LA TIMES
Judges sharply challenge healthcare law
June 8, 2011, 4:24 p.m.
[release]If the Obama administration had any doubt that its signature healthcare law faces a severe challenge in court, it was erased soon after Chief Judge Joel Dubina opened the proceedings here.
"I can't find any case like this," Dubina said. "If we uphold this, are there any limits" on the power of the federal government?
Judge Stanley Marcus chimed in: "I can't find any case" in the past, he said, where the courts upheld "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market.... Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?"
After nearly three hours of argument Wednesday, the three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed prepared to declare at least part of last year's law unconstitutional.
The law's requirement that nearly everyone buy health insurance by 2014 is the question at the heart of the constitutional challenge. The argument that the mandate exceeds Congress' power initially was waved aside by many legal commentators, but it has now sharply divided the federal courts.
Three federal district judges have upheld the law and two have ruled it unconstitutional. Three cases have reached appeals courts, with a fourth appellate panel scheduled to hold a hearing in September.
The current case has gathered the most attention because it involves 26 state attorneys general — all Republicans — who jointly challenged the law. In addition, the 11th Circuit is considered among the most conservative of the federal appellate courts. If any of the appeals courts strikes down the law, the case almost certainly would land at the Supreme Court, perhaps during the election year. The 11th Circuit has been seen by legal experts as one of the more likely to rule against the administration.
The questions from the bench quickly confirmed that advance billing, as acting U.S. Solicitor Gen. Neal Katyal faced off against former Bush administration Solicitor Gen. Paul Clement. Katyal argued that healthcare was unique and unlike the purchase of other products, like vegetables in a grocery store.
"You can walk out of this courtroom and be hit by a bus," he said, and if an ill or injured person has no insurance, a hospital and the taxpayers will have to pay the costs of his emergency care.
Katyal argued that Congress could reasonably decide that because everyone will probably need medical care at some time in their lives, everyone who can afford it should pay part of the cost. And he said the courts should uphold the law under Congress' broad power to regulate commerce in this country.
Congress could clearly require that a person who shows up at a hospital without insurance buy it on the spot, he said, and requiring the purchase in advance should not be the decisive difference.
Clement said, "In 220 years, Congress never saw fit to use this power, to compel a person to engage in commerce."
Judge Frank Hull, the third member of the appellate panel, repeatedly asked the lawyers about the possible effect of striking down the mandate while upholding the rest of the law. She said the government had exaggerated the importance of the mandate because other provisions of the new law would mean that most of the 50 million people currently without insurance would be covered after the law took effect.
Usually, when passing a complex law, Congress includes a provision known as a severability clause that says that if one part of the law is struck down, the rest can stand. The House included such a provision in its healthcare bill, but it was not included in the Senate version. And in the last-minute scramble, the House adopted the Senate's version.
Both sides agreed that the court faced an all-or-nothing decision.
Katyal called the individual mandate the cornerstone of the law's aim to regulate and reform the insurance market. The law requires insurers to take patients with preexisting conditions. That rule could not work if people could wait to buy insurance until they had a heart attack or were diagnosed with cancer, he said.
Clement also said the judges should strike down the entire law. "You can't separate out the mandate. We take the position the whole thing falls," Clement said.
In addition to the argument over the law's individual insurance mandate, the appeals court also considered a challenge by the states to the requirement that they pay more in the future for healthcare for low-income people under Medicaid. That part of the new law amounts to an unconstitutional burden foisted on them by Congress, Clement argued.
Clement said Congress gave the states "no choice" but to go along with the expansion of Medicaid. He said Florida estimated it would spend $574 million more in 2019 because of the expanded rolls.
The Medicaid claim has not won any support from other federal judges, but Dubina said the states had "a pretty strong argument" they were being forced to pay millions of dollars more to enroll low-income residents.
Administration lawyers say the law calls for the federal government to pay 90% of the added costs of enrolling additional Medicaid patients. They also note that the Supreme Court has never struck down a law on the grounds that it forces states to do something in exchange for federal funds.
