Health Reform Takes Another Hit, This Time in Florida

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's widely anticipated decision goes beyond a separate ruling by a federal judge in Virginia who last year ruled only that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional.

In separate lawsuits, two other federal courts have ruled that the law and its insurance mandate are permissible under the so-called Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

The divided opinions set the stage for a potentially landmark constitutional debate in the higher courts, with a final decision expected in the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps as soon as next year.

Vinson, an appointee of President Reagan, signaled for months that he would back the challenge to the law filed by Florida's Republican attorney general and joined by 25 other states.

And in his ruling Monday, he said he had no choice but to invalidate the law.

"The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case," Vinson wrote in the 78-page ruling. "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. … I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate."​

Alright, folks. We've tried "bipartisanship", and look what it got us—a law ruled unconstitutional by a judge who has said for months that he would strike the law down.

Obviously, this is going to go to higher courts.

However, I would suggest it is now time for single-payer.

In the decision, Judge Vinson denied a claim by the complaining states that an expansion of Medicaid was unlawful. Furthermore, Vinson refused to stop implementation of the law.

Right now, various decisions by judges in healthcare reform lawsuits seem to coincide with their appointments.

Nonetheless, compromise with Republicans and special interests has brought us a law of questionable constitutionality.

As Dan Savage and others pointed out in December, when a Virginia judge rejected the individualmandate:

And do you know what a "severability clause" is? And did you know that the Dems forgot to include one in their health care bill?​

Time to rally up for single payer.
____________________

Notes:

Levey, Noam N. and David G. Savage. "Judge rules Obama healthcare law unconstitutional". Los Angeles Times. January 31, 2011. LATimes.com. January 31, 2011. http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-obama-healthcare-20110201,0,6803044.story

Savage, Dan. "Federal Judge Rules Health Care Law Unconstitutional". Slog. December 13, 2010. Slog.TheStranger.com. January 31, 2011. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...-judge-rules-health-care-law-unconstitutional

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess it is not suprising that judical decisions on the matter follow the political persuasions of the judges. Given that trend, it is pretty clear that the supremes will rule against the law...again along party lines.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The bill is problematic to say the least.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Way to legislate from the bench.

 

Time for a real health care policy

If it's not surprising to me, it's because I don't really see it as significant. Presently, elsewhere in my life, I'm having some fun floating a theory:

... what if President Obama really is a closet Marxist, and by giving over to conservatives damn near everything they want, he is setting up the United States for its grand and glorious collapse?​

One might suggest that only by giving over to American excess will its structures finally break. But, in the end, it's something of a joke; it is a way of reconciling Obama's tendency to abandon his campaign rhetoric in favor of more conservative viewpoints (e.g., Guantanamo, habeas corpus, health reform, financial reform, &c.) with the constant torrent of accusations that he is somehow a Marxist.

But in this case, I'm fine if this particular compromise is struck down, as long as that means it's time for a real health care policy in the United States.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think things are going to get better. The single payer system is hands down the best way to go. But I just don't see it in the cards. The special interests are too powerful. They will fire up their zombie legions with talk of Marxism and the end of days as they did last summer. A lot of money in advertising goes a long way with the American voter.

 

All you zombies, hide your faces

Yes, but I think it will be an interesting moment when some Democratic pundit says, "Well, we already tried your way, with a massive blowjob for the corporations, and that turned out to be unconstitutional. Goshy-gee, imagine that. Since compromising with your partisan and special interest backers brought us an unconstitutional outcome, we don't see the purpose in following the same route as last time. You need to come up with something better if you want a seat at the table."

All you zombies, hide your faces,
All you people in the street.
All you sittin' in high places—
The pieces gonna fall on you.

(The Hooters, "All You Zombies")​

 

I'm really torn on this issue.

If the US could sincerely work out a system that mimics the French or Dutch systems (complete patient control, choice in doctors, hospitals, etc) instead of a British or Canadian system (where the system has a lot of power to dictate who and when you see a doctor), then I'd be okay with it.

When I look at what I pay for medical coverage ($150 a month) plus what my company pays for my medical coverage (and subsequently pays its employees less; several hundred dollars), if this burden was taken away from individuals and corporations and subsequently paid for by a tax levy, then it is--at the very least--a financial wash.

Other issues I have is that my current health care provider is notorious for declining payments for vital procedures. They also have horrific prescription coverage.

Then again, the thought of the ladies who work at the BMV dealing with my health care scares the shit out of me. I'm nonplussed that federal and state workers get union protection, and given that protection and immunity from ever being terminated for poor service, I'm left wondering what kind of horrible trap we'll be walking into if/when we go to single payer coverage.

All things considered, if this bill really does remain thrown out (which brings up two thoughts: (a) I am not confident that the SCOTUS will uphold this decision and (b) why throw out even the good parts?), then the only way I'd ever be okay with another bill is if it were single payer.

~String

 

I'm not sure it was. Reversing a law that treads very close to violating the constitution is clearly within the traditional purview of the court.

The "legislating from the bench" claim is when the courts order systems into place that were never there before (busing) or create rights where none traditionally existed (abortion).

In this case, it's more of a throw-back to the past than fabricating something new.

~String

 

(Insert title here)

I agree. The thing is that I was never happy with the bill from the moment Obama took the public option off the table. I've been viewing the individual mandate mostly according to Bill Maher's fellatious quip.

But this isn't quite like the mandate to own auto insurance: If you don't drive, you don't have to buy insurance.

The problem with the health mandate is that, at some level, it is too extensive. I'm not sure what I could say analogously, aside from, If you don't live, you don't have to buy insurance.

