Unconstitutional! Can we have our $1 Trillion back now?

[Christians4LessGvt]

Obamacare: Now Legally as Well as Politically Unstable

December 13, 2010 4:23 P.M.

By James C. Capretta

The decision on the individual mandate handed down today by U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in the Eastern
District of Virginia makes it clear that Obamacare is on extremely shaky legal ground. That's fitting, because
it's been on shaky political ground for well over a year now. Today's decision, possibly joined by others in the weeks
ahead is going to strengthen the already strong perception that this law was ill-advised from the get-go and
needs to be repealed to make way for a more sensible, consensus-driven program.

Specifically, the judge's ruling today found that the new law's requirement that all Americans must purchase
government-approved health insurance or face a fine was not a permissible use of the lawmaking authority
granted to Congress under the Constitution. In other words, Congress doesn't have unlimited authority to
do anything it wants. Its powers are carefully enumerated. And among them is not the power to force
Americans to buy something they would otherwise forgo.

Without the individual mandate, the whole Obamacare edifice crumbles. The judge did not rule that the entire
law must be invalidated. But if the individual mandate goes, the insurance regulations and most especially
the requirement that insurers must take all comers without regard to their health status, will never work.

Patients could simply wait to enroll in health coverage until they needed some kind of expensive treatment
or procedure, and thus pocket the premiums they would have paid when they were not in need of much
medical attention.

Still, it's been clear for some time that repeal advocates should never bank on courts bailing the country
out of Obamacare. This issue is far too important to leave to such an unpredictable process. Moreover,
even if the mandate and related provisions are gutted by the courts, that would still leave many horribly
damaging aspects of Obamacare in place, such as the massive entitlement expansions and the heavy
reliance on government-imposed price controls.

Today was a good day. But it's really just a small skirmish in a much wider war. By all means, every legal
remedy should be pursued. But Congress has a responsibility to undo this mess as well, regardless of how
the court cases turn out.

http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/255196/obamacare-now-legally-well-politically-unstable-james-c-capretta

[sirs]

shhhhhhhhhh

[sirs]

I think I can count on 1 hand, the number of times I've heard of this as a leading MSM headline.

[sirs]

[BT]

Surprising the amount of clucking going on considering that other federal judges have ruled that the individual mandate is constitutional.

?One hundred and fifteen miles away, a different judge in a different district rendered a different decision,? Gibbs said, referring to a Nov. 30 ruling by U.S. District Judge Norman Moon, in Lynchburg, Virginia, named by President Bill Clinton. That decision upheld the act in a lawsuit brought by the evangelical Liberty University and five individuals. U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh in Michigan, another Clinton appointee, also sided with the government.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html

[sirs]

Supreme Court....here we come

So, does this ruling put a "hold" on any further attempts at implementing Cash for Croakers, until ruled upon?

[BT]

So, does this ruling put a "hold" on any further attempts at implementing Cash for Croakers, until ruled upon?

No

[sirs]

Then currently this is not making any sense.  It's as if this ruling never was made then.  Is that about the size of it?  A non existant, non functional ruling?

[BT]

?There?s a lot of activity focused now on alternatives to the mandate,? said Dan Mendelson, chief executive officer of Avalere Health, a Washington-based consulting firm.

Hudson, who didn?t order the government to stop work on implementing the law during an appeal, limited his ruling to the mandatory insurance provision.

Peter Urbanowicz, a managing director at Alvarez & Marsal Healthcare Industry Group in Washington, said he read the decision to leave in place all of the law?s obligations on insurers for expanded coverage. If Hudson?s decision is upheld, insurance companies would be required to provide new benefits without expanding the pool of insureds, he said in an e-mail.

That would cause ?skyrocketing costs? for insurers, said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the Washington lobby group, America?s Health Insurance Plans.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html

[sirs]

So...it's not a ruling in any way shape or form, merely his profressional "judgement" on the mandating insurance angle

[BT]

No his ruling is that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Other federal judges have ruled that it is. Thus the march to Scotus. They usually handle conflicting rulings.

[sirs]

I'm fully aware they handle conflicting rulings.  But this ruling had no actionable component, thus all that's left is merely his judgement

[BT]

I'm fully aware they handle conflicting rulings.  But this ruling had no actionable component, thus all that's left is merely his judgement

No his ruling did not place an injunction against proceding with other components of the bill, the individual mandate didn't kick in until 2014, but the actionable component of his ruling is that the overall bill is now in conflict and that conflict must be resolved by the higher authority of the Supreme court. And since the cornerstone of the bill, which required individual coverage, in order to offset the higher costs to insurance companies of having to cover pre-existing conditions is now in question, the entire house of cards might fall.

Or premiums will rise accordingly. Followed by the wrath of the public.  So yes Obama and the dems were dealt a blow, but it wasn't fatal at this point.

[sirs]

I see

[Christians4LessGvt]

Let me get this straight.

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase
and fined if we don't,  written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't
understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,
to be signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief
who didn't pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and
financed by a country that's broke.

What the hell could possibly go wrong???

{em}