Judicial rulings on the health law have largely been along partisan lines. Dubina, from Alabama, was first appointed to the bench by President Reagan and was elevated to the appeals court by President George H.W. Bush. His daughter, Rep. Martha Roby of Alabama, is a conservative Republican who ran for office on a pledge to repeal the healthcare law.
Hull, from Georgia, was appointed by President Clinton. The third member of the panel, Marcus, from Florida, was first appointed as a district judge by Reagan, but Clinton appointed him to the appeals court.[/release]
source:[url]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0609-healthcare-court-20110608,0,2111995.story[/url]
[quote=Dubina] If we uphold this, are there any limits" on the power of the federal government?[/quote]
I don't know about the rest of Facepunch's USA members, but is sounds like this Health care mess of a law is getting shakier and shakier ground.
god forbid money is spent on something that doesn't kill innocent civilians
you know you sound like a broken record
[editline]8th June 2011[/editline]
I imagine a dull monotone going, "in other news, obamacare kicks your mother in the cunt every day"
that's only because until the issue goes away, I will not let up.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30343637]that's only because until the issue goes away, I will not let up.[/QUOTE]
Well that's circular logic because you are the issue but you won't go away until you let up but you won't let up until you go away.
"I will give him healthcare" said the President and he issued the laws. Glaber argued at him and tried to stop him. But then the logic collapsed and they were stopped and not able to argue.
"No! I must stop the issues" he shouted
The radio said "No, Glaber. You are the issue"
And then Glaber was an issue."
LOL wrong issue.
Keep ignoring the Constitutional issue of Obamacare and its mandate. Soon enough, the entire thing will be on trial at the Supreme court.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30343186]I don't know about the rest of Facepunch's USA members, but is sounds like this Health care mess of a law is getting shakier and shakier ground.[/QUOTE]
Obviously it was never on firm ground to begin with. Half the nation wants to see the old capitalist ways progress and let human nature take its course, the other half wants to see more government control to prevent human nature. There is a balance somewhere, and we might eventually find it. But, I definitely think passing this gets us on more firm ground.
[QUOTE=Cuntsman;30343237]god forbid money is spent on something that doesn't kill innocent civilians[/QUOTE]
Yes lets completely ignore the fact that parts of the law violate the United States Constitution by requiring someone to have health insurance or be fined and/or jailed.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30343637]that's only because until the issue goes away, I will not let up.[/QUOTE]
Or you could allow universal healthcare in the US, so no-one would have to worry about their health insurance and the majority of the workforce would be able to work, regardless of their healthcare issues. Oh, and us in the UK pay less for our healthcare, despite our socialist healthcare.
[editline]9th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=zombieslaya;30343814]Yes lets completely ignore the fact that parts of the law violate the United States Constitution by requiring someone to have health insurance or be fined and/or jailed.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't the current law prevent exactly that?
[QUOTE=Glaber;30343732]LOL wrong issue.
Keep[B] ignoring the Constitutional issue [/B]of Obamacare and its mandate. Soon enough, the entire thing will be on trial at the Supreme court.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=zombieslaya;30343814]Yes lets completely ignore the fact that parts of the law [B]violate the United States Constitution [/B]by requiring someone to have health insurance or be fined and/or jailed.[/QUOTE]
Where exactly does the constitution explicitly say that the government can not mandate the purchase of a type of product? It certainly states explicitly that the government can mandate citizens not buy a product, but I've never seen the former.
[B]Edit:[/B] I'm fully willing to debate this with you Glaber, as I'd love to see what a "hardcore" (are you that?) conservative feels about this.
[B]Edit2:[/B] If you do end up responding, it'll be a 5ish hour delay before i could give a reply back. Gotta be up at 4:30 for a long drive, and I do need [I]some[/I] sleep.
man i love these G14b3r thr3dds
keep fighting the good fight G14b3r
[QUOTE=tinhead50;30343843]Where exactly does the constitution explicitly say that the government can not mandate the purchase of a type of product? It certainly states explicitly that the government can mandate citizens not buy a product, but I've never seen the former.[/QUOTE]
I feel as though you wouldn't be able to provide any sort of real constitutional argument. Below is a good video to watch about the topic.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZvaSrztrY8[/media]
Something I think you fail to see is that the constitution was document made to limit what the Federal government can do, rather than just be a document that just lists some things the government can and cannot do. You argument seems to be saying that is false, and therefore I think you should reconsider or do some research about the intentions of the constitution.