And you know how I feel about obliging people for the mere fact that they live.

I would disagree about abortion. The Roe majority looked at situational outcomes according to the effects of other, existing rights. It was, to their view, a logical sort of outcome, e.g., If X and Y, then Z.

One of the greatest acts of legislating from the bench both haunts us to this day, and never actually happened. The infamous Santa Clara decision, which pertained largely to property boundaries, established corporate personhood according to a headnote inserted into the syllabus by the Reporter of the Court. Certes, the Chief Justice approved, but the original remark that, for the purposes of the Court corporations were people cannot be demonstrated definitively to have been spoken in that context. Rather, it seems a philosophical presumption by the Court in order to avoid getting sidetracked.

But by neither legislation nor fair trial, the Supreme Court established corporate personhood in 1886.

 

Which was the first hint of yellow coming from this White House. It was disappointing, and one of the few pieces of the health care bill that I actually found appealing.

Which is why I come close to believing in single payer national health care that is de rigueur and automatic with residency/citizenship and not somehow "optional" but accompanied with a fine for failure to pay for it on one's own.

This is one of those issues I can't quite get my brain around. I'm deeply suspicious of the federal government. When I muse over the topic, I generally settle on the notion of it being paid for by the federal government but implemented and managed by the individual states (who'll handle appeals, questions, service, etc). I'm left believing that if it were that much closer to individual citizens, then the service will be that much better.

Then I remember the BMV and it all comes crashing down.

Look, I'm okay with abortion. (Not enough people are having fetusectomies as far as I'm concerned). While I am in agreement that it is a natural and logical extension of the right to physical privacy, it seems that its extension was largely a fabrication to suit a contemporary situation (and, again, one with which I totally agree).

Another issue on which I'm torn.

In the end, I usually fall down on the side of opposing Santa Clara. If there are worries about corporate entities not having the right to enforce contracts or individual corporations not having the right to conduct business, then it would take a simple act of Congress to address those specific concerns more directly, rather than enfranchising a full field of rights that allow corporations to exercise powers that clearly harm society as a whole (the modern fast food advert push on children comes to mind).

~String

 

It was never really on the table - nothing was obtained by its disappearance. Clinton had killed it in 1992.

It wouldn't have done much good, anyway - the plan that might have worked was a step by step expansion of Medicare. That had a shot.

Single payer is not single provider. The setup is not like the DMV, which is multiple payer single provider - it's the other way around. More like the GI Bill for college. It's the insurance that is socialized, not the medical care.

 

Whoa. I didn't know that. So this may well be better news than I had thought.

 

People actually getting their money's worth for health care is anti-American, after all how are people supposed to make massive profits otherwise?

 

The issue is not over. Even if the Republican/Tea Partiers overturn the law, it will not be over. And you may not like what you get in it's place - the single payer system where all rates are set by the state and paid by the state (similar to Medicare). The fact is that the nation can no longer afford to support an inefficient and degraded system of healthcare with costs growing at more than twice the growth in national income.

I think in a few years you and people like you will be wishing for the good olde days of Obamacare.

 

Joe, it is NOT Republican/Tea Partiers who will likely overturn this law, it will be the SCOTUS and if so, they will do it on Constitutional grounds.

Democrats knew when they came up with this bill that extending the Commerce Clause to mean the Government could force people to buy something was going to be problematic. There is no other case law that supports that broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, so it was a gamble.

There were other solutions available that would have preserved the ability to not exclude pre-existing conditions, they didn't take any of them and so they gambled that they could prevail in their attempt to extend the power of the Federal Govt.

Two Federal judges have said that what they legislated is not Constitutional.
I suspect the SCOTUS will agree.

Because there is no severability clause, if SCOTUS agrees with Vinson, then the whole thing will get tossed, and so indeed this Bill will become null and void.
But now Republicans are in control of the House and so instead of just dealing with this issue, a whole new Health Bill will have to be passed and I suspec that will be more in line with what people actually want, since they will have to compromise with the Senate and the President to get anything passed.
Unfortunately, because of the gamble they took and because of the slowness of the SC, this will now be in limbo for about a year.

Arthur

 

It helps if you read Arthur. If you read the thread and understood what was written you would know that it is the Republicans/Tea Partiers who are challenging the law in the court system. And you would know that is the Republican/Tea Party judges who are ruling against the law.

Since the supreme court is controlled by the Republican/Tea Party there is little doubt the law will not get a fair hearing in the supreme court and the Republicans/Tea Partiers on the supreme court will overturn the law.

I see your ESP is kicking in again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I personally just think the Democrats were being dumb and trying to appease Republicans. As I understand it, it was the Republicans demanded that feature that it was included. Remember Democrats wanted the single payer provision. And many Democrats and Independents are upset that we did not go with the single payer method.

Two federal judges have said that it is legal too. But since the supreme court is dominated by Republican/Tea Party, there is little doubt as I and others have said that the supreme court will overturn the law. It will not get a fair hearing unfortunately and many more Americans will die as a result.

There is little doubt the Roberts court will give this a fair hearing, on this I think everyone can agree.

 

So the NET of that whole post is you don't believe in our system of Government.

The SCOTUS is quite independent, they are not Republicans or Tea Partiers and your catagorizing them as such is silly.

If they overturn this it will be on Constitutional grounds, not political ones.

Arthur

 

Not the way I remember it.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/the-right-the-duty-to-bear-insurance-cards/?ref=us

Arthur

 

Scalia is a right-winger, and Thomas is a partisan hack. They aren't independent, and don't even pretend to be in public life.