Health Care Reform Ruled Unconstitutional... Again

[Lord MJ]

Link

Judge: Obama's health overhaul unconstitutional

PENSACOLA, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida ruled Monday that President Barack Obama's entire health care overhaul law is unconstitutional, placing even noncontroversial provisions under a cloud in a broad challenge that seems certain to be resolved only by the Supreme Court.

Faced with a major legal setback, the White House called the ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson — in a challenge to the law by 26 of the nation's 50 states — "a plain case of judicial overreaching." That echoed language the judge had used to describe the law as an example of Congress overstepping its authority.

The Florida judge's ruling produced an even split in federal court decisions so far on the health care law, mirroring enduring divisions among the public. Two judges had previously upheld the law, both Democratic appointees. A Republican appointee in Virginia had ruled against it.

The Justice Department quickly announced it would appeal, and administration officials declared that for now the federal government and the states would proceed without interruption to carry out the law. It seemed evident that only the U.S. Supreme Court could deliver a final verdict on Obama's historic expansion of health insurance coverage.

On Capitol Hill, Republican opponents of the law pledged to redouble pressure for a repeal vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate following House action last month. Nearly all of the states that brought suit in in Vinson's court have GOP attorneys general or governors.

Vinson ruled against the overhaul on grounds that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring nearly all Americans to carry health insurance, an idea dating back to Republican proposals from the 1990s but now almost universally rejected by conservatives.

His ruling followed the same general reasoning as one last year from the federal judge in Virginia. But where the first judge's ruling would strike down the insurance requirement and leave the rest of the law in place, Vinson took it much farther, invalidating provisions that range from Medicare discounts for seniors with high prescription costs to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' coverage.

The central issue remains the constitutionality of the law's core requirement that Americans carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Starting in 2014, those who cannot show they are covered by an employer, government program or their own policy will face fines from the IRS.

Opponents say a federal requirement that individuals obtain a specific service — a costly one in the case of health insurance — is unprecedented and oversteps the authority the Constitution gives Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Vinson agreed that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something. He compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.

"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."

Defenders of the law said that analogy was flawed. Insurance can't work if people are allowed to opt out until they need medical attention. Premiums collected from many who are healthy pay the cost of care for those who get sick. Since the uninsured can get treated in the emergency room, deciding not to get coverage has consequences for other people who act prudently do buy coverage.

"The judge's decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the act's individual responsibility provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain," White House adviser Stephanie Cutter wrote in an Internet posting.

Vinson, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, said in his 78-page ruling that requiring people to buy health insurance marks a break with the nation's founding principles.

"It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place," the judge wrote. "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."

It would be difficult to recognize any limits on federal power, he added. Defenders of the law said the founders couldn't have envisioned Medicare or Social Security either.

Vinson did side with the administration on another major issue in the case, the expansion of Medicaid to cover more low-income people. About half of the more than 30 million Americans who would gain insurance through the law would be enrolled in Medicaid. However, striking down the law would also invalidate the Medicaid expansion.

Opponents of the health overhaul praised the decision. 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.

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," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Former Florida Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after 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.

"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 Gov. Rick Scott said.

Other states that joined 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.

Cleaned up your post. Also, people who post shit without comment are no better, to me, than spambots. Try not to do it again. --Lagmonster

[Alyeska]

The *entire* reform is unconstitutional? Yeah, that just reeks of politics.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I agree with the notion that forcing someone to purchase a service from a private agent is unconstitutional.

It reeks very highly of the Salt Tax that the French monarchy was running, which was basically an extortion scheme: we control all the salt. If you make salt, you sell it to us and us alone, at the price we decide, on pain of having soldiers wreck your shit. Everyone (above the age of eight) purchases a minimum weekly allotment of salt at a (much higher) price we decide, on pain of having soldiers wreck your shit.

Or, in this case, we're controlled by the people who control healthcare. You will purchase "healthcare" from them, at the levels of "service" they decide and at the price they - I mean we - decide, on pain of having tax men come and wreck your bank balance's shit.

We need real healthcare reform. Such as, for instance, making every single HMO and other healthcare insurance agency in this country illegal and putting them out of business, establishing a national single-payer healthcare system, and funding it out of taxes so that when someone gets sick or hurt, they go to the doctor or hospital without fear of being harassed by bill collectors.

And while I'm at it, I might as well dream of a genuine social safety net with which persons who fall into destitution are afforded warm, dry places to dwell with bedding which may be slept upon without fear for their persons, and a stipend of money to insure they can continue to live and eat and buy necessities like toiletries and such.

And while I'm at that, may as well wish for a pony. >_<


Sarcasm aside, to reiterate, it is very much against the intent and spirit of our society for the government to be able to compel someone to purchase a service, private or public, like healthcare, or a minimum of seven stamps and envelopes a week.

[Darth Yoshi]

Well, mandating that people buy insurance was stupid to begin with. A lot of people who don't have insurance can't afford coverage that actually means anything, and IRS penalties aren't going to change that. Shit, if they were going to expand Medicaid to include more people, they should have just expanded it to include everybody. Considering how much money is constantly flushed into Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the troops home could have easily paid for it.