[QUOTE=tinhead50;30343843]Where exactly does the constitution explicitly say that the government can not mandate the purchase of a type of product? It certainly states explicitly that the government can mandate citizens not buy a product, but I've never seen the former.
[B]Edit:[/B] I'm fully willing to debate this with you Glaber, as I'd love to see what a "hardcore" (are you that?) conservative feels about this.[/QUOTE]
Where does it say that it can? The argument most supporters use is the commerce clause.
[quote=US Constitution, Article I]Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
[B]To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;[/B]
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.[/quote]
[url]http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html[/url]
unfortunately, this argument falls flat as obtaining health insurance is not an interstate commerce issue. Reason being is you can't legally obtain insurance from across state lines.
Another argument used when that one fails is the necessary and proper clause.
[quote=US Constitution, Article I, Section 8][B]To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.[/B][/quote]
[url]http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html[/url]
Unfortunately again for the supporters, none of these powers allow for the forcing of a person to buy any product or service from any industry, at all.
also, if you don't mind me asking, what section of the Constitution does it state [B]explicitly [/B]that the government can mandate citizens not buy a product? I have yet to see this and I even used my browser's search function. As far as I can tell, there was only one case (Amendment 18), and that got repealed (amendment 21).
[QUOTE=Pepin;30344560]I feel as though you wouldn't be able to provide any sort of real constitutional argument. Below is a good video to watch about the topic.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZvaSrztrY8[/media]
Something I think you fail to see is that the constitution was document made to limit what the Federal government can do, rather than just be a document that just lists some things the government can and cannot do. You argument seems to be saying that is false, and therefore I think you should reconsider or do some research about the intentions of the constitution.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. The whole point of the constitution wasn't to make rules for the fed to follow, it was intended to ensure the fed wouldn't become too powerful thus allowing the people to control how the government is ran. Sure today things are a long ways off from the original vision (no matter what kind of government you have money = power) but it still holds true.
[QUOTE=Pepin;30344560]I feel as though you wouldn't be able to provide any sort of real constitutional argument. Below is a good video to watch about the topic.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZvaSrztrY8[/media]
Something I think you fail to see is that the constitution was document made to limit what the Federal government can do, rather than just be a document that just lists some things the government can and cannot do. You argument seems to be saying that is false, and therefore I think you should reconsider or do some research about the intentions of the constitution.[/QUOTE]
I watched a bit of the first speaker, but I'm a bit pressed for time. I'll watch more tomorrow morning when I have a bit more time before leaving. However, I must say right now that I do feel I could provide a limited form of an argument as most arguments on FP seem to dwindle down to "yes" and "no," types of arguments, whereas I like to bring up new evidence or cede. That said, based on my knowledge of the constitution, I understand wholly that the constitution was meant to limit federal power so that America would not experience the reign of a monarch or likes thereof ever again. However, I also believe that the founding fathers never meant to abandon a subset of the American populace, no matter how poor said subset might be. Currently, we face the growing problem that health care is simply to expensive. I will state right now I don't 100% agree on this law. It has the potential to cause harmful effects. But, I believe doing nothing, which amounts to striking down the law, would be worse than doing nothing at all.
As I understand it, commerce was a far more simple matter 300 years ago. Now is not the case. It has become very complicated just as everything else has, and requires a certain approach. Sadly, the approach other countries have taken to the matter of full coverage for every citizen can not be taken in America, so another approach must be taken. With limited options, an option with economics built into the foundation seems most suitable for a nation built on capitalism, especially with the foundation of America having such a heavy capitalist influence in the last 100 years.
I certainly believe this law stretches what should be granted to any form of governing body, and I do believe that this law should be struck down. But, I do not believe now is the time. I think that we should keep this hard fought victory until we can use a more suitable solution; at which point we could swap out the better solution for the current one so many are distraught over.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30344636]Where does it say that it can? The argument most supporters use is the commerce clause.
unfortunately, this argument falls flat as obtaining health insurance is not an interstate commerce issue. Reason being is you can't legally obtain insurance from across state lines.
