 13, 2010 4:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Living
Tags: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, health care reform, individual mandate, judge

A judge appointed by Bush ruled part of the health care bill unconstitutional:

henry-hudson.jpgIn a 42-page opinion issued in Richmond, Va., Judge Hudson wrote that the law's central requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The insurance mandate is central to the law's mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured because insurers argue that only by requiring healthy people to have policies can they afford to treat those with expensive chronic conditions.

The judge wrote that his survey of case law "yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, not withstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme."

Judge Hudson is the third district court judge to reach a determination on the merits in one of the two dozen lawsuits filed against the health care law. The others -- in Detroit and Lynchburg, Va. -- have upheld the law. Lawyers on both sides said the appellate process could last another two years before the Supreme Court settles the dispute.

The individual mandate is central to the law - it's hard to force insurers to accept everyone if people can just wait until they're sick to buy insurance. And if insurers aren't forced to cover everyone, then the bill doesn't do anything about eligibility and can't be called universal at all.

Who knows if this will stick, although with the current Supreme Court I wouldn't rule anything out. As I understood it, the individual mandate doesn't force anyone to buy anything, per se, it just levies a tax on people who refuse to purchase health care. Congress does have the right to tax and give tax brakes to different behaviors.

Not that people are going to be all that invested in defending this part of the bill. It's hard to explain even to generally informed people why an individual mandate is necessary because Americans who care about health care reform are generally in the single-payer camp. Since no court has ruled a program that taxes people to do good stuff unconstitutional, maybe that's a direction Congress and the president can go in if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That would have the added benefit of cutting private insurers out of the game and no real downside since Obama is already being criticized for his "government take-over" of the health care industry.

Well, no downside except for the end to huge profits for private insurers when they can't take Americans hostage and threaten to kill people if they don't pay up. It all depends on how you approach the problem.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

The federal government already allows me to deduct (practically all of) my mortgage payments if I buy a house, income that is otherwise taxed. If only I had the money to BUY a house!

So let us all deduct our health insurance and health care costs, from income that is otherwise taxed.

Oh, wait! Most people without health insurance don't have it because they can't afford it in the first place! Just like I can't afford a house.

How is that REFUSING to buy health insurance? And how is further penalizing them going to help?

Except that 14 other judges have found it to be perfectly Constitutional and completely within Congress' power.

Why do you suppose this verdict is getting all the press? Could it be the MSM's liberal bias?

Probably because a judge ruling a bill unconstitutional is more exciting than a judge saying "Everything's fine here."

Every report I've seen so far has mentioned the cases where the bill was upheld, and they're usually citing the party that appointed each one too.

Personally, I am pretty much at the point of thinking we would have been much better in the long run if McCain and Palin had won the election. Perhaps if we had a full-blown Depression and doubled the wealth gap yet again in a couple of years instead of a decade, ppl would finally realize what Republicans stand for.

But then again, prolly not...

That's coming after 2012. Then, after the GOP is blamed (unfairly) for an inevitability regardless of who's in power, we may get a DNC Prez, House, and Senate again in 2020. We need to start preparing now to take advantage of that, so we don't get a repeat of the 2009-2010 debacle.

The full blown depression is coming regardless of which puppet-in-chief won the "beauty Contest" in 2008.

When you spend 29 years printing money out of thin air creating bubble after bubble, three in the last decade alone, you wind up with the currency taking a nose dive towards destruction.

No country in recorded human history has managed to escape this economic fact of relying on a FIAT currency and neither shall we.

The correction is a long time in coming.

It's been a Depression for a while, whether Obama's White House lies about it or not. Obama, rubbing salt in wounds, says we're in a recovery. That's true for his handlers on Wall Street but not for working people.

Those who need further proof might ask the 15 million and more unemployed, the folks living in Obamavilles and those getting their wages cut if it's a recovery.

They already know it's a Depression and that the reasons it turned into a Depression is Obama's trillion dollar giveaways to Wall Street while they busted unions like the UAW and because Obama and the Democrats refuse to adopt easy measures to end mass unemployment and instead are cutting wages for federal workers.

Yes, the assumption that people lack health care because they just don't want it and not that they can't afford it, or that what they afford will not cover their needs anyways is asinine. Individual mandates are flat out ridiculous and punish the poor and disabled, rather than helping. I am tired of seeing people with disabilities scapegoated here, because nothing in the new bill establishes premium caps or mandatory minimum coverage requirements for people with disabilites, so it is moot for us anyways. So, they can't state that they are denying me a health insurance plan because I have a pre-existing condition, but they can still refuse to pay for anything related to it (this past year for me involved at least $30,000 of issues that could mostly be argued to be pre-existing, which were covered by medicaid but would not be covered under these forced plans) or tell me that I have to pay $7000 a month for it. Disability rights groups have almost universally opposed this bill, so let's not play that game.

I hate individual mandates and would gladly see this new incarnation of the Reagan plan go down in flames and, yes, as a person with disabilities I will be just as uninsurable under the new bill as under the old one the moment I loose medicaid eligibility, but at least now I'm not essentially getting fined for that as the icing on the cake.

Obama's health care fraud requires people to buy health care from profit-gouging, uncaring insurance companies mostly using HMO plans, which encourages those companies to continue to deny care. Which kills people.

Denial of care is, so far, cheaper for insurance companies than the costs of losing lawsuits. The profit gouging by these insurance companies and the duplication of services could pay for socialized medicine.

HMO's are a 'gift' from Richard Nixon.

Continuing the slaughter of civilians and GIs in unwinnable wars and using HMOs to increase insurance company profits are just two of the things Obama and Nixon have in common.