[Master of Ossus]

The *entire* reform is unconstitutional? Yeah, that just reeks of politics.

Why? If the provision that compels the purchase of health insurance is unconstitutional, the entire reform is certainly jeopardized--that is the lynchpin of the whole program, is it not?

I agree with the notion that forcing someone to purchase a service from a private agent is unconstitutional.

[...]

Sarcasm aside, to reiterate, it is very much against the intent and spirit of our society for the government to be able to compel someone to purchase a service, private or public, like healthcare, or a minimum of seven stamps and envelopes a week.

Why? We do it all the time. Taxes pay for police, fire, parks, roads, Social Security, and Medicare, to name just a very few. How is compelling me to pay taxes, which are then used to pay for public services like the ones I just rattled off (at levels that I don't have any meaningful input in setting) different from compelling me to purchase a "private or public" service? I would submit that it is different only in the sense that it is not a tax that is processed by the government, but rather is paid directly to an HMO. If there were a "one-payer" system, ironically under the challenge submitted it would be on much firmer constitutional ground.

[Alyeska]

Why? If the provision that compels the purchase of health insurance is unconstitutional, the entire reform is certainly jeopardized--that is the lynchpin of the whole program, is it not?

Yeah, like the Patriot Act was wholesale declared unconstitutional when controversial sections hit the courts. Except that didn't happen.

[Master of Ossus]

Why? If the provision that compels the purchase of health insurance is unconstitutional, the entire reform is certainly jeopardized--that is the lynchpin of the whole program, is it not?

Yeah, like the Patriot Act was wholesale declared unconstitutional when controversial sections hit the courts. Except that didn't happen.

That's because the Patriot Act was divided into individual sections that could meaningfully be applied without other (challenged) portions of the Act. If (e.g.) the wiretapping program were deemed unconstitutional, that wouldn't prevent airport security provisions from being constitutional and effectively implemented because there's very little that's tying those aspects of the Patriot Act together, other than the fact that they were legislatively connected.

The Healthcare Reform Law is different: how the hell does it work if you remove the provision requiring everyone to purchase health insurance? What's left of the law, without that provision? The judge in this case is saying that this particular portion of the act, which he ruled to be unconstitutional, is so fundamental to the rest of the law that it's not severable from the other provisions.

[SirNitram]

I've no idea why a severabiltiy clause wasn't written in, but I doubt the entire revocation will last; most courts agree with Justice Roberts in viewing laws to be severable and erring to allow Congress to keep it going.

In fact, the portion of his opinion on severability is.. More or less verbatim from the Family Research Council's amicus brief. And frankly, I view the FRC as just another group of nutbars screaming about corruption. Most of their shit is about 'gay agenda'.

Now, for the score. 14-2 judgements in favor of HCR. 1-1 on opposition on the position of severability of the mandate.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I agree with the notion that forcing someone to purchase a service from a private agent is unconstitutional.

[...]

Sarcasm aside, to reiterate, it is very much against the intent and spirit of our society for the government to be able to compel someone to purchase a service, private or public, like healthcare, or a minimum of seven stamps and envelopes a week.

Why? We do it all the time. Taxes pay for police, fire, parks, roads, Social Security, and Medicare, to name just a very few. How is compelling me to pay taxes, which are then used to pay for public services like the ones I just rattled off (at levels that I don't have any meaningful input in setting) different from compelling me to purchase a "private or public" service? I would submit that it is different only in the sense that it is not a tax that is processed by the government, but rather is paid directly to an HMO. If there were a "one-payer" system, ironically under the challenge submitted it would be on much firmer constitutional ground.

Taxes are not the same as being force to purchase something. Taxes are levvied so the money found is put towards the good of society - you don't "buy" five days of policing at a time every five days, for instance. You pay into your taxes, and if crime happens to you, the police do their jobs and hopefully sort it out. If crime never happens to you, you (hopefully) don't ever see the police.

The word "purchase" implies choice. "Tax" does not. You can't order someone to go to the Dollar General and buy $50 worth of bendy straws; very few people need a Ulysses S. Grant worth of bendy straws, and if they do, they are capable of purchasing it on their own; the government has no place ordering people to purchase a product they do not wish for and have no need for to shore up the financial situation of Dollar General. By the same token, very few people go through seven stamps and seven envelopes a week, they should not be compelled to do so. If the United States Postal Service needs more funds, you raise taxes or cut something else to provide it, or scale back the USPS.

Likewise, you should not be compelled to purchase a "Service" from Kaiser Permanente or one of their competitors to shore up the financial situation of the healthcare "industry," especially since the "service" you're getting is the most dubious nonsense imaginable. A single-payer healthcare system would be vastly superior. In that, you would not be being compelled to purchase anything from the government, you pay your taxes as normal and if bad health befalls you - no matter how severe or minor, no matter how often or how rare - you're covered.

