A federal appeals court turned back a challenge by Virginia to the 2010 health-care law Thursday, ruling that the state lacks standing to challenge the law’s mandate that virtually all Americans obtain health insurance or pay a fine.
The court also turned back a challenge from Virginia's Liberty University, giving health reform two wins in one day. We're still reading through the decisions. The Liberty one's here (pdf) and the one filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's here (pdf).
Mr. Cuccinelli rushed his suit against health reform to the courthouse last year after President Obama signed it, and then Mr. Cuccinelli won a round in December. The judge in that case was seen as a friendly and familiar draw for the AG, and he ruled that the individual mandate violated the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
The 4th Circuit, which ruled today, was having none of that. Its judges ruled that Virginia can't sue in the case because it has nothing to lose from health reform. And never mind the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, which says Virginians are exempt from the individual mandate to buy health insurance. From today's decision (page 25):
[T]he VHCFA regulates nothing and provides for the administration of no state program. Instead, it simply purports to immunize Virginia citizens from federal law. In doing so, the VHCFA reflects no exercise of "sovereign power," for Virginia lacks the sovereign authority to nullify federal law.
The court left aside the question of whether the individual mandate is constitutional. For now, young adults can stay on their parents' coverage and insurers can't exclude you for having a pre-existing condition, and small businesses get tax breaks for covering their workers, and so on and so on. Below, the video Mr. Cuccinelli posted after he won in December.
Leave a Comment:
I have to have insurance to drive a car....why shouldn't I have to have health insurance? I get sick...I don't get it...
apples and oranges.... you have the choice to own a car.... the government does not mandate that you own a car. I support the Health care plan but your argument is flawed.
While I appreciate the distinction that's always pulled out against the car insurance parallel, I don't think it's a flawed analogy. Sure, you don't HAVE to drive a car, but for all practical purposes, you kinda do.
The reason behind the car insurance mandate was that people were driving around uninsured, getting in accidents, and not paying for them, driving the cost of insurance up for the rest of us who DO have insurance. This is exactly the same thing. Uninsured people go to ERs, driving the cost of health care up for those of us with insurance. The difference is that everyone gets sick, even if they don't drive.
It really is exactly the same thing, and suggesting people exercise their individual liberties by choosing not to drive is picking nits and doesn't further the discussion...
umm...no it's not, because both mandates originate from the same source. We require you to have car insurance to operate a car(granted optional, but if you don't you don't pay) because if you don't have insurance and hit one of us, OUR costs go up to compensate for your uninsured status. It's EXACTLY the same with healthcare insurance, (except for the optional part...suicide notwithstanding) since you don't have the option to live or not, and nobody ever knows when accidents or unforeseen illnesses happen(due to their very definitions) then WE have to pay more for our healthcare to cover the treatment that you WILL get...get it? It's the same thing, it's not because we care so much that YOU are covered, it's really covering US from you being uninsured....The greater good is the root of virtually every single piece of legislation since the history of legislation. (excluding the social engineering attempts like banning inter-racial marriage, sodomy laws etc. which seem to just be for sport). This isn't some sort of population-controlling power grab, it's simply doing the right thing for the greatest number...("providing for the general welfare" ring a bell?)
"promote the General Welfare" is the correct phrase... "provide" was used in conjunction with "the Common Defence". Promoting and providing are two separate acts. Just what the founding fathers meant by "promoting the General Welfare" is still being debated...
This is a temporary victory for an issue that will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. However, the mandate issue can be cured by Congress if they provide an opt out provision. But you can only opt out if you can prove your financial ability to pay uninsured medical expenses. That would require you to post a bond or pledge assets to insure that liability. That is the same way mandatory car insurance is handled.
The other distinction between mandatory car vs health insurance is that my car doesn't get fixed if I don't have insurance. But if someone without insurance shows up at the emergency room, they will be treated.
This was my argument. I don't see the difference between them. I don't see how it's possibly a 'bad thing' to force someone to have health insurance. People will get sick, when they do, and they go to the doctor (even if they never do and they die they still have to be evaluated in a hospital). So your options are to pay for health insurance, or pay a higher tax rate (which in theory should go to subsidize uninsured people) to cover the cost for everyone else. Either you pay insurance, or everyone else does. Everyone else is ALREADY paying for the people that don't, why not make them have insurance?
If you want to get down to it, I don't have to pay auto insurance if I don't want to drive, and i don't have to pay health insurance if I don't want to live...which I wouldn't, cause I'd be dead.
Services like this should NOT be optional in a civilized society. Could you imagine if the fire department was profit driven instead of 'greater good' driven.
"yep, we'll put that fire out...but you have to sign this check first...oh you can't?...well, good luck, we'll go put out a fire where there is money to be made for the shareholders"
Your government should provide Protection to you, national defense, police, fire, Healthcare. It's common sense...
