Judge Finds Portion of Health Care Reform Unconstitutional

[Moose]

A U.S. judge in Virginia Monday invalidated a key part of the landmark healthcare law that requires individuals to buy health insurance, the first major setback for President Barack Obama on an issue that will likely end up at the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2002, backed arguments by the state of Virginia that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring that individuals buy health insurance or face a fine.

The decision is the first finding against the law that was passed in March and aimed at overhauling the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system. Judges in other states have rejected other challenges to the law.



Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...#ixzz1813Aq9ZR

[Moose]

Bit more on the story:

Judge: Individual mandate is unconstitutional

By SARAH KLIFF & CAROL E. LEE | 12/13/10 12:20 PM EST Updated: 12/13/10 12:45 PM EST

A federal judge struck down the Obama administration’s health reform law Monday, moving reform’s most significant challenge one step closer to its likely destination: the Supreme Court.

In a highly-anticipated suit brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, District Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled that the individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional as it “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”

Hudson stopped short of blocking the law’s implementation until a higher court acts, but said he expects the administration to honor his ruling.

“The final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court,” Hudson wrote in his ruling. “In this Court’s view, the award of declaratory judgment is sufficient to stay the hand of the executive branch pending appellate review.”

The Virginia ruling is arguably the most prominent in an onslaught of legal challenges that immediately followed the law’s passage in March. Another key case in Florida, where 20 states are challenging the law, will hear oral arguments on Thursday.

Of the 15 cases that judges have opined on so far, the Virginia suit is the first to strike down any part of the health reform law.

The White House does not believe the decision will have any impact on the ongoing implementation of the health care law. Officials downplayed the suggestion that rulings against the law would create uncertainty in the middle of its implementation, largely because some of the key provisions don’t take effect until 2014. The White House anticipates all challenges to the law will have worked their way through the system by then.

The Virginia ruling has been a longtime in the making. The state was the first to pass a law barring the mandated purchase of health insurance, setting the stage for Cuccinelli’s lawsuit. Cuccinelli’s suit, like most of the health reform challenges, argues that the individual mandate – which means that everyone must buy health insurance — is an unconstitutional expansion of the Commerce Clause.

Administration officials concede that the lack of a mandate would cut the number of uninsured people who would get coverage in half and threaten the ban on denying coverage people with pre-existing conditions – one of the president’s signature selling points on the law. Other parts of the law, such as the insurance exchanges and Medicaid expansion, could arguably move forward unaffected.

Health reform supporters were quick to stress that the vast majority of health reform cases have come out in their favor, with judges either ruling the law to be constitutional or tossing out the suits altogether.

“While Virginia case is important and has drawn strong media interest, it is no more important than the many other rulings by judges of equal rank who have determined that the law is constitutional or have issued dismissals on procedural grounds,” says Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now.

While White House officials believe the law will ultimately be ruled constitutional, they do anticipate losing some of the 20 cases out there.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1813u1rzo

[Moose]

When this entire thing lands in the hands of the Supreme Court, which is probably about 18 months away, most, if not all of the decision is going to be based on an interpretation of this section of the Constitution:

[Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

[Woody]

Or it could be based on other things:

http://www.newser.com/story/107483/j...-gop-firm.html

[dryrunguy]

Or it could be based on other things:

http://www.newser.com/story/107483/j...-gop-firm.html

I just plastered this link on FB. Thanks. Let's see what the old Medicare women from Iowa who are my FV friends have to say about this.

::

That said, for the record, I was never wild about the provision requiring people to buy health insurance. It's definitely the smart thing to do (for individuals to buy individual plans), and I would imagine it's a key component of future cost projections related to the overall market. When people don't have insurance and present at ERs for something that could have been treated in a primary care setting, it increases costs for everyone. So it's just the right thing to do.

But I'm uncomfortable with people being required to do it. Always have been.

::

And I now officially HATE Mike Huckabee. I'd like for him to explain to me how he balances his position on health care reform, as described in his recent ads, with his faith. I'm sure he has an explanation. And I'm also sure it falls into "south till you smell it, west till you step in it" territory.

[Moose]

The "required to buy" argument is the most interesting argument in the Constitutional debate. It's an incredibly unique twist on the Commerce Clause. And I can certainly see this Court accepting the argument, given the reluctance to expand federal powers ( when not in line with Antonin's thinking , that is).

A similar historic expansion happened with the Ollie's Barbeque case, so it would not be unprecedented. But I have a hard time seeing the expansion coming from this Court.

[Woody]

What is the fundamental difference between health insurance and unemployment insurance, which you are "required to buy"? Or automobile insurance, for that matter.

[dryrunguy]

What is the fundamental difference between health insurance and unemployment insurance, which you are "required to buy"? Or automobile insurance, for that matter.

The auto insurance issue has come up before. I don't remember the specifics, but I remember someone drawing a fairly forceful distinction that made sense. I just don't recall the specifics. I also remember not being sure I bought it.

[Moose]

What is the fundamental difference between health insurance and unemployment insurance, which you are "required to buy"? Or automobile insurance, for that matter.

I don't know the answer on unemployment, though it is likely one Google away. But for auto, driving has always been treated as a privilege, not a right, so it can be regulated as states see fit.

[craighickman]

Politics as usual.

[Kirkus]

This isn't based on any law, just my opinion, but...

People who are unemployed will, more times than not, fall back on government social programs in order to live.

Same thing with health insurance.

Ergo, I don't have a problem with the mandate provision. What I don't get is who gets to decide what constitutes "affordable" premiums?

[dryrunguy]

This isn't based on any law, just my opinion, but...

People who are unemployed will, more times than not, fall back on government social programs in order to live.

Same thing with health insurance.

Ergo, I don't have a problem with the mandate provision. What I don't get is who gets to decide what constitutes "affordable" premiums?

If the Republicans have their way and overhaul health care reform, you'll get a tax credit to purchase "affordable premiums" that will cover you.












































From about January through March.

[Kirkus]

LOL.

[ponchi101]

What is the fundamental difference between health insurance and unemployment insurance, which you are "required to buy"? Or automobile insurance, for that matter.

I would gather that you are required to buy auto insurance because you can cause damages to a third party. That is obviously not the case with unemployment or health insurance.
I just wonder when will the republicans will come out and honestly state that they just simply hate the poor.

[dryrunguy]

I would gather that you are required to buy auto insurance because you can cause damages to a third party. That is obviously not the case with unemployment or health insurance.
I just wonder when will the republicans will come out and honestly state that they just simply hate the poor.

Yeah, on the surface, but that's not at all true on the health insurance front. When people don't have health insurance and they get seriously ill, they present in emergency rooms at a later stage of illness that more often than not could have been treated or even prevented in a primary care setting at exponentially less cost. If they cannot pay for their ER care, the hospital has to eat it (or at least a significant portion of it that isn't covered by the Hill-Burton Act or other federal safety net programs), which means costs go up and are passed on to the rest of us if that service isn't covered by our insurance. Then it has a snowball effect when insurers have to increase insurance premiums and copayments on the rest of us because of increasing per service costs.

And let's not forget who foots the bill for billions and billions and billions of dollars on federal safety net programs like the Hill-Burton Act, community health centers, migrant health centers, rural health centers, and federally qualified rural health centers (just to name a few) charged with providing free or sliding scale health services to the uninsured and the massive administrative budgets associated with administering those programs--the taxpayer.

So the notion that not purchasing health insurance is a personal choice that isn't injurious on anyone else is a big myth.