Does that explain the difference adequately to your satisfaction?

[Master of Ossus]

Taxes are not the same as being force to purchase something. Taxes are levvied so the money found is put towards the good of society - you don't "buy" five days of policing at a time every five days, for instance. You pay into your taxes, and if crime happens to you, the police do their jobs and hopefully sort it out. If crime never happens to you, you (hopefully) don't ever see the police.

I don't buy five days of healthcare at a time, either. I pay my health insurance bill, and if something happens to me, the doctors do their jobs and bill it to Blue Cross and hopefully sort it out. If I'm never sick and never injured,

The word "purchase" implies choice. "Tax" does not. You can't order someone to go to the Dollar General and buy $50 worth of bendy straws; very few people need a Ulysses S. Grant worth of bendy straws, and if they do, they are capable of purchasing it on their own; the government has no place ordering people to purchase a product they do not wish for and have no need for to shore up the financial situation of Dollar General. By the same token, very few people go through seven stamps and seven envelopes a week, they should not be compelled to do so.

Ummm... okay. So the functional difference between the HCR law and a tax is...?

If the United States Postal Service needs more funds, you raise taxes or cut something else to provide it, or scale back the USPS.

USPS doesn't use public funds. It hasn't in something like 30 years.

Likewise, you should not be compelled to purchase a "Service" from Kaiser Permanente or one of their competitors to shore up the financial situation of the healthcare "industry," especially since the "service" you're getting is the most dubious nonsense imaginable.

How many times have I called the police in my lifetime of living in the US?

A single-payer healthcare system would be vastly superior. In that, you would not be being compelled to purchase anything from the government, you pay your taxes as normal and if bad health befalls you - no matter how severe or minor, no matter how often or how rare - you're covered.

I'm not talking about whether it would be better or not, I'm solely evaluating the constitutionality of the measure. I'm pointing out that the functional difference is small.

Broadly, your entire position on the constitutionality of the issue is staked around your belief that the term "purchase" must necessarily equate to "choice." This is nonsense. I purchase school bonds whenever there's a measure requiring me to do so, for example. But beyond that, a semantic distinction is hardly a functional difference--the entire point of my original post.

[Chaotic Neutral]

How many times have I called the police in my lifetime of living in the US?

How many times would you need to call them if there were no police?

[Zaune]

So... would it be unconstitutional if the Democrats had federalised every healthcare facility in the country under eminent domain, transferred them to the Department of Veterans Affairs and renamed it the Department of Public Healthcare? Because they could have done that on Day One of the Obama administration and it would have been a fait accompli.

[Simon_Jester]

The *entire* reform is unconstitutional? Yeah, that just reeks of politics.

Why? If the provision that compels the purchase of health insurance is unconstitutional, the entire reform is certainly jeopardized--that is the lynchpin of the whole program, is it not?

A law which becomes impractical policy without an unconstitutional measure need not be unconstitutional. It is very much possible that much of the bill is constitutional, but that provision is not... the problem is that if that one provision is unconstitutional the entire system falls apart.

And not necessarily in ways the insurance company would like.

Why? We do it all the time. Taxes pay for police, fire, parks, roads, Social Security, and Medicare, to name just a very few. How is compelling me to pay taxes, which are then used to pay for public services like the ones I just rattled off (at levels that I don't have any meaningful input in setting) different from compelling me to purchase a "private or public" service?

One:
Because taxes are set by the legislature, not by private companies. Therefore, there is representation to go with taxation. There is no representation when a private company is allowed to set a price it charges you for a service you are required to buy.

Two:
Because taxes pay for many things you benefit from whether you want to or not. You cannot opt out of being defended by the US military while on US soil, for instance, because the military cannot selectively defend only those who elect to pay for it. This makes levying a tax to pay for the service more reasonable: even if you didn't pay for the service, you'd still get it; the government can legitimately not want to cover freeloaders.

Three:
Because fees paid to private companies are subject to a profit motive. Health insurance companies have every reason to milk as much money from your must-pay health insurance bill as possible, while giving you as little as possible. Governments do not have this incentive, because they don't benefit from keeping a big pile of their own fiat money, so long as anticorruption statutes are enforced, which they are. Therefore, a mandatory fee to pay a nonprofit government is less onerous than a mandatory fee to pay a for-profit corporation. Or, for that matter, a for-profit tax farmer.

[Molyneux]

If I'm not mistaken, you are not, strictly speaking, required to buy health coverage.
If you do not purchase coverage, however, you are subject to a tax.

Not sure whether that is any more or less unconstitutional, but I felt it needed to be pointed out.

[Lord MJ]

If I'm not mistaken, you are not, strictly speaking, required to buy health coverage.
If you do not purchase coverage, however, you are subject to a tax.

Not sure whether that is any more or less unconstitutional, but I felt it needed to be pointed out.

A tax that you don't have to pay if you purchase health insurance, sounds perfectly constitutional to me!

Government has the power to tax, it also has a right to offer people exemptions from paying a tax. It also has the power to offer a citizen the choice between paying the tax or some other action.