"
Services like this should NOT be optional in a civilized society. Could you imagine if the fire department was profit driven instead of 'greater good' driven.
"yep, we'll put that fire out...but you have to sign this check first...oh you can't?...well, good luck, we'll go put out a fire where there is money to be made for the shareholders" .."
ludwigtr
That actually haapend to someone. See this article
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html
Yes and in response the libertarian crowd cheered it like it was a blessing. In their argument this is why a private citizen should have to pay a local fire department every month in order to have fire protection coverage because should that fire department fail to respond accurately then that person can go to a different fire department and get better service. I am not making this up this is what a libertarian (no I don't remember the name of the commentator) said in response to Tom Hartman when he had that person on to discuss the fire dep's lack of response. According to that libertarian government shouldn't provide this service because it limits choice. In their world you either pay directly out of pocket to private entities for services or you have no services. Again it's not about freedom it's about being slaves to businesses.
Dear Republicans, you've been slapped. Slap, slap, slap, slap, slap.
The federal judiciary can see straight through your dumb arguments.
When the uninsured finally are able to buy health insurance I will say yay!! I work two jobs and still cannot afford it. It would take almost all of one of my paychecks a month to cover myself. I am for reform but I just do not see how this helped me or others that work pt 20 hour a week jobs.
So who do you think should pay for your insurance? Shouldn't you be responsible for yourself? Cause if you are not insured and go to the emergency room, ultimately I am paying for it. Or, if you are on a benefit program (i.e. Medicaid) and pay nothing, I am paying for that too. I am retired with a health insurance cost per month (spouse included) of about $700.00 and I still have to pay additional at the doctor's office for services/costs not included. I would love an option to this and definitely do not want to pay for your insurance. If you can't afford your own upkeep, I can't afford it either. Yea! for the Affordable Care Act.
I'm pretty much in the same boat. This is my 1st year without having any health insurance for myself. Given the dismal economy, reduced hours and pay and the fact that i'm still relatively healthy and have almost never used my insurance, I opted NOT to pay this year and try to bring down my bills with the money.
My worry is that mandated insurance WONT bring down costs. You're dealing with the private sector after all and they can pretty much do what they want. What we needed really was the public option.
Suzie part of how costs will be driven down for insurance is by the creation of the insurance exchange. Unfortunately the insurance exchange will not go into effect until 2014. It's one of the last measures of the Affordable Care Act to go into place. What this will allow you to do is basically pool your insurance with everyone else in the country, thus lowering rates. It still avoids the troublesome inquiry as to why insurance should exist in the first place as opposed to just providing health care, but it will help solve the problem of uninsured individuals getting coverage. If you aren't making that much money, however, the mandate doesn't really apply to you. You probably aren't filing income taxes and as such you aren't going to receive the 2% sur tax that is added to anyone w/o coverage. It also means you won't get a larger rebate back (if you do file). Please note: this doesn't apply to you if you file income tax for the rebate. It only applies to people who are actually paying a tax to the federal government when they file.
Same flawed thinking that says "I have to have ID to (fill in the blank) why not to vote?!
elaborate on that please.
In the video this dude actually blames the Federal Government for the rising health care costs. No blame is placed on the for profit health care system. The Tea Party is very concerned with our freedom to be oppressed by corporations.
Yay for the Federal Court ruling! I agree with the statement above. I don't understand the difference between the mandate for car insurance-state enacted, but federally imposed to make the state eligible for federal highway funds-and a mandate for health insurance. Health insurance will help everyone eventually, even those who are "healthy", yet car insurance is only used in random cases; many people never have to make a claim against the auto insurance, the companies just pocket the money.
I hope this bill will eventually evolve into "medicare for all"!
Its not a flawed argument though. You are right, the government can't force me to buy a car. I get that. BUT if I do exercise my freedom to purchase a car they FORCE me to have insurance or face a penalty.
Let's use your theory as it pertains to GUNS. No one forces me to buy a gun correct?
The Tea Baggers never object to the government requiring people to have car insurance right? What do you think they would say if the government required them to have GUN INSURANCE? If you want to own a gun then you must carry gun insurance. They would lose their minds! But they could care less about car insurance. Think about it. The government, in theory, could require us to carry insurance on anything and everything because of the precedence that is set behind car insurance.
This is the central point of my disgust of the Tea Baggers. They are the biggest hypocrites this world has ever known.
That's a terrible straw man. Members of the NRA would be against "gun insurance". Just the same as they are against gun registration, or anything else that can be used to track gun owners.
Also I think your premise is faulty. "The Tea Baggers never object to the government requiring people to have car insurance right?" They are supposedly against government regulation, and as such the party should be against required car insurance.
