A federal judge in Virginia has ruled that part of the new health reform law is unconstitutional, the first such ruling anywhere in the country. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli had filed his own lawsuit challenging the law. You can download the ruling (pdf) from his office. Reading in, reading in...
OK, back again: U.S. Judge Henry Hudson, who's been seen as a friendly and familiar draw for Cuccinelli from the beginning, agrees with the attorney general's argument that health reform violates the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
In particular, Cuccinelli says that the federal government overreaches when it uses the Constitution's Commerce Clause to mandate that everyone buy insurance or pay a penalty. Judge Hudson writes:
The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance -- or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage -- it's about an individual's right to choose to participate.
The flip side of that argument, of course, is that we're all participating anyway. When uninsured people go to the doctor, everyone else ends up paying some portion of what it costs to treat them. (And for what it's worth, Judge Hudson said that the penalty for not getting insurance is just that -- a penalty and not a new tax.)
Judge Hudson decided to "sever" the individual mandate, leaving the rest of the health reform law intact. It's not at all clear the law works without it, though, since the provision is key to controlling costs. Acknowledging that his won't be the last word, and that the individual mandate doesn't kick in until 2013, Judge Hudson left the rest of the law in place pending the inevitable appeals. Which means that the post-college crowd can still stay on their parents' health insurance, and folks with pre-existing conditions can still get coverage, and small businesses still get tax credit for covering employees, etc., for now.
Leave a Comment:
It's always ok when it's in favor of the Republicans and when it's in favor of the Democrats the judge is "elected by Liberals", even if they weren't!
Activist judge! Activist judge!
We also need to add a challange of the right of auto insurance companies to double the premium if you are late on a payment.
It is simple...Congress has in the past required individuals to contribute as their means have allowed to advance the common good. Social Security is a prime example...yes each person is required to pay their part, and where a person cannot contribute relief is meaded out with compassion. Congress required that persons holding other persons enslaved release them. That is Congress telling persons who felt they were above the laws created by Congressional acts what to do and set penalties for those who did not comply.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is suing with the view that Virginia is above the law and has the right to be in non-compliance of law. He is wrong. The common good for the nation is of higher import than the political aspirations of a state official. His suit fails at the beginning when one realizes that he is not representing the majority opinions of the people who he serves.
So it's more constitutional for the rest of us to pick up the tab for those who "choose not to participate"?
A way more informative article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html?_r=1&hp
It's about time someone had the rocks to stand up to our faulty government. More power to this judge.
As the evil Frank Luntz demonstrated, it is all about wording. The 2% tax does not force anyone to buy anything. It is simply a tax BREAK for purchasing insurance, something extremely common in the tax code. Cash for Clunkers anyone? How about ALL tax incentives for buying energy efficient products, from cars to light bulbs? These things have been around way before this debate. Sounds like the judge is living in an ideological bubble.
As I just posted in another reply...what about those who can't afford to purchase insurance, if it's not provided by their employer? If it is "worth it" to go without, the public will still be on the hook, and don't even believe this 2% would go toward health care
I don't think it was designed to punish anyone. There are subsidies in the law which take care of most ppl who can't afford it initially. The exchanges will take care of most of the rest. For those who fall in the "cracks" there will have to be changes in regulations, hence the new Commission and the HHS Secretary's powers. The signing of a law is almost never the end of its administration/execution.
So does this mean eventually I won't have to have to buy Insurance, by law, to operate a motor vehicle also? It's law in Indiana....
I honestly believe that forcing anyone to buy health insurance or pay a fine (ie.tax) is unconstitutional. The auto insurance thing is comparing apples to oranges. I was also very leary about a public option simply because we have all seen government incompedense in trying to administer anything. In reality nothing ever seems to work out to the legislative intent.
But please let's not forget Obama Care has some good provisions. Pre-existing conditions, child coverage up to 26, cancellation due to illness, national purchasing. These were much needed reforms.
I've no doubt that our new congress will go after Mr. Obama like a pack of hungry wolves. My only hope is that they don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n3LL338aGA
The Obama administration bargining techniques.
This is precisely the reason liberals were upset with Obama's giving away of the public option. Yes, Mr. Obama, the argument about the Bush tax cuts is the same as the health care debate. You need to listen to us this time so we don't give away the farm....AGAIN!!!
What about the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause,"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, w/out due process of law; nor deny to any person w/in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws?" Health Insurance is equal protection due to financial and "prexisting condition" isssues, so I don't have equal protection! I knew this would happen here, in Virginia. Cuckoo-nelli sucks !
Why are our soldiers overseas ? To protect us from terrorism ! Well, what about the terrorism of not having health insurance ? If soldiers, and the military are there to protect, what's the point ? 45,000 people die everyyear without health insurance ! Can we send soldiers to the health insurance companies to fight the "Evil-doers"?