If the criminal offence for not buying health insurance AND not paying the tax is "Tax Evasion" instead of "Failure to Purchase Health Care" then I see nothing unconstitutional about this.

[Master of Ossus]

I've no idea why a severabiltiy clause wasn't written in, but I doubt the entire revocation will last; most courts agree with Justice Roberts in viewing laws to be severable and erring to allow Congress to keep it going.

Severability wasn't written in because the drafters of HCR didn't think there was an issue of constitutionality. The idea was actually expressly discussed on the floor, but Pelosi assured the representatives that the HCR was not vulnerable to constitutional challenge.

In fact, the portion of his opinion on severability is.. More or less verbatim from the Family Research Council's amicus brief. And frankly, I view the FRC as just another group of nutbars screaming about corruption. Most of their shit is about 'gay agenda'.

Now, for the score. 14-2 judgements in favor of HCR. 1-1 on opposition on the position of severability of the mandate.

Can you cite the cases that allowed you to reach this count? By my count, the score is 2-2 in terms of the constitutionality of HCR on challenges that reached the issue on the merits, with some other suits dismissed for procedural reasons and never reaching the issue of constitutionality. It's also now 1-1 on the severability of the mandate. I think this is a real issue, actually, if only one that is meaningful due to semantics and not due to the functioning of the law.

If the provision that compels the purchase of health insurance is unconstitutional, the entire reform is certainly jeopardized--that is the lynchpin of the whole program, is it not?

A law which becomes impractical policy without an unconstitutional measure need not be unconstitutional. It is very much possible that much of the bill is constitutional, but that provision is not... the problem is that if that one provision is unconstitutional the entire system falls apart.

And not necessarily in ways the insurance company would like.

That is what I said, isn't it?

You can probably argue that there are parts of the HCR bill which are unrelated to the mandatory coverage, but... are there? It's pretty hard to see how you can have provisions requiring the health insurance industry to cover everybody irrespective of preexisting conditions or other factors if not everyone is covered. Then there's a huge market for lemons problem.

Why? We do it all the time. Taxes pay for police, fire, parks, roads, Social Security, and Medicare, to name just a very few. How is compelling me to pay taxes, which are then used to pay for public services like the ones I just rattled off (at levels that I don't have any meaningful input in setting) different from compelling me to purchase a "private or public" service?

One:
Because taxes are set by the legislature, not by private companies. Therefore, there is representation to go with taxation. There is no representation when a private company is allowed to set a price it charges you for a service you are required to buy.

Even when the Federal government negotiates this price with the private insurer? I fail to see how this is radically different from Medicare: a situation in which the government pays regulated prices to medical providers in exchange for listed services. Medicare is paid for out of a payroll tax.

Two:
Because taxes pay for many things you benefit from whether you want to or not. You cannot opt out of being defended by the US military while on US soil, for instance, because the military cannot selectively defend only those who elect to pay for it. This makes levying a tax to pay for the service more reasonable: even if you didn't pay for the service, you'd still get it; the government can legitimately not want to cover freeloaders.

So does HCR, does it not? I cannot opt out of having a society in which we all benefit from mandated health insurance. Indeed, this was a substantial benefit that was recited by virtually all proponents and supporters of HCR in the first place.

Three: Because fees paid to private companies are subject to a profit motive. Health insurance companies have every reason to milk as much money from your must-pay health insurance bill as possible, while giving you as little as possible. Governments do not have this incentive, because they don't benefit from keeping a big pile of their own fiat money, so long as anticorruption statutes are enforced, which they are. Therefore, a mandatory fee to pay a nonprofit government is less onerous than a mandatory fee to pay a for-profit corporation. Or, for that matter, a for-profit tax farmer.

So would your answer change, then, if the private company involved were a non-profit entity with no profit motive?

If I'm not mistaken, you are not, strictly speaking, required to buy health coverage.
If you do not purchase coverage, however, you are subject to a tax.

Not sure whether that is any more or less unconstitutional, but I felt it needed to be pointed out.
If I'm not mistaken, you are not, strictly speaking, required to buy health coverage.
If you do not purchase coverage, however, you are subject to a tax.

Not sure whether that is any more or less unconstitutional, but I felt it needed to be pointed out.

I'm reading through the full text of the new law, and it refers to this as "individual responsibility." It also describes a "Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage," which is enforced via "penalty."

there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).

`(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN- Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayer's return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.

`(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY- If an individual with respect to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month--

`(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another taxpayer for the other taxpayer's taxable year including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable for such penalty, or

`(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual shall be jointly liable for such penalty.

`(c) Amount of Penalty-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The penalty determined under this subsection for any month with respect to any individual is an amount equal to 1/12 of the applicable dollar amount for the calendar year.

[etc.--it goes on to additionally define the limitations on the penalty]

For the record, by my understanding of the constitutional challenge, the law would be less subject to constitutional challenge if it were a tax instead of a "penalty" (if you follow me). However, I think it accurate that this would be yet another functionally identical provision that would nonetheless be treated to an entirely different constitutional analysis.

