Obamacare lawsuits by states: Judge rules

[dabrockster]

Says it is OK for states to file suit..

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69D5CO20101014



Note: I was lazy and didn't look for the Obamacare thread...

[Babs]

The courts ruled earlier this year. This judge was just following, um, suit.

Don't get your hopes up, dabrockster. Sebelius may lose all the lower battles, but she'll win the war in the end.

[Goatnapper'96]

The courts ruled earlier this year. This judge was just following, um, suit.

Don't get your hopes up, dabrockster. Sebelius may lose all the lower battles, but she'll win the war in the end.

Why do you think that? I think this lawsuit has a lot more legs than I did when the states filed it.

[Babs]

Why do you think that? I think this lawsuit has a lot more legs than I did when the states filed it.

I just think the federal government has the stronger argument. They're arguing that the burden imposed by the uninsured is so substantial that not only do they have a right to intervene, but that they have an obligation to do so. If the data they cite are anywhere near accurate, they have an awfully strong case.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I just think the federal government has the stronger argument. They're arguing that the burden imposed by the uninsured is so substantial that not only do they have a right to intervene, but that they have an obligation to do so. If the data they cite are anywhere near accurate, they have an awfully strong case.

What does this have to do with the commerce clause? That was the original basis the Congress used to pass Obamacare Despite explicit Congressional statements to the contrary during enactment, the Feds are now claiming it's also constitutional under Congress's taxation powers.

It's also a virtual certainty that four SC justices are already in the camp of ruling Obamacare unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy has ruled in favor of all the decisions since Lopez that limit the Congress's commerce clause powers.

[Babs]

What does this have to do with the commerce clause? That was the original basis the Congress used to pass Obamacare Despite explicit Congressional statements to the contrary during enactment, the Feds are now claiming it's also constitutional under Congress's taxation powers.

It's also a virtual certainty that four SC justices are already in the camp of ruling Obamacare unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy has ruled in favor of all the decisions since Lopez that limit the Congress's commerce clause powers.

shrug.

It's my prediction, take it or leave it. I could be wrong. I'm wrong a lot. I'm just an avocational political junkie. But there's no doubt it can be justified using the commerce clause. There's also no doubt the states can argue against it using the commerce clause. It's a matter of whether the Court signs off on it. I think it will.

[statman]

The courts ruled earlier this year. This judge was just following, um, suit.

Don't get your hopes up, dabrockster. Sebelius may lose all the lower battles, but she'll win the war in the end.

The day Obamacare's individual mandate goes into effect is the day I cancel my health insurance and game the living hell out of the system.

The penalty is a lot cheaper than the premiums and with no denials based on preexisting conditions, I'll be buying any medical coverage I need via cell phone in the hospital.

I suggest you all do likewise. It's the only rational response to this asininity...

[RobinFinderson]

The day Obamacare's individual mandate goes into effect is the day I cancel my health insurance and game the living hell out of the system.

The penalty is a lot cheaper than the premiums and with no denials based on preexisting conditions, I'll be buying any medical coverage I need via cell phone in the hospital.

I suggest you all do likewise. It's the only rational response to this asininity...

You do realize, having said this, that you have no standing to criticize welfare cheats ever again (though I have no recollection that you have ever done that... I'm just saying.)

[statman]

You do realize, having said this, that you have no standing to criticize welfare cheats ever again (though I have no recollection that you have ever done that... I'm just saying.)

Why? What I will do will be 100% legal. Welfare cheats are not acting legally. I don't see the logic...

[Jacob]

I haven't seen it mentioned that the Federal District Judge in VA ruled the Obamacare mandate unconstitutional. And i couldn't locate the best threat to put this in, so out of respect for the contingent that hates new threads, I post here.

I oppose Obamacare. I also oppose the system currently in place. I also oppose favorable tax treatment for employer provided care. But my post is about the constitutionality of the mandate.

I think it is unconstitutional based on reasoning from the constitution. But I'm having trouble distinguishing it from some things that are quite clearly permissible under Supreme Court precedent. Namely, the social security and medicare program. I see the differences between the two, and I'd like to summarize my thoughts as follows:

Medicare is a medical insurance program paid for and run by the state. The state collects confiscatory payroll taxes from the working public to pay for this old-age insurance program.

Obamacare's mandate is a quazi free market play on medicare that allows people some flexibility in choosing their own insurance program, so long as it is approved by the government.