We need a constitutional amendment establishing a socialized medical system. What we don't need are Democrats, Obama's HMOs or Republicans.

Have fun getting 3/4 of the states to Ratify your Socialist Agenda.

There are a growing number of us tired of paying for your "best intentions" and failed social experiments with our money.

If you want me or anyone else to pay for your health insurance come over and involuntarily remove my wages yourself instead of taking the chicken sh!t route and having the government mafia via the IRS do your dirty work for you.

As the saying goes, "Socialism is Great until you run out of other people's money."

We'll get the money from confiscatory taxes on the rich and by utilizing economic democracy.

All we need is ratification by 3/4th of working people.

And what will you say when your love of "Direct Democracy" and dedication to "Majority Rules" results in a majority "voting" to Kill queers?

It is obvious you have a bit more to research regarding forms of governance which provide the greatest amount of Liberty to humanity.

As for your "Workers Party" side-stepping the Constitutional amendment process to act as Mafia Thugs sounds like you are itching for a Civil War.

And it is doubtful the lazy socialists who leech off of others assets could form a common defense.

You may have me confused with some SDS dummy. Economic and political democracy has to involve representative democracy.

The only people I know who are advocating mass murder are right wing Democrats and Republicans, mostly christers. People like Obama's bbf Rick Warren.

Mass murder of GLBT folks is a problem associated with neo-colonial and capitalist states in their death agony, reeling about looking for scape goats.

Workers party's aren't composed of thugs. We leave that to capitalist parties and christers and the rich.

And as I said, when we're able, we'll happily confiscate the stolen wealth of the parasitic rich. Their TARP funds, their profits, their rental properties, and their inheritances. They didn't work for it and they don't deserve it or need it.

Workers work for a living. The parasitic looter classes are too inept or lazy to be productive.

When you tout MAJORITY RULE in lieu of the process in which the Constitution is Amended you are speaking to DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

You live by the sword, as it is to your benefit today, means when the next vote comes up 6 out of 10 in favor of murdering queers, you die by the sword.

Democracy is a dangerous game no reasoned individual with hopes of passing on the gift of Liberty to the posterity should ever align themselves with, even in passing.

This country was not founded as a Democracy, nor was it ever meant to become one for as

Mr. Madison said:
"Democracy is the most vile form of government; democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found
incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent
in their deaths."

We became a "Transitional Democracy" unto the death knells via creation of the 3rd Central Bank, which as you rightly point out created a class of looters, i.e. Central Bankers along with their sycophantic minions vis-a-vis the Investment Banks such as Goldman, Merrill, etcetera etcetera which benefit from first access to the FIAT money leaving the rest of us to pay the hidden "Inflation Tax" as the Debt Notes work their way through the economy.

Yes through Democracy they have robbed us and our posterity to the point of collapse, however more mob rule, ergo Democracy is not the solution.

We are closing in on the 100th anniversary of becoming a Transitional Democracy and thus just as Madison foreshadowed we have arrived at the doorstep of a Plutocratic Oligarchy.

Nevertheless, your notion of removing my property from me via Wage confiscation to support your health will be met with no less resentment and resistance than that expressed towards the Central Bankers and the corporatists.

You were born in the wrong century. Maybe the wrong era.

We shall see who was born in the wrong era, if/when your merry band of "worker-thieves" attempt to directly steal from the people.

My guess is the notion of being robbed by thugs transcends centuries, and will result in the untimely death or more than one of your Health Care Pirates.

Just a suggestion, stay away from the house playing "Happiness is a Warm Gun"

polargirl360 | December 13, 2010 7:41 PM

Transsexuals will be forced to pay for other peoples' medical needs and surgeries when most cannot afford their own medical needs or go to jail and be housed with members of the same biological sex thus constituting a sentence of sex slavery for failing to pay into this extortion racket!


I hope this bail fails! Even drug gangs aren't this brutal and depraved!

Cynthia McCorison | December 14, 2010 9:34 AM

I never thought that I would be in agreement on anything the right says or does, however, I done been Obamanized.As a disabled person on Medicare, and Medicaid myself, I can barely even afford to brush my own teeth as it is. The poverty level for a single person is capped at a level of $25,000 per year. As a recipient of social security disability benefits, my own income is less than half of that per year. Before Obamacare,and because of my extreme poverty, my medications used to be completely covered. Now however, My meds, that I normally take, and which I had no problems obtaining before, are being denied...Unless of course I buy an extra insurance policy. Of necessity, and with the possibility of my early demise without these medicines, I had no choice but to purchase an additional policy. There were not any cost of living adjustments last year, or this year either, for those of us on SSDI, or those who are retired. Cost of living adjustments are are based on the growth of the consumer price index. if there is no growth, there is no cost of living adjustment, even though the cost of living keeps rising. It is estimated that for the working people, and those with money, that the cost of living has risen about 3%. By comparison, because of our low incomes, it is estimated that the cost of living for us has risen by 26%. What's wrong with this picture?

I do wish we could all have truly affordable health insurance that provides comprehensive care. But the numbers just don't add up.

And it's not going to get any better next year. All those new mandates will keep people who are already insured in coverage, if they can afford the increased premiums, but the COST of health care will continue to rise faster than general inflation. And family incomes.

Alex: I heard the tail-end of a story on my car radio this morning, about the background of this federla judge. Seems he is an investor in a PR firm which produced the anti-health care ads. And more.

Can you do a look-see?

Judges: recusing is becoming an art form. Ginny Thomas may have set the new low-water-mark for a court that stole an election.

I had such high hopes....