Another argument used when that one fails is the necessary and proper clause.
Unfortunately again for the supporters, none of these powers allow for the forcing of a person to buy any product or service from any industry, at all.
also, if you don't mind me asking, what section of the Constitution does it state [B]explicitly [/B]that the government can mandate citizens not buy a product? I have yet to see this and I even used my browser's search function. As far as I can tell, there was only one case (Amendment 18), and that got repealed (amendment 21).[/QUOTE]
Part of making insurance cheaper would fall in the commerce clause -- allowing purchase across state lines when it currently isn't possible would drop rates because companies that weren't previous competitors would become such --, but that isn't the main point as I see it. The point of current discussion is that of force-purchasing a product. And, while it is not expressly permitted in the constitution, neither is it expressly forbidden. Many of past laws have fallen under this, though not in the same the current health care law does.
Also, I see embargoing as the explicit denial of a product to be bought the citizens of the country where the embargo originates, in this case America. So that is what I was referring to there.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;30344749]It never says the government can't mandate the purchase of a product because it doesn't need to. The government has power over commerce, but not directly over what people buy and sell.
Essentaily government can block the sale of goods because goods are not people. Weed and corn don't have rights. People on the other hand do. Telling someone they HAVE to buy something is a direct infringment on someones rights.
Think of it this way. My religion prohibits me from purchasing insurance for whatever reason. Now the government requires me by law to buy it. That violates my freedom of religion by imposing a belief that i require something.
You need to remember the [b]Fed[/b] government can't legally straight up require you to do anything. They may make laws that make it seem that way (the draft) but they always have to require alternatives that do not impose anything on you.
How state governments work is a tad bit different, but in the end they all fall under the constitution.[/QUOTE]
This is very true, and I'd call what they are doing as a loop-hole. I'm sure the first amendment alone could have some weight in the opposition against it, as not purchasing insurance could be viewed as freedom of expression. But I believe that some things must be introduced into a society that lacks such, which is in-part why I support this. Also, I must say this: While weed and corn don't have rights, weed and corn shouldn't be cherish neared as much as a human life by comparison. And as such, we as a nation of individuals, should look out for each, even the weakest among us. Currently, we hardly do this. Some call it Darwinism, some call those with poor luck lazy. While there are, to a certain degree, individuals who could get themselves into a better situation but don't, there are also others who deserve more than what is offered, especially by a 1st world country with arguably the most advanced medical technology.
[B]Edit:[/B] Ok, now I'm really going to get some sleep. I'll comment on what I can in 5ish hours. My apologies.
[QUOTE=tinhead50;30343843]Where exactly does the constitution explicitly say that the government can not mandate the purchase of a type of product? It certainly states explicitly that the government can mandate citizens not buy a product, but I've never seen the former.
[B]Edit:[/B] I'm fully willing to debate this with you Glaber, as I'd love to see what a "hardcore" (are you that?) conservative feels about this.
[B]Edit2:[/B] If you do end up responding, it'll be a 5ish hour delay before i could give a reply back. Gotta be up at 4:30 for a long drive, and I do need [I]some[/I] sleep.[/QUOTE]
It never says the government can't mandate the purchase of a product because it doesn't need to. The government has power over commerce, but not directly over what people buy and sell.
Essentaily government can block the sale of goods because goods are not people. Weed and corn don't have rights. People on the other hand do. Telling someone they HAVE to buy something is a direct infringment on someones rights.
Think of it this way. My religion prohibits me from purchasing insurance for whatever reason. Now the government requires me by law to buy it. That violates my freedom of religion by imposing a belief that i require something.
You need to remember the [b]Fed[/b] government can't legally straight up require you to do anything. They may make laws that make it seem that way (the draft) but they always have to require alternatives that do not impose anything on you.
How state governments work is a tad bit different, but in the end they all fall under the constitution.
anyone who uses the term 'obamacare' is a moron and should not be taken seriously
[QUOTE=JDK721;30344764]anyone who uses the term 'obamacare' is a moron and should not be taken seriously[/QUOTE]
i call it republicare
I'm not so much concerned about the the mandate being Unconstitutional, but I am concerned about being forced to buy insurance from a private business.