The drafters of the bill must not have been at all concerned about this constitutional issue, because they drafted it in what appears to be the worst way possible for upholding it on this particular challenge.

[Mr. Coffee]

Ok, can someone explain to me exactly what part of the US Constitution the health care reform shit is supposed to violate? I honestly can't think of anything off the top of my head that it would violate.

[Lonestar]

So... would it be unconstitutional if the Democrats had federalised every healthcare facility in the country under eminent domain, transferred them to the Department of Veterans Affairs and renamed it the Department of Public Healthcare? Because they could have done that on Day One of the Obama administration and it would have been a fait accompli.

Someone would have fired enough suits to challenge that that the entire program would have been put on hold long enough until the Republicans swept in and refused funding.

[SirNitram]

I've no idea why a severabiltiy clause wasn't written in, but I doubt the entire revocation will last; most courts agree with Justice Roberts in viewing laws to be severable and erring to allow Congress to keep it going.

Severability wasn't written in because the drafters of HCR didn't think there was an issue of constitutionality. The idea was actually expressly discussed on the floor, but Pelosi assured the representatives that the HCR was not vulnerable to constitutional challenge.

In fact, the portion of his opinion on severability is.. More or less verbatim from the Family Research Council's amicus brief. And frankly, I view the FRC as just another group of nutbars screaming about corruption. Most of their shit is about 'gay agenda'.

Now, for the score. 14-2 judgements in favor of HCR. 1-1 on opposition on the position of severability of the mandate.

Can you cite the cases that allowed you to reach this count? By my count, the score is 2-2 in terms of the constitutionality of HCR on challenges that reached the issue on the merits, with some other suits dismissed for procedural reasons and never reaching the issue of constitutionality. It's also now 1-1 on the severability of the mandate. I think this is a real issue, actually, if only one that is meaningful due to semantics and not due to the functioning of the law.

A nice resource for some of them. Some may be dismissed, but frankly, I wasn't counting those seperately.

Now we will observe the two judges who ruled against the mandate, and then the actual precedent on mandating purchasing something.

Judge Hudson, who struck down the Mandate the first time, had a clear conflict of interest, as he owned between 15k and 50k in a GOP consulting firm lobbying for the goal he ruled.

Judge Vinson explicitly lifted entire sections from a group designated as a Hate Group(Family Research Council), and as is noted in the OP, it contradicts precedent from SCOTUS.

And a particular law that's existance on the books spits in the face of the hoots and hollars from ideaologues of the 'unconstitutionality' of the mandate, the Militia Act. To say nothing of the An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seaman, which mandated insurance for a subset of the population, with no option to simply pay a small fee.

[Master of Ossus]

Ok, can someone explain to me exactly what part of the US Constitution the health care reform shit is supposed to violate? I honestly can't think of anything off the top of my head that it would violate.

The challenge that was successful in Florida argued that the Interstate Commerce Clause does not extend far enough to allow Congress to require individuals to purchase health insurance from private suppliers. Proponents of the law argued (unsuccessfully in this particular case) that the Commerce Clause permits Congress to regulate the channels of Interstate Commerce, and those activities having a "substantial relation" to Interstate Commerce. Opponents of the law countered that health care insurance purchases by individuals do not substantially relate to Interstate Commerce (which isn't as crazy as it sounds--virtually all health insurance providers are set up as different corporations in each separate state in order to comply with the laws of that particular state; so if CA's Blue Cross Blue Shield went out of business it wouldn't affect people in Nevada or Arizona too much--moreover, this means that Congress is more-or-less requiring [e.g.] Californians to purchase something that is provided to them only by companies inside California), and that requiring affirmative action by individuals stretches beyond the constitutional permissibility of regulation of commerce.

US v. Morrison and Gonzales v. Raich are, I believe, the latest and most important SCOTUS rulings on this provision.

Fundamentally, though, your analysis begins from the wrong premise. In the US, the Federal Government is one of limited powers (Tenth Amendment). In order to be constitutional, action taken by the Federal Government must be affirmatively authorized under the Constitution. It's not an issue of whether a bill or law specifically violates a particular section; rather, proponents of the bill or law must be able to point to a constitutional provision or provisions that authorize Congress or the Executive Branch's action. Your analysis shifts the burden of proof.

A nice resource for some of them. Some may be dismissed, but frankly, I wasn't counting those seperately.

How did you get to 14 cases upholding its constitutionality, then? The White House page lists 11 dismissals, adding one that it's talking about (which at the time was its most recent). It has two cases that upheld the HCR law on the merits, and it has one that struck down the Individual Mandate provision on the merits. Am I reading it wrong?

Now we will observe the two judges who ruled against the mandate, and then the actual precedent on mandating purchasing something.

Judge Hudson, who struck down the Mandate the first time, had a clear conflict of interest, as he owned between 15k and 50k in a GOP consulting firm lobbying for the goal he ruled.