Do you like your money being safe in your bank account? Guess what, banks have to carry insurance called FDIC. Isn't that an individual mandate on banks? Did not Mitt Romney say corporations are people too? So why are those people required to carry insurance?
Greetings! Rachel
This is a victory for the progressive agenda and another path towards universal health care. It is my continual prayer, hope, and sincere desire in the most High that he moves every judge even the Supreme Court to uphold every aspect of the Affordable Care Act. I encourage all sincere, law abiding, and reasonable souls to get behind the democrats and progressives to push back the tide of the conservative/republican agenda.
Peace be unto you!
Marquest Burton
This is really the central issue. We need this law to stay law. A few years down the road we can tweak it. I believe we should means test it though. If you don't make the cut then its free. If you make the cut then its semi free on a progressive basis. Sort of like the tax code.
However, all basic preventative treatment should be free for every America.
To steal a quote from Dick "shoot your friends in the face" Cheney.
Heads will be exploding in the Tea Bagger Party.
and to think we spend all that money on a super collide for banging small particle and all we had to do was wait for Cheney book and we get all those small minded particle brains exploding.
So, the federal court upheld the mandate to ensure increased profits for the insurance industry. America needs universal single-payer health coverage.
Funny, if they rule it was unconstitutional I bet it would be a 24/7/365 media circus by now. I've only read it on here and heard a quick blurb on Andrea's show.
The car ownership liability insurance requirement is precedent for the Affordable Health Care Act's Individual Mandate provision because the outcomes for both programs when people are not insured are the same: somebody other than the principal would have to pay the freight.
The argument that you are not required to own a car is specious. You are not required to get sick or injured either.
Also, no one is required to be treated for their ailment / injury either!
All insurance is a scam.....just get us covered "universally" for ALL health issues, it would reduce our auto/home/worker's comp policies. When you pick up your policies for every insurance premium you pay "medical is usually there (or exempted for certain items). We enable the the insurance companies by paying the premiums.
It is strange isn't it. I bet I'm going to get sick, crash my car, or die young and they bet against that. How do you win.
It's a form of gambling that we all, unfortunately, must be slaves to. I'd rather do away with all insurance, but I don't see that as a possibility.
It comes down to this: The Constitution DOES give the federal government power to protect the general welfare of the American people. There is no reason to have a defensive arguement about this. The PPACA is Constitutionally mandated if teh government can not rely on the private sector to assure the general well being of the American people. Obamacare is needed due to the failure of the marketplace, the same way that Medicare is.
just one thing.
what is Obamacare? i am guessing you mean the Affordable care Act?
I want it known as Obamacare. Don't give in to the trap that calling it Obamacare is an insult. I wish that Medicare were called Johnsoncare and Social Security was called Rooseveltcare. They are both immensely popular as Obamacare will prove to be in time.
Don't forget - the law does not require any individual to buy health insurance. It simply penalizes (in essence - taxes) those who refuse to buy coverage. The alternative was and is the public option - but the right wing nixed that idea. The Constitutional arguments are all very shallow.
The car argument, I think, is valid. I have not owned a car in over 10yrs. My personal choice. I was born, not my choice. And, if you think about it, you can legally get rid of your car, but not your life.
I am for healthcare and coverage, but this whole thing has not addressed how HMO's have driven up the cost of health care to this crucial point that is almost a national tragedy, and alternative health care options. (And I do not mean psychic surgeons or voodoo). Smaller clinics for the everyday, ones that do not have to support the costs of big heavy machines by charging $1200 for 2 Tylenol-3 pills.
I am fortunate to live in California right now and have affordable options. If I did not, there is no way I could be possibly afford any kind of coverage.
I am uncertain of the actuality of the laws, I have not heard of any cases where it has been enforced justly or unjustly. But I understand how frightening it sounds when people keep saying you must buy health insurance or you are breaking the law. My work has been cut, my pay has been cut, I can't quite afford rent, let alone insurance out of my own pocket. I can continue to sell off my furniture, my tv, my collectables, continue to go without a car, but I can't exactly stop existing.
I know some of Obama Care has not been triggered yet, but some has. A recent Gallup pole showed that Uninsured Americans has raised from 14.8% in 2008 to 16.4% today. Rates have risen due to children being covered by parents longer and preexisting condition mandate. Many more lawsuits are coming. What has been accomplished? Maybe it's not Obama Care, maybe it's the Health Care Stimulus.
That's why insurance should have no artificial relationship with your employment status.
The case will go the GWB supreme court and be upheld as unconstitutional 5-4
Like a jury the supreme court should unanimous on all rulings making it a safeguard from politics
The Constitution like the Bible or Koran can be interpreted to fit ones goal.
