Appeals Court Strikes Down Health Care Requirement
Aug 12th, 2011 | 30 responses
In the continuing back and forth rulings on the Affordable Care Act, the 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals has struck down the portion requiring everyone to purchase health care coverage. However the Atlanta based court also ruled that the remaining provisions of the law could remain in effect.
The health care madate is the most controversial part of the law as it requires people to purchase something or face penalties. The question being what gives the government the authority to make such a requirement.
Those who support the mandate cite the Commerce Clause which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. Over the years the courts have ruled this includes the power to regulate things with a ‘significant impact’ on interstate commerce.
In the case of the mandate, the argument is that when some people have coverage and others don’t it skews the market. Those without coverage show up at emergency rooms for free care and this cost is passed on to those with coverage in the form of higher costs. This is therefore a significant impact and thus subject to regulation.
Those who oppose the mandate tend to reject the entire concept of ‘significant impact’ since under it you can probably include almost anything. They contend the commerce clause should be narrowly viewed and thus things like the health care mandate (and indeed a lot of federal legislation) are not valid
I tend to support the first argument. While I am not a fan of expansive government the fact is that we are not going to adopt a Darwinian viewpoint that says ‘if you don’t have health coverage go in a corner and bleed’. It is simply not fair for some to refuse to purchase coverage and then expect me to pay for their care when they need it.
Of course I also think this law could have been better written, but that is the sausgage factor at play
Another issue at hand is that of the concept of severability with regard to the ACA. When Congress passes a law they frequently include what is called a severability clause. The clause basically says that if one part of the law is found to be invalid the remaining parts can remain in effect. The ACA did not contain such a provision and many have speculated that this means if one part of the law is invalid the entire law would fall.
However the 11th ruled otherwise and that could be a win for supporters of the law. Of course all of this is going to end up in the Supreme Court anyway but this was an interesting split decision for the 11th.
Details to follow as the story develops
30 Responses to “Appeals Court Strikes Down Health Care Requirement”
In those famous words of President Andrew Jackson; “Then let the Supreme Court Enforce it”.
That’s what I’d tell them.
Would have had a better bill had Republicans, (and blue dog traitors for you non-partisan crybabies ), not fought it tooth and nail. They did, now we have what we have and if I was President I’d tell them to stick their upcoming court orders where the sun don’t shine.
Full national healthcare is exactly what this country must have. Anything less can only morally exist as transitional to that end.
Once again, the Obama Administration is trotting out the old “Commerce Clause” argument to make the case that the individual mandate portion of the health care law is constitutional.
As I’ve argued over and over again here at TMV, the Commerce Clause has absolutely nothing to do with giving the federal government the power to dictate what Americans must or must not purchase.
I’d like to see one Democrat politician force every person to buy broccoli or do jumping jacks or whatever… That would never be voted for by the majority!
Health-care is NOT a right.
It is NOT something that can be put to the market EITHER.
It is not a PRODUCT or a SERVICE.
It is something that allows the workers to achieve their economic potential. You got that, neo-liberals?!
It is NOT a product or a service. Offering “subsidized” medical care is what makes us HUMAN. Take your market logic out of here…
Another misconstruction of the Commerce Clause (this time, rather than “General Welfare” or “Necessary and Proper,” as often also is the case) — [snicker]
None of the clauses in the Constitution (much less the Preamble, which has no judicial application whatsoever) may correctly ever be construed as granting the federal government unlimited, unbounded, unconstrained power. Not the Commerce Clause, not the Necessary and Proper Clause, and of course not the General Welfare clause. Not that there continues to be such lowly stooping…
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm
Healthcare IS A RIGHT!
It is a moral and in alienable right.
ALL other modern countries recognize that fact by providing a form national healthcare system and in doing so, they also SAVE MONEY!
I’m curious about your perspective Patrick. Where’s the actual effect on interstate commerce? Let’s say for the sake of argument that I grant the point about implicit subsidies between those who have coverage and those who don’t. It’s not an interstate subsidy, it’s an intrastate subsidy. Insurance companies are licensed within a state as are many hospital networks and almost all physician groups.
Thus, whatever cost shifting goes on goes on within a state risk pool. Now how does cost shifting within a state have a substantial effect on interstate commerce?
They should strike down everything that’s happened in the last 3 years too.
Osama Obama Biden Bin Laden
NO COINCIDENCE and no joke.
Obama is not the president, he’s the acting president. He disappeared for 2 weeks after his election win only to reappear looking exhausted sitting next to John McCain, with a bad poker face, for a press photo shoot. Obama was turned into a Pentagon puppet ever since.
