MSNBC: Florida judge rules health care law unconstitutional
106 replies, posted
[b]MSNBC
Florida judge rules health care law unconstitutional[/b]
[release]A federal judge has ruled that the health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in March is unconstitutional.
Judge Roger Vinson, a Reagan appointee serving in Pensacola, Florida, ruled that key components of the law are unconstitutional and that the entire law "must be declared void."
In the decision, Vinson writes:
[quote]"... I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."[/quote]
You can read the decision [url=http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/___Politics_Today_Stories_Teases/PPM153_vin.pdf]here[/url].
Today’s decision is the second ruling by a federal judge against the constitutionality of the health care legislation. Two other federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of the law, including its requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty.
While the lawsuit addressed in Vinson’s ruling is the largest of its kind – with 26 states having signed on – today’s decision is likely just one more step in the law’s march to the United States Supreme Court.
But this is the biggest court victory yet for opponents of the law's requirement that all Americans buy health insurance.[/release]
[url]http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/31/5961248-florida-judge-rules-health-care-law-unconstitutional-[/url]
[b]FOX
Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional[/b]
[release]A U.S. district judge on Monday threw out the nation's health care law, declaring it unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause and surely reviving a feud among competing philosophies about the role of government.
Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla., ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.
"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and
regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute
has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here," Vinson wrote.
"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."
The decision will likely face an immediate filing by the federal government for a stay, and the case is undoubtedly headed to the Supreme Court.
But for now, opponents of President Obama's signature domestic legislation exalted while supporters denounced the decision.
"I applaud the ruling today by Judge Vinson," said Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who prior to getting elected in November, helped lead the charge against the law. "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. ... Patients should have more control over health care decisions than a federal government that is spending money faster than it can be printed."
"Judge Vinson's decision is radical judicial activism run amok, and it will undoubtedly be reversed on appeal. The decision flies in the face of three other decisions, contradicts decades of legal precedent, and could jeopardize families' health care security," said Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA. "If this decision were allowed to stand, it would have devastating consequences for America's families."
Vinson's decision, while surprising, was not unforeseen. In October, the judge dismissed four of the six counts in the suit led by then-Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and joined by 25 other states. But he allowed two counts, including one challenging the law's controversial requirement that Americans buy health insurance, to proceed. Arguments were heard in December.
In his earlier ruling, Vinson said that a government report called the requirement to buy insurance legally unprecedented and worth examining in court.
"The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive," he wrote.
Nearly two dozen suits have been filed in federal courts, but Monday's ruling is the biggest judicial decision to come down the pike since Congress last March passed the bill aimed at covering 30 million uninsured Americans whether they want insurance or not.
In other cases, a federal district judge in Richmond, Va., ruled the individual mandate is unconstitutional but left standing other parts of the law. In Michigan, the argument concerning the "individual mandate" -- the central tenet that requires Americans to start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty -- was thrown out by another federal judge.
"That judge, under his mind-set, said basically if someone thought that I were overweight, if they rule this way, the federal government would be able to mandate that I go down to the Gold's Gym and fill out an application and contract with Gold's Gym to lose weight and lower my cholesterol," said South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, whose state is among the parties filing the multi-state suit. "That is the kind of logic that we're going to right now where you're actually telling people that they have to engage in an activity and that is simply too broad a policy for the federal government."
Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a repeal of the 10-year, $1 trillion plan that critics say will cost closer to $2.6 trillion. But the repeal bill will likely die in the Senate, meaning Vinson's ruling is the newest grounds on which supporters and opponents proceed.
Defenders of the law say that Americans need to be covered from ruthless insurance companies that either refuse to insure children with illnesses and adults with pre-existing conditions or charge exorbitant amounts for individual coverage. The law aims to provide a federal umbrella under which Americans can purchase and keep insurance regardless of their health, career changes or ability to pay.
But Vinson said that is not the U.S. government's job.
"Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the constitutional role of the federal government," he wrote.
Supporters of the law also note that Congressional Budget Office figures that show if repealed, government deficits will climb by $230 billion over the next 10 years.
Critics counter with a "junk in, junk out" description of the CBO's estimates, claiming the numbers used to reach the conclusions are bogus and based on best-case scenarios that don't realize additional spending and unlikely savings, particularly as the law, in the first decade, collects taxes for 10 years though it only pays for six years of coverage and relies on money to be collected for a separate health program -- Medicare.
In his State of the Union address, Obama said he was willing to open his mind to changes in the law if they made dollars and sense and didn't prevent patients with pre-existing conditions or other barriers to insurance companies from gaining coverage.
He pointed to the near-universally hated 1099 provision that orders businesses to report to the Internal Revenue Service all purchases exceeding $600 as the first provision to be scrapped.
Obama Chief of Staff Bill Daley repeated the president's position on Sunday, adding that the law was intended to help employers as much as patients.
"The president has said he's open to changes to this. He is not open to re-fighting the entire fight of health care," Daley told CBS' "Face the Nation."
"I absolutely believe, having been in business and hearing from business people, the importance of a need for the reform of health care. It was the business community that was really saying to the politicians, this is costing us too much, it's too much of a wet blanket on the economy," he said.[/release]
source: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/#ixzz1CeChVvLg[/url]
I hate my state.
Go-go gadget Supreme Court
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/_r7h.jpg[/img]
(I mean they should rule in favour to shut these faggots up)
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;27777860]I hate my state.[/QUOTE]
Free health care? The world is going to end.
's bound to get repealed one way or another imo
So now we have two federal judges who've upheld it and two who've found it unconstitutional. This is definitely going to the Supreme Court.