I'm down with the single payer, universal healthcare.
Giving money to big insurance companies? Not cool. At least that one part of the law needs to be struck down.
[editline]9th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30344842]i call it republicare[/QUOTE]
Boehnercare
Bonercare
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;30345033] At least that one part of the law needs to be struck down.[/QUOTE]
Thats the problem, the senate version which was adopted didn't include a clause to seperate the seperate sections of the bill. Thus if the one part is declared unconstitutional, the whole bill gets overturned.
you people are bitching about getting fined for not having life insurance, why aren't you bitching about mandatory auto insurance?
whether it's your muffler or your asshole, both of them you'll get fined for without insurance. :v:
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;30344676]it was intended to ensure the fed wouldn't become too powerful thus allowing the people to control how the government is ran.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;30344749]You need to remember the [b]Fed[/b] government can't legally straight up require you to do anything.[/QUOTE]
Just fyi, "the fed" is a nickname for the federal reserve, not the federal government.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30343637]that's only because until the issue goes away, I will not let up.[/QUOTE]
repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different response is the definition of insanity.
[QUOTE=TH89;30345142]Just fyi, "the fed" is a nickname for the federal reserve, not the federal government.[/QUOTE]
Thats why I wrote Fed government.
[QUOTE=lorden;30345110]you people are bitching about getting fined for not having life insurance, why aren't you bitching about mandatory auto insurance?
whether it's your muffler or your asshole, both of them you'll get fined for without insurance. :v:[/QUOTE]
One is a state mandate that is only enforced with the owning of a car. The other is a Country wide mandate with the only trigger of a person being born.
One has a way out, the other does not and infringes upon our Rights.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30345227]One is a state mandate that is only enforced with the owning of a car. The other is a Country wide mandate with the only trigger of a person being born.
One has a way out, the other does not and infringes upon our Rights.[/QUOTE]
Better than what the system was before
A better system would not infringe upon the rights of the citizens.
[QUOTE=tinhead50;30344712]I watched a bit of the first speaker, but I'm a bit pressed for time. I'll watch more tomorrow morning when I have a bit more time before leaving. However, I must say right now that I do feel I could provide a limited form of an argument as most arguments on FP seem to dwindle down to "yes" and "no," types of arguments, whereas I like to bring up new evidence or cede. That said, based on my knowledge of the constitution, I understand wholly that the constitution was meant to limit federal power so that America would not experience the reign of a monarch or likes thereof ever again. However, I also believe that the founding fathers never meant to abandon a subset of the American populace, no matter how poor said subset might be. Currently, we face the growing problem that health care is simply to expensive. I will state right now I don't 100% agree on this law. It has the potential to cause harmful effects. But, I believe doing nothing, which amounts to striking down the law, would be worse than doing nothing at all.[/QUOTE]
The question you have to ask is, "is this constitutional"? If you answer no, then that doesn't mean it has no chance of something similar getting passed, it is more just that it should be a program implemented by the states. My point here is that you can still be for this type of health care reform, but I'd argue that would should be asking for it on a state level and not on a federal level. I can provide my rational as to why state implementation would be better if needed.
[QUOTE=lorden;30345110]you people are bitching about getting fined for not having life insurance, why aren't you bitching about mandatory auto insurance?
whether it's your muffler or your asshole, both of them you'll get fined for without insurance. :v:[/QUOTE]
I've got quite the issue with that as well. Same with seat belt laws. Pretty much anything that is mandatory.
but glaber is not citizens.
I sure do love your threads, especially your Gmod Sonic/ Half-Life 2 crossover fancomic.
Keep em coming!
[sp] yeah no.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Glaber;30345227]One is a state mandate that is only enforced with the owning of a car. The other is a Country wide mandate with the only trigger of a person being born.
One has a way out, the other does not and infringes upon our Rights.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure that there's only very small exceptions nowadays that allow you to have a normal life without owning a vehicle that requires insurance.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