Judge Vinson explicitly lifted entire sections from a group designated as a Hate Group(Family Research Council), and as is noted in the OP, it contradicts precedent from SCOTUS.

That's not "noted in the OP." It's a one-off line by a White House official--it's his opinion, which isn't supported by any underlying statement of law, doesn't cite to any SCOTUS opinion (or any other opinion, really), and is part of an effort to downplay the importance of the constitutional challenge. My own opinion is that the judge's decision is not inconsistent with established precedent. The law, as written, is REALLY in a gray area between the settled cases that I've read on the issue. I can easily see how district courts could split on the issue.

And a particular law that's existance on the books spits in the face of the hoots and hollars from ideaologues of the 'unconstitutionality' of the mandate, the Militia Act. To say nothing of the An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seaman, which mandated insurance for a subset of the population, with no option to simply pay a small fee.

I think there are lots of laws right now that will go down as being unconstitutional along with the HCR law if, ultimately, the Supreme Court rules against it. But I've argued for a long time that the Obama Administration as a whole doesn't give a shit about the Constitution (see, e.g., his handling of the Arizona boycotts provisions by state and local governments).

[Master of Ossus]

It's hard for me to see how the authority that Congress is claiming under the HCR law differs from a general police power, which Congress and the Federal Government do not have. Indeed, the HCR law seems to be proscribing specific behavior (in fact: specific non- behavior on the part of individuals). That power is reserved to states by the 10th Amendment. The more I think about this, the more I think that the challenge has some merit. It'll be interesting to see how it goes in the courts, but I'm starting to think that the challenge is correct, and that the drafters of the law really screwed up by framing it in the terms in which they placed it.

Edit: Re: Severability, according to Vinson's opinion (which I'm reading now), the government conceded that, if the individual mandate provision was stricken as unconstitutional, then "the Act's health insurance reforms cannot survive." Vinson goes on to argue that "the various insurance provisions, in turn, are the very heart of the Act itself." So the government seems to agree that the whole law, or substantively all of it, would have to be unconstitutional and entirely void if the individual mandate is, in fact, deemed unconstitutional.

[SirNitram]

Well, Ossus, I clearly can't debate you around to my position with statements by those knowledgable, precedent, or pointing out reasons why the judges might not be unbiased.

However, I do think this thread would be improved with some portions from the ruling.

... the mere status of being without health insurance, in and of itself, has absolutely no impact whatsoever on interstate commerce (not 'slight,' 'trivial,' or 'indirect,' but no impact whatsoever) -- at least not any more so than the status of being without any particular good or service. If impact on interstate commerce were to be expressed and calculated mathematically, the status of being uninsured would necessarily be represented by zero. Of course, any other figure multiplied by zero is also zero. Consequently, the impact must be zero, and of no effect on interstate commerce

This is, of course, farcical. There are still costs from the uninsured; and as has been researched, more costs than the insured. Ergo this entire paragraph is bats-in-the-belfray insane, or just plain moronic.

One I didn't catch, but someone else did.

NYU law professor Rick Hills finds what looks like another gaping hole in Judge Vinson's ruling yesterday that the individual mandate -- and by extension the entire Affordable Care Act -- is unconstitutional.

Judge Vinson writes on page 62 of the ruling that the goal of "excluding or charging higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions" is clearly "legitimate" and "within the scope of the Constitution." He clarifies this by indicating that the means to that end must not be inconsistent with the "spirit" of the Constitution. But that end, he says, is valid.

Then, on page 63, Vinson writes that the defendants are right to assert that the individual mandate is "necessary" and "essential" to realizing that same end.

And yet, Vinson then goes on to conclude that "the individual mandate falls outside the boundary of Congress' Commerce Clause authority and cannot be reconciled with a limited government of enumerated powers."

Which prompts this rejoinder from Professor Hill:

Huh? How can a means that is conceded to be necessary for a legitimate end not be within Congress' implied powers to pursue that end?

Now, in case you're tempted to dismiss this argument as coming from a pointy-headed east coast liberal professor, please note that conservative legal writer Orin Kerr has reached a similar conclusion about this part of Vinson's decision.

Kerr argues that there's nothing in Supreme Court caselaw that justifies Vinson's conclusion that the individual mandate falls "outside the boundary" of the commerce clause, and bluntly characterizes Vinson's argument here as the "weak link" in his decision.

These two bits make it clear this is not a coherent, fact-based decision. His usage of a Hate Groups arguments only further solidifies clear problems with his ruling.

[Mr Bean]

... the mere status of being without health insurance, in and of itself, has absolutely no impact whatsoever on interstate commerce (not 'slight,' 'trivial,' or 'indirect,' but no impact whatsoever) -- at least not any more so than the status of being without any particular good or service. If impact on interstate commerce were to be expressed and calculated mathematically, the status of being uninsured would necessarily be represented by zero. Of course, any other figure multiplied by zero is also zero. Consequently, the impact must be zero, and of no effect on interstate commerce

This is, of course, farcical. There are still costs from the uninsured; and as has been researched, more costs than the insured. Ergo this entire paragraph is bats-in-the-belfray insane, or just plain moronic.