One part's bad, so let's scrap the whole thing?
You know, Glaber. This thread would've been fine if you had decided to not add Fox in there and just left it where it is. I stopped right when the Governor called it Obamacare and decided to go with the usual Fox buzzword route. :colbert:
The whole thing is bad thats why we need to scrap it.
Its not free healthcare like it should be. It forces people to buy healthcare and its retarded because the government gives subsidies to low income brackets to pay for the healthcare they are forced to buy.
Why not just make it free.
[QUOTE=Dalndox;27778568]One part's bad, so let's scrap the whole thing?
You know, Glaber. This thread would've been fine if you had decided to not add Fox in there and just left it where it is. I stopped right when the Governor called it Obamacare and decided to go with the usual Fox buzzword route. :colbert:[/QUOTE]
You can't only undo one part of a law it has to be the whole thing. Congress will have to repass the bill without the mandate and it'll all be cool.
I'd be fine with all this universal and single payer stuff, but I don't want to be forced to buy from a private company.
That said, some of the stuff was fine in the bill like no more preexisting condition stuff.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;27778665]The whole thing is bad thats why we need to scrap it.
Its not free healthcare like it should be. It forces people to buy healthcare and its retarded because the government gives subsidies to low income brackets to pay for the healthcare they are forced to buy.
Why not just make it free.[/QUOTE]
I agree that we need a nationalized healthcare system, but I also understand that it is terribly infeasible at the moment, and it will take quite some time for it to become feasible. Until it can be properly set up in a sustainable manner, it'll do more damage than it'll fix.
Just wait for the US to enter another civil war and then start changing shit.
[QUOTE=Zeddy;27779508]I agree that we need a nationalized healthcare system, but I also understand that it is terribly infeasible at the moment, and it will take quite some time for it to become feasible. Until it can be properly set up in a sustainable manner, it'll do more damage than it'll fix.[/QUOTE]
It's worth noting that your county could have a single-payer system that costs less overall than what you currently have now - US spends more per capita on healthcare than Canada does yet basically covers none of the costs - you just need to make it more efficient.
Somehow.
The US Government fails at efficiency.
Thats why corporations are always better.
Corporations always have a goal, to achieve profit as fast and efficient as possible.
Government has far too much red tape to wade through.
A government worker practically has to fill out 3 trees worth of paperwork in triplicate and wait for superior approval to simply take a shit.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27779915]The US Government fails at efficiency.[/QUOTE]
anything with government anywhere fails in efficiency
I quote from Dexter "Fuck Florida"
I don't get the point of an individual mandate if they cut out the public option.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;27780531]I don't get the point of an individual mandate if they cut out the public option.[/QUOTE]
its cool
[QUOTE=Glaber;27779915]The US Government fails at efficiency.[/QUOTE]
It's called democracy
If you want efficient government, go live in a monarchy
[QUOTE=smurfy;27780928]its cool[/QUOTE]
It would be if there was a public option. MY POINT IS THERE IS NO PUBLIC OPTION.
FUCK YOU, HALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;27780531]I don't get the point of an individual mandate if they cut out the public option.[/QUOTE]
The point is to force healthy people who would normally not buy health insurance to buy it, so the insurance companies have more money to pay out to the very sick people who get healthcare because the insurance companies can't charge them more for having a pre existing condition.
The point is to take money from healthy people and give it to sick people.
[QUOTE=Novistador;27781314]The point is to force healthy people who would normally not buy health insurance to buy it, so the insurance companies have more money to pay out to the very sick people who get healthcare because the insurance companies can't charge them more for having a pre existing condition.
The point is to take money from healthy people and give it to sick people.[/QUOTE]
that sounds really really dumb
It's hilarious that leading up to this they get all up in fiery rhetoric about the greedy insurance companies, and then they deal with this by passing a law making it illegal not to give them even more money.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;27780008]Thats why corporations are always better.
Corporations always have a goal, to achieve profit as fast and efficient as possible.
Government has far too much red tape to wade through.
A government worker practically has to fill out 3 trees worth of paperwork in triplicate and wait for superior approval to simply take a shit.[/QUOTE]
Except in the name of profit, corporations, especially insurance companies, have been known to screw over their customers.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;27780008]Thats why corporations are always better.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;27780008]Thats why corporations are always better.
Corporations always have a goal, to achieve profit as fast and efficient as possible.
Government has far too much red tape to wade through.
A government worker practically has to fill out 3 trees worth of paperwork in triplicate and wait for superior approval to simply take a shit.[/QUOTE]
I, for one, cannot wait to return to Industrial Revolution era working conditions and sanitation! Yeah, corporations always know best!
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Coaltub.png[/img]
[B]FUCK![/B] That looks [B]FUN![/B]
Seriously, give us a fucking Public Option already.
[QUOTE=ThatHippyMan;27781710]I, for one, cannot wait to return to Industrial Revolution era working conditions and sanitation! Yeah, corporations always know best!
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Coaltub.png[/img_thumb]
[B]FUCK![/B] That looks [B]FUN![/B]
Seriously, give us a fucking Public Option already.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to see Novistador's refutation of our posts, but I'd wager he's one of those people who just runs in and rates everything that contradicts his worldview.
[QUOTE=Mr.Dounut;27780053]anything with government anywhere fails in efficiency[/QUOTE]
Except in the countries where it doesn't
[QUOTE=Zeke129;27781985]Except in the countries where it doesn't[/QUOTE]
Like dictatorships.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;27782034]Like dictatorships.[/QUOTE]
Last I checked, Denmark wasn't a dictatorship.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.