Mr. Cucinelli apparently skipped his high-school civics class.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution clearly states that one of the main functions of the Federal government is to “promote the general welfare” of the American people.
“Welfare” in this context is defined as health, happiness, prosperity, or well-being (see http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE ).
Thus, when the “free” market or State governments fail to adequately provide services needed to promote the general welfare (like healthcare) or engage in predatory commercial practices or violate citizens’ Constitutional rights, the Federal officials whom we’ve voted into office are Constitutionally obliged to correct such omissions or misbehavior.
Since our current for-profit healthcare industries (doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies) and the States have proven themselves unable or unwilling to meet our country’s healthcare needs—and, in fact, commonly engage in practices that are actually contrary to our country’s welfare—the Federal government has both the right and responsibility to remedy the situation.
To my mind, the citizens of Virginia would be better served if they used their tax dollars to build some local public health clinics rather than fund Mr. Cucinelli’s Quixotic crusade against their own well being.
this is a heated debate that is really about whether government should expand its reach or maintain it. <a href="http://www.ali-aba.org/states/Virginia-cle.cfm">virginia cle</a> guy
I am for the Health Reform. However, I have two points:
1) Health coverage should NOT be connected with the place of work but it should be like a big pot where every one put their sum ( same % detracted from earnings, TANF, food stamps etc.) . That way there is a larger available amount and there would not be a difference in quality of care and everyone would have the same co-payments .
2) Concern: with the way the new health care proposal, how can my daughters (21 and 23), who are still undergraduate and will proceed to graduate school, be able to afford insurance after I cannot carry them any longer?
Thank you.
Why is it alright to have car insurance but not gun insurance? Or hot tub insurance? Or false teeth insurance? Exactly what is the difference between owning a car that can kill and a gun that can kill? Back in my covert days, I use to lure terrorists into the hot tub and terminate them with my false teeth. What happens if I was wrong and don't have hot tub or false teeth insurance?
I would like a Used Tea Bagger to explain that to me.
I mean really, the government can force me to carry insurance on my car but not my gun ? Again, the government doesn't force me to buy a car just like they don't force me to buy a gun.
But as soon as Obama says we need gun insurance the GOP, Tea Baggers and ComCast will be up in uninsured arms claiming he is violating their civil rights.
Maybe I'm wrong about this gun insurance angel.
I would like for Rachel to ask, "thank God for MSNBC or I wouldn't have a job Michael Steele", does he support car insurance? Then follow it up with would he support gun insurance.
There is no way he can answer that question without revealing his party is nothing more than RHETORIC instead of doing what's right by Americans.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness right?
It makes me happy to own a car. It makes me sad the government FORCES me to carry insurance or pay a penalty.
It makes me happy to own a gun. It makes me sad when the government FORCES me to carry insurance or pay a penalty.
Why are these different?
Part of what has driven up the cost of healthcare:
1. Lawsuits. 2 years ago the U of Maryland Med School graduated exactly ZERO doctors specializing in OB/GYN. Why? The cost of malpractice insurance makes delivering babies very undesirable from a physician's standpoint. If we are going to reform things, the ability for juries to award ridiculous sums of money to the slightly aggrieved is a huge on. Tort reform must be a part of any serious look at our healthcare system.
2. Drug company regulation: For a viable drug to come to market, a company must invest billions of dollars into R&D. Most of that money gets spent on projects that result in a failed drug. Why does your "Drug X" cost so much? Federal regulation, taxation, and litigation against drug manufacturers. Streamline the FDA approval process. Drugs in Europe come to market in less than 1/2 the time it can happen here. REduce the red tape, the regulation, the taxation, and the ability to hit the lottery via class action suit and you will see the cost of healthcare come down.
For those who can't afford insurance (I've been there!), these things would go a long way toward cutting the cost of insurance. Why do doctors order so many "unnecessary" tests & scans? Because if they get sued, they can say that they tried everything. Without the fear of getting wiped out in a lawsuit, only the needed tests could be performed & overall health system costs would be greatly reduced.
I know that doesn't fit the progressive agenda, but it makes sense. I'd like to see everyone be able to purchase insurance on their own, outside of their employer (it's not my employer's business what kind of health coverage I select), with the price based on one's income & resources. No state boundary lines so if I live in CT, I can purchase in Mass, Vermont, California or Rhode Island. Personal responsibility, personal choice and coverage that is affordable for all.
OK, now that I've solved this, I'm off to the Middle East..........
The problem with curtailing litigation is that litigation is the only redress of grievances available to the people against corporations. Deregulating would remove even more protections. All corporations are in business to make a profit, any good they do is not the purpose of the corporation but a side effect. This theory is not a leffty talking point, it is from day one of Econ 101.