I hate to say it Nitram but prove it. If I don't have insurance and I simply don't seek out medical care and die in a ditch then how am I incurring you any cost VS if I had medical insurance and not sought out medical care and died in a ditch.

OAN Crooks and Liars covering the protest bill
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/dav ... propose-ma

In a measure apparently mocking the Affordable Care Act's health insurance mandate, Republican lawmakers in South Dakota want to force everyone over 21 years of age to buy a gun by 2012.

If the measure passes, those turning 21 would have six months to buy a firearm "sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense."

Residents would be required to pick a gun "suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference."

The bill was intended to be a form of protest against President Barack Obama's health care reform law, which required that every American purchase health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty.

South Dakota state Rep. Hal Wick (R-Sioux Falls) was sponsoring the measure. He told The Sioux Falls Argus Leader that he knows the bill won't get far.

"Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not," he said. "But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance."

A federal judge in Florida ruled Monday that the individual health insurance mandate was unconstitutional, and the entire law must be voided. South Dakota was one of 26 states that filed the lawsuit.

US District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Florida went even further than a federal judge in Virginia last month who also struck down the law.

The Obama administration has announced plans to appeal the rulings, and the Supreme Court could eventually take up the case. Two other federal judges have upheld the law.

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter told Fox News' Sean Hannity Monday that if the health care law is allowed to stand "then Republicans should turn around and mandate all citizens be forced to purchase a gun and a Bible."

"There's a lot more evidence that owning a gun and a Bible is better for society than everyone having to own health insurance," she said.

Trust Coulter to take a some-what intelligent protest bill right into crazy town. She as always is dependable for that.
However the point stands, is the new standard is that the Government can make us buy anything (Like Healthier foods or safer cars) if it can be demonstrated we cost everyone else more money if we don't buy and use said products?

[Master of Ossus]

Well, Ossus, I clearly can't debate you around to my position with statements by those knowledgable,

Who have you cited who is knowledgeable?

precedent,

What precedent have you cited?

or pointing out reasons why the judges might not be unbiased.

How? By saying that they adopted language from one of the parties? That's SOP for federal judges: they have people who argue in front of them, and when they adopt one of their positions they almost invariably use their language in writing an opinion. Is it "bias" if a federal judge cites to a case that one of the parties used in their brief? Is it "bias" when they quote from a treatise on the subject, or use the language of a similar case?

However, I do think this thread would be improved with some portions from the ruling.

... the mere status of being without health insurance, in and of itself, has absolutely no impact whatsoever on interstate commerce (not 'slight,' 'trivial,' or 'indirect,' but no impact whatsoever) -- at least not any more so than the status of being without any particular good or service. If impact on interstate commerce were to be expressed and calculated mathematically, the status of being uninsured would necessarily be represented by zero. Of course, any other figure multiplied by zero is also zero. Consequently, the impact must be zero, and of no effect on interstate commerce

This is, of course, farcical. There are still costs from the uninsured; and as has been researched, more costs than the insured. Ergo this entire paragraph is bats-in-the-belfray insane, or just plain moronic.

No it's not. "Interstate commerce" is more specific than "costs can accrue." Commerce refers to commercial transactions, and not engaging in commercial transactions (aka. remaining uninsured) by definition cannot impact interstate commerce for that reason.

Indeed, if this were not the case then states would not have the ability to regulate insurance--something that they extensively do (and a big part of the reason why individual states each have their own version of the major insurance companies).

One I didn't catch, but someone else did.

NYU law professor Rick Hills finds what looks like another gaping hole in Judge Vinson's ruling yesterday that the individual mandate -- and by extension the entire Affordable Care Act -- is unconstitutional.

Judge Vinson writes on page 62 of the ruling that the goal of "excluding or charging higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions" is clearly "legitimate" and "within the scope of the Constitution." He clarifies this by indicating that the means to that end must not be inconsistent with the "spirit" of the Constitution. But that end, he says, is valid.

Then, on page 63, Vinson writes that the defendants are right to assert that the individual mandate is "necessary" and "essential" to realizing that same end.

And yet, Vinson then goes on to conclude that "the individual mandate falls outside the boundary of Congress' Commerce Clause authority and cannot be reconciled with a limited government of enumerated powers."

Which prompts this rejoinder from Professor Hill:

Huh? How can a means that is conceded to be necessary for a legitimate end not be within Congress' implied powers to pursue that end?

Now, in case you're tempted to dismiss this argument as coming from a pointy-headed east coast liberal professor, please note that conservative legal writer Orin Kerr has reached a similar conclusion about this part of Vinson's decision.

Kerr argues that there's nothing in Supreme Court caselaw that justifies Vinson's conclusion that the individual mandate falls "outside the boundary" of the commerce clause, and bluntly characterizes Vinson's argument here as the "weak link" in his decision.