Too many stories in the news are completely fabricated to generate chatter for the feds. They have the majority of comments on many news sites, many software generated, and are actively involved in the moderation of sites since the “death” of Osama Bin Laden.
A military coup d’etat began in 2008 with the introduction of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate.
Osama Bin Laden is a name and a code. It appears he was created by the New World Order. The New World Order consists of some of the richest people in the world with the goal of overthrowing the US government, some from inside our own government. They are also trying to collapse our currency and are behind all of the “buy gold” hype, not to mention thousands of money making opportunities online and late night infomercials. They are positioned to make billions by collapsing our economy.
The attacks on 9/11 appear to be attacks on capitalism. The people that make up the New World Order are media moguls, CEO’s and many others. The coup is also the reason why all the CEOs who ran in the last midterm didn’t get elected either.
You will not read about this in the media since most of the media has been forced to cooperate or have been paid to cooperate.
What you’re about to learn is true and not embellished in anyway. Here’s what Obama, Osama, Biden, Bin Laden, the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists, and Sarah Palin had to do with the last election and the military’s overthrow of our government.
Do not hesitate to call the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI and all branches of the federal government and remind them who they work for. Obama doesn’t need to be signing anymore things into law. Enough is enough!
http://ElectNoMoreSpys.blogspot.com/
Another reason to have national healthcare.
It may well be back to the drawing board with health care reform–I trust the courts to wriggle it out. But I have no doubt that we will continue to keep the discussion alive over the next several years as medical costs continue to rise, and as people see the real effect of their economic freedom erode amidst continually escalating medical premium payments.
It might be argued that health care access is a right or not, but we will all find ourselves generally at the receiving end of it at some point in our lives, and my best advice is to eat a lot of veggies and start taking a Tai Chi class, because a week in the ICU is going to break the bank.
(note to DLS: I found both the tax book and wealth book you suggested on amazon, and I’ll read up on them hopefully by the end of next month so don’t go away!)
“Offering “subsidized” medical care is what makes us HUMAN. Take your market logic out of here…”
Clearly we aren’t altogether “human” in this context. I agree with you though.
What I suspect will happen is that the 11th Circuit’s decision will likely be upheld.
The PPACA’s individual mandate is, I think, unconstitutional, because the Constitution limits the power of the federal government, and to allow the federal government to force every person into the market to purchase a product means that there is, effectively, no limit on government’s power.
Regarding the assertion that health care is a fundamental right, quite the opposite is true. According to those liberal opinions, Palko v. Connecticut, and Moore v. City of East Cleveland, a right is only fundamental if it is essential to a scheme of ordered liberty, Palko, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), but also that they must have always been fundamental throughout history, Moore, 431 U.S. 494, 503, incl. n.12 (1977). Healthcare clearly is not essential to a scheme of ordered liberty because it has not always been fundamental. Indeed, most of history has not had doctors caring for all.
The belief that healthcare is a human right is based on moral grounds, not legal grounds. Hopefully one day we’ll wise up, just as we’ve wised up in other areas that were once accepted as legally correct. The sad fact is, the USA should have been leading in this by now, not struggling to follow.
Tax break for buying insurance is a reward.
Bam, solved.
Besides, if being a scholar of law makes you decide that one of the most important laws for the US’ future viability needs to be struck down, I’m sorry, but you’ve wasted your life.
An interesting idea Absalon
Though if you wanted to really make it work, impose a health tax on everyone with a credit for buying insurance.
I’ll try to address your issues in a more detailed post Steve but most health insurance companies and health care providers these days are national companies and the cost of care/etc does have a nation impact.
“Though if you wanted to really make it work, impose a health
tax on everyone with a credit for buying insurance.”
Yeah, or maybe the legal autists and the right-wingers can stop pretending a mandate for insurance is ever going to lead to mandated purchasing of vegetables.
It’s still functionally the same as any other tax credit. Basically they’re arguing that if the US tried to add a child tax credit now, that would be a punishment for the childless. But because the right-wing maniacs (almost all of them, at this point) are philosophically opposed to helping the poor in any way even if it ruins the country (this is, again, the GOP plan from the 90s – they’ve become so much sicker since then) they have to decide it’s totally different somehow. It’s bullshit. Much like every other time the GOP opposes its own platform because the President supports elements of it.
sheisaspy says:
“?????????????????
Osama Obama Biden Bin Laden
?????????????????
etc., etc”
Immediately thereafter, StockBoyLA says:
“Another reason to have national healthcare.”
More accurately, another reason to have national mental health care.
Oh Dorian, you beat me to it!!! ROFL!!
So this is the right ruling. The national enforcement of the purchase of health care insurance is unconstitutional, there are no legal arguments to the contrary.