So, according to this judge, Obamacare's mandate is unconstitutional because it forces people to make a purchase or be subject to a penalty. Contrarily, if Obamacare acted more like Medicare and simply enrolled everybody and forced them to pay taxes, on pain of imprisonment, it would be a perfectly legitimate exercise of constitutional powers.

The point, in case I'm being unclear, is that I find it silly to declare Obamacare's mandate unconstitutional on the one hand, while holding the position that the constitution could provide the insurance itself, force people to pay the taxes, and punish them if they don't. If you accept the constitutionality of medicare, logic/consistency requires that you also accept a state run system.

Why can the state force you to purchase state-run insurance but not heavily regulated private insurance?

[Moliere]

I haven't seen it mentioned that the Federal District Judge in VA ruled the Obamacare mandate unconstitutional. And i couldn't locate the best threat to put this in, so out of respect for the contingent that hates new threads, I post here.

I oppose Obamacare. I also oppose the system currently in place. I also oppose favorable tax treatment for employer provided care. But my post is about the constitutionality of the mandate.

I think it is unconstitutional based on reasoning from the constitution. But I'm having trouble distinguishing it from some things that are quite clearly permissible under Supreme Court precedent. Namely, the social security and medicare program. I see the differences between the two, and I'd like to summarize my thoughts as follows:

Medicare is a medical insurance program paid for and run by the state. The state collects confiscatory payroll taxes from the working public to pay for this old-age insurance program.

Obamacare's mandate is a quazi free market play on medicare that allows people some flexibility in choosing their own insurance program, so long as it is approved by the government.

So, according to this judge, Obamacare's mandate is unconstitutional because it forces people to make a purchase or be subject to a penalty. Contrarily, if Obamacare acted more like Medicare and simply enrolled everybody and forced them to pay taxes, on pain of imprisonment, it would be a perfectly legitimate exercise of constitutional powers.

The point, in case I'm being unclear, is that I find it silly to declare Obamacare's mandate unconstitutional on the one hand, while holding the position that the constitution could provide the insurance itself, force people to pay the taxes, and punish them if they don't. If you accept the constitutionality of medicare, logic/consistency requires that you also accept a state run system.

Why can the state force you to purchase state-run insurance but not heavily regulated private insurance?

Is it obligatory to enroll in Medicare? I thought old people could choose not to enroll, of course then they would be on their own for health care, which would usually be a stupid thing to do unless you were filthy rich like the movie stars and politicians.

[Jacob]

Is it obligatory to enroll in Medicare? I thought old people could choose not to enroll, of course then they would be on their own for health care, which would usually be a stupid thing to do unless you were filthy rich like the movie stars and politicians.

The main point is that you are forced to purchase the coverage (via payroll taxes) or be penalized (interest, penalties, jail), similar to the Obamacare mandate. Nobody is required to accept the benefits of the coverage.

And to pre-empt the argument that SS and medicare is not an insurance program...that's the way it was set up and sold.

Social Security Act
Title II Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Benefits
Title XVIII Health Insurance for the Aged and Disabled

[Moliere]

The main point is that you are forced to purchase the coverage (via payroll taxes) or be penalized (interest, penalties, jail), similar to the Obamacare mandate. Nobody is required to accept the benefits of the coverage.

And to pre-empt the argument that SS and medicare is not an insurance program...that's the way it was set up and sold.

I was just pointing out the difference in the two programs. No one is fined if they don't sign up for Medicare or Social Security. You are fined if you don't sign up for Obamacare. That's a big difference and ultimately might be the demise of Obamacare.

The tax part is not an issue. Congress has the power to tax but the question (at least according to NPR) is more around whether Congress has the power to force people to purchase something.

[Jacob]

I was just pointing out the difference in the two programs. No one is fined if they don't sign up for Medicare or Social Security. You are fined if you don't sign up for Obamacare. That's a big difference and ultimately might be the demise of Obamacare.

I guess you just don't see it the way I do. You are penalized if you don't sign up for private insurance under Obamacare and you are penalized if you don't sign up for medicare/SS insurance. To me, the penalty under Obamacare is indistinguishable from the penalty for not participating in medicare/SS. in one case it's called penalty, and in the other it is called a tax and additional penalty if you don't pay the tax. The tax/penalty distinction is a distinction without a difference.

[il Padrino Ute]

The judge in Virginia got it right. If the government can mandate that we the people buy something that we may not want, it opens the door for it to mandate that we buy other things.

This is a victory for freedom.