I disagree with their reading of the decision. Here are the relevant passages, with more context:

In light of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters, 322 U.S. 533, 64 S. Ct. 1162, 88 L. Ed. 1440 (1944), the “end” of regulating the health care insurance
industry (including preventing insurers from excluding or charging higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions) is clearly “legitimate” and “within the scope of the constitution.” But, the means used to serve that end must be “appropriate,” “plainly adapted,” and not “prohibited” or inconsistent “with the letter and spirit of the constitution.”

The defendants have asserted again and again that the individual mandate is absolutely “necessary” and “essential” for the Act to operate as it was intended by Congress. I accept that it is.26 Nevertheless, the individual mandate falls outside the boundary of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority and cannot be reconciled with a limited government of enumerated powers. By definition, it cannot be “proper.”

In short, Vinson agrees that regulation of healthcare is within the powers of the Congress. He agrees that the individual mandate is "necessary" and "essential" to this particular Act--not to the regulation of healthcare in general.

These two bits make it clear this is not a coherent, fact-based decision. His usage of a Hate Groups arguments only further solidifies clear problems with his ruling.

Nitram, you've made it clear that you are incapable of, and uninterested in, having a discussion on the topic on the merits, so instead you've chosen to merely parrot lines that you haven't understood (including going to the unbelievable length of claiming that cases dismissed on procedural grounds somehow upheld the constitutionality of a law, rather than failing to reach the issue being discussed).

As for your repeated assertions that the judges involved were "biased," you mean like the White House officials that you've cited as being the definitive arbiters of Supreme Court precedent, even when they're not actually stating what the precedent is or where they're pulling it from?

Finally, and this is a serious question: supposing that the Obama Administration is correct in its interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and that Congress can impose penalties on individuals for failing to purchase things, what is a regulation that is not permissible, under the Commerce Clause? How, in your view, is the Commerce Clause distinct from an actual police power--something which Congress has never held?

[SirNitram]

... the mere status of being without health insurance, in and of itself, has absolutely no impact whatsoever on interstate commerce (not 'slight,' 'trivial,' or 'indirect,' but no impact whatsoever) -- at least not any more so than the status of being without any particular good or service. If impact on interstate commerce were to be expressed and calculated mathematically, the status of being uninsured would necessarily be represented by zero. Of course, any other figure multiplied by zero is also zero. Consequently, the impact must be zero, and of no effect on interstate commerce

This is, of course, farcical. There are still costs from the uninsured; and as has been researched, more costs than the insured. Ergo this entire paragraph is bats-in-the-belfray insane, or just plain moronic.

I hate to say it Nitram but prove it. If I don't have insurance and I simply don't seek out medical care and die in a ditch then how am I incurring you any cost VS if I had medical insurance and not sought out medical care and died in a ditch.

Link

WASHINGTON — The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured, according to a study to be released Thursday by an advocacy group for health care consumers.

Families USA, which supports expanded health care coverage, found that about 37% of health care costs for people without insurance — or a total of $42.7 billion — went unpaid last year. That cost eventually was shifted to the insured through higher premiums, according to the group.

"I don't think anybody has any idea about how much they are paying because of the need to cover the health care costs of the uninsured," said Ron Pollack, the group's executive director. "This is a hidden tax on all insurance premiums, whether it is paid by business for their work or by families when they purchase their own coverage."

As President Obama and Congress take up health care legislation this year, the so-called hidden tax is increasingly becoming a talking point as proof that the U.S. health care system needs to be fixed:

• Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., in a May 11 statement announcing policy options for expanding health care coverage, said: "The cost of that care is paid by every American with insurance in the form of a hidden tax of more than $1,000 a year in increased premiums."

•Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, said at a House hearing earlier this month: "The large number of uninsured Americans impose a hidden tax on other citizens as premiums go up, and leaves too many Americans wondering where they will turn if they get sick."

•California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said in a health care speech earlier this month: "We've got to stop that hidden tax. Everyone must be insured."

How this hidden tax will be eliminated will be a point of contention as the debate over health care intensifies.

Baucus, in a statement to USA TODAY, said that ensuring all Americans access to health care is key to improving care while cutting costs. "Health care reform will lower premiums and out-of-pocket costs for American families, free up cash for American businesses and make them more competitive around the world, and cut the country's debt and help keep the Medicare program sustainable for the next generation," he said.

Conservatives, including Robert Moffit of the Heritage Foundation, are wary of any proposals that expand existing government programs or create new ones. He blamed government programs — in particular, inadequate Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to doctors, hospitals and clinics.

Moffit, director of the foundation's Center for Health Policy Studies, said tax credits or government subsidies should be available for people without coverage to buy their own insurance plan, helping to create a true free market for health care.

"The billions and billions of cost-shifting doesn't add one red cent to the value of patient care," said Moffit, a health official during the Reagan administration. "You pay for market distortions, and when you have stupid government policy, that's what you get."

If you linger in that ditch, and you get taken to the ER, in your example, everyone else gets to pay.