VA Judge Rules part of Health Bill Uncosntitutional

[Greebo]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html?iref=allsearch

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson struck down the "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014. The Justice Department is expected to challenge the judge's findings in a federal appeals court.

Hudson's opinion contradicts other court rulings finding the mandate constitutionally permissible.

"An individual's personal decision to purchase -- or decline purchase -- (of) health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach" of the U.S. Constitution," Hudson wrote. "No specifically constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance."

Only two things to say about this:

1) GOOD

2) Just ONE part???

Edited December 13, 2010 by Greebo

[OCSL]

Good to hear. Here is a working link since the original one posted didn't work for me: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html?iref=allsearch

[khaight]

2) Just ONE part???

This is the really interesting question, and I haven't yet found a clear discussion of it with respect to this ruling. Most laws contain something called a "severability clause", which states that should any portion of the law be struck down by the courts the other parts are 'severed' from it and must be assessed on their own merits. The ObamaCare bill, for whatever reason, was written without a severability clause, which means it is possible that finding any part of it unconstitutional would lead to the entire law being invalidated. This isn't a slam-dunk, though -- sometimes the courts defer to the perceived intent of the legislature even in the absence of a severability clause.

What this means from a practical standpoint is that the anti-ObamaCare suits have a legal leg on which to stand, and the argument is going to continue until it reaches the Supreme Court. Beyond that it's very difficult to say.

While striking down the individual mandate is good insofar as it establishes a limit on the reach of the commerce clause, it wouldn't do much to ObamaCare overall. It might even make it worse. The real purpose of ObamaCare is to destroy the private insurance industry so that the left can fully nationalize the medical system, creating the Canadian-style single-payer model they've been lusting after for so very long. Getting rid of the individual mandate while leaving the remainder of the law in place would simply accelerate that process.

[Greebo]

Sorry, fixed the link in OP

[agrippa1]

While striking down the individual mandate is good insofar as it establishes a limit on the reach of the commerce clause, it wouldn't do much to ObamaCare overall.

Without the individual mandate, the whole scheme collapses, like a precarious arch with one stone removed. I believe they left out the severability clause for two reasons: first, because they acknowledge that the whole Act is a house of cards, balanced on itself (and on ever widening circles of coercion); and second, because if the law is successfully challenged, the whole thing will disappear with no remnants, allowing the Dems to run on "yes, we tried!" in 2012.

Edited December 15, 2010 by agrippa1

[brian0918]

Without the individual mandate, the whole scheme collapses, like a precarious arch with one stone removed.

Agreed - if they require insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, while not mandating that people be insured, there is no incentive to buy insurance until after a medical problem occurs. The whole concept of insurance is thrown out. The insurance companies will go broke, have to be bailed out, and the government will go further into debt, and need to debase the currency and raise taxes. The need for politicians to always keep their promises (i.e. avoid reality) will mean that we all lose.

Nancy Pelosi was right - it will go down in history along with the other major government entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid).

Edited December 15, 2010 by brian0918

[Dante]

Agreed - if they require insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, while not mandating that people be insured, there is no incentive to buy insurance until after a medical problem occurs. The whole concept of insurance is thrown out. The insurance companies will go broke, have to be bailed out, and the government will go further into debt, and need to debase the currency and raise taxes.

Not to mention the ownership stake that the government would have in the major insurance companies after they bail them out. Who needs to pass laws regulating insurance practices if you own a majority stake in the big companies? The government could set policy in a much more direct, executive fashion, as it has done followings its other bailouts.

[khaight]

Without the individual mandate, the whole scheme collapses, like a precarious arch with one stone removed.

No, without the individual mandate the private insurance industry collapses -- and since that collapse is the real point of the scheme, I'd say the scheme succeeds. The Democrats never intended ObamaCare to work. They intended it to fail, so they could replace it with full-on socialized medicine.

[brian0918]

With the individual mandate out, NPR is now putting out stories with other ideas on how to force people to buy into Obamacare without calling it "force". Example ideas:

1. Make it more expensive to opt in for every year that you are not insured.

2. Make insurance artificially cheap at the expense of future generations.

3. Make citizens choose to opt in/out for life, with no option to change your mind later.

Edited December 16, 2010 by brian0918