So here’s the real problem: our current health care system is restricting our economic growth and part of the reason the Great Recession is lasting so long.
Here’s how:
BIG COMPANIES
– big corporations have largely abandoned the American workforce because of labor costs, of which health care is a part
– those that still have American workforces find that health care is a HUGE cost for them
– it adds to the mathematics that fewer employees = greater profits. It’s not just salaries, it’s health care, too.
– it’s money out the window, it doesn’t come back to the company as an investment might.
– therefore, it is a burden to the growth of large businesses that operate in the U.S. and increases the pressure to cut jobs.
– bad for the economy
SMALL BUSINESSES
– again, large corporations have abandoned the U.S. work force
– job creation will have to come from small businesses
– providing health care insurance is fiscally restrictive for small businesses. They simply can’t afford to do it.
– so, they either don’t hire/don’t expand, or they provide no benefits & risk having the worst employees or at least disloyal employees & high turnover
ENTREPRENEURS
– entrepreneurism is another mechanism for economic growth
– our health care system is anathema to entrepreneurism. If you want to take the leap from employee to entrepreneur, you either have to a) forego health insurance or b) GREATLY worsen your fiscal health in order to afford health insurance
– this is because of the penalty for being a sole-purchaser vs. being part of a large company pool
Our current health care system restricts our economic growth. It MUST change. If Obama’s way is unconstitutional, then another way must be found.
This is serious stuff. Washington needs to take notice.
Barky, even if your diagnosis is true, the Obama administration’s health care plan increases costs on business, it doesn’t reduce the load. Acting in accordance with SEC requirements (an act for which they were threatened with a congressional kangaroo court by Barney Frank, which goes to show how Democrats are not as immune from abuse of power as many here pretend), Caterpillar estimated additional costs to their company in the area of $100 million in 2018.
Actually I grow tired of hearing about the cry baby business jackasses.
Any profit for any business that is over 7% should be converted to federal tax.
Excellent Allen. I’m sure that will help employment.
I’m really trying to decide if you’re serious or a troll based on your history of posting. I’m leaning toward troll and, if I’m correct, I’d say you’re one of the better trolls I’ve ever seen.
*bows*
Steve, before you go calling other people trolls, I suggest you give some of your own posts a more careful reading. Just sayin..
Ah JS, I knew I could count on you for a substance free post.
Just sayin…
Allen said:
Why 7%?
I’m also curious about that Allen.
I’m self employed.
So lets say I gross 60k and clear 40k after paying rent/utilities/insurance/etc.
Does that mean I have to pay 93% tax on that 40k and live off of 3,000 a year ?
I’m sure you did not mean that but the point is while a tendency may be to think of all businesses as big corporations most are small mom and pop operations.
Steve, you can count on me to comment when it’s necessary. Your self-appointed policing duty doesn’t impress. As you were…
Jeff P.: Enjoy those books. Great food for thought you’ll find in them.
* * *
I laugh at the reactions to this ruling that disregard (no doubt with great contempt) constitutional federalism and thus the Constitution itself. (They just want what they want, No Matter What.) So many of these people reveal themselves by wrongly substituting “national” for what is sought to be federal.
It’s actually quite common. For example, the Commerce Clause, among numerous parts of the Constitution misconstrued by liberals for decades, was used even back during the New Deal to claim federal jurisdiction over individual choices for individual lives only (which is, in fact, totalitarian in our federal system). Somebody growing wheat solely for his or her own consumption was said to be under federal jurisdiction and federal legal authority and controls for such growing, because it was part of the “national economy.” The same BS was unsurprisingly attempted by defenders of another (also totalitarian) federal claim of authority, the drug-free school zones (yes, it was the feds who wanted to do this, despite our constitutional federal system that leaves this correctly to state and local governments), saying it was justified under the Commerce Clause, because drug sales to kids disrupts the “national economy.” There is no limit to their fiction or to what the Little Totalitarians want for the size and scope of the federal government. (Now they want intrusion into our diets.)
The ruling was good –
“This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them repurchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives[.]”
“Even in the face of a Great Depression, a World War, a Cold War, recessions, oil shocks, inflation, and unemployment, Congress never sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher savings rate or greater consumption of American goods, or require every American to purchase a more fuel efficient vehicle[.]”
But the Little Totalitarians don’t respect constitutional, standard American federalist philosophical and moral, or any other constraints.
Allen wrote:
Why converted to federal taxes (federal seizure), and why 7 per cent?
The burden of proof is on you, Allen, particularly with something so highly unusual, counter-intuitive, and alien to the mainstream.