Rachel, if you use any of my ideas, just give my name on air....or a job would be fine ! Then I could move out of VIRGINIA ! BUT, "Cuckoo-nelli" is mine !
Frank Wolf (R) is my congressman. I went to his office in Winchester to discuss healthcare. He was not there, but an assistant was. Let's just say I did most of the talking, but when it was her turn to speak on his behalf all I heard were c...rickets. SHE - Frank Wolf does not believe in universal healthcare. ME - It is not his opinion it's the voters opinion. ME - I have to pay $1,500 a month for my meds. SHE - How do you know ? ( seriously, she asked me that) ME - Well, I just decided to pull that number out of my butt to entertain you. (then I proceeeded to list my meds and tell her to call any pharmacy she would like.) ME - Does Wolf believe in the right to life. SHE - Yes, he is pro-life. ME - So he believes in the right ot life before your born, not after you are born. What about the mother's health during pregnancy ? SHE - (crickets chirping and blank stare) a bit later SHE - You could go to the FREE clinic. ("FREE") ME- Have YOU ever been to a FREE clinic ? It's not free, I still am asked to give a donation. SHE - You don't have to. ME - Well, that would be supporting FREE HEALTHCARE FOR ALL !
THOSE DAMN ACTIVIST JUDGES IN VIRGINIA ARE TRYING TO REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION TO FIT THEIR OWN AGENDA!
Wait? What's that? The republicans aren't complaining now? Oh what a surprise!
I hear the same folks who gripe because they are paying taxes which support social programs that help the unfortunate griping now because folks will be required to have insurance......either you help support social programs or you support health care reforms...........put your big kid britches on and get over it!
I think the ruling was a correct one. It is...and SHOULD BE...unconstitutional for the federal government to be able to force you to purchase a product from a private company. (And I felt that way when it was the Republicans pushing the idea, as well.) Where do we draw the line? Why not require everyone to buy a new Chevrolet, to help save the auto industry?
I think it is a disgrace that our country does not have a national healthcare system, and I would much rather see my taxes go for that than for many other things of less importance. But the so-called "ObamaCare" bill was and is a bad law.
This ruling is going nowhere. If the Commerce Clause is insufficient to compel an individual to pay a penalty for not purchasing health insurance, then it is not sufficient to compel someone to pay a penalty for withdrawing money out of an IRA before retirement, and so on. Basically, the entire federal government gets its authority through the Commerce Clause. If this ruling is upheld, kiss goodbye to the entire federal government because there is going to be an avalanche of lawsuits.
So if seniors who live in Virginia are on Medicare, they should be forced to go on the open market and buy their own insurance. Lol Lol good luck. Kick them off Medicare and watch them cry like a baby.
Mandatory purchase was always a bad idea. It originated with the Romney wing of the Republican Party. Obama campaigned against it in the primaries. It is a giveaway to the insurance cartel, as is the bill as a whole. We need to get back to a Single Payer plan, stae by state if we can't get it federally.
Well, actually, after reading through the entire ruling, it is obvious that health care in this country is still totally screwed up. Giving up on the public option was an obvious mistake. Trying to call a penalty a tax was an obvious mistake. Trying to compel an individual to buy something from a private corporation was an obvious mistake. Rushing the bill through Congress on Christmas Eve was another mistake -- THAT'S when, at the last minute, they changed the language from "penalty" to "tax."
So.... wouldn't it be great if the Congress actually FIXED our health care system FOR the people rather than for the corporations? It's a challenge to you, Tan Man! I don't want to be forced to pay for people who go to the emergency room rather than buy insurance. Hell, I KNOW people who go to the emergency room instead of their doctors just to avoid the hassle (?) EVEN WHEN THEY ALREADY HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE.
At least the other parts are still legal: letting kids stay on their parents' insurance, no arbitrary limits, no pre-existing conditions. Other than that, looks like we're already pretty much screwed.
Here it comes, Supreme Court....
This has probably already been posted, but:
Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes [and] Duties... to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
What is controversial or unconstitutional about Congress laying and collecting a tax to provide for the general welfare of citizens? I really do not understand why people doubt the necessity of public safety nets, which, range from "Defence" to not dying of treatable illness.
perhaps we're going about this argument the wrong way... could it be argued that the cost of healthcare itself is unconstitutional?
It's my understanding that this penalty is assessed on your taxes. It's not like you get a ticket. It's a block on the IRS form which ask if you have health insurance or not. To me that's a tax. And Congress has that explicit power to tax, regulate interstate commerce, and is make all laws that are necessary and proper.
This judge is wrong, which is why he didn't stick his entire neck out and rule the whole thing unconstitutional.
Talk about a conflict of interest! A Bush appointed lawyer should have recused himself from this case. And now we know Cuccinelli gave $9000. to Hudsons PAC, or whatever it was, to fight this reform. What a crock of corruption! They should both be disbarred. Better yet, do the country a favor and just quit practicing law because neither one of you know what the word means.