BREAKING: Federal Judge Allows Virginia's Constitutional Challenge to Affordable Care Act
In a somewhat predictable but still annoying move, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson refused to dismiss Attorney General Ken Cucinelli's lawsuit seeking to challenge the constitutional grounds for the Affordable Care Act. The key language in the 32-page ruling (PDF) is this:
While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate -- and tax -- a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addresses this issue. No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce. Given the presence of some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side's position, this Court cannot conclude at this stage that the complaint fails to state a cause of action."
Or, stated more simply, the judge has decided to allow Virginia to challenge the Affordable Care Act in its entirety based on a challenge to the individual mandate. The court (and Ken Cucinelli) should be careful what they wish for. If the court's logic is deemed sound and this case were to be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, a foundation will have been laid for Congress to pass Medicare For All under precedents established when Medicare was passed and challenged 45 years ago.
Just so we're clear on agendas, know that these court challenges have nothing to do with the individual mandate and everything to do with insurers' objections to the Affordable Care Act ending insurers' right to exclude for pre-existing conditions. That has been, and will continue to be, the core of corporate objections to the Affordable Care Act.
The judge's ruling was purely procedural; that is, he did not consider the merits of Virginia's argument, only whether the case should be allowed to proceed. The White House fired back a response and a shot across the bow:
After all, over 70 years of settled law is on the side of the Affordable Care Act. In order to make health care affordable and available for all, the Act regulates how to pay for medical services – services that account for more than 17.5% of the national economy. This law came into being precisely because of the interconnectedness of our health care costs. People who make an economic decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market, but instead shift their costs to others when they become ill or are involved in an accident and cannot pay.
We do not leave people to die at the emergency room door – whether they have insurance or not. Those costs – $43 billion in 2008 alone – are borne by doctors, hospitals, insured individuals, taxpayers and small businesses, in Virginia and throughout the nation. According to a recent study, this cost-shift added on average $1,100 to family premiums in 2009 and roughly $410 to an individual premium.
Bottom line: This ruling doesn't really mean much, but conservatives will use it as a crowing point during the summer recess to stoke up the teabag machine and grind out nightly Fox News blurbs.
just so we're clear on agendas, know that these court challenges have nothing to do with the individual mandate
I'm pretty well known as quite a progressive but let me say this
an "individual mandate" that does provide a public option IS unconstitutional and FORCING people to buy PRIVATE product who"s players operate in virtual MONOPOLY is an unqualified travesty against our democracy
I happen to agree that the individual mandate is bad policy, and bad politics. But all sorts of things that are bad ideas, things that the Congress shouldn't do, are not things that Congress is forbidden to do by the Constitution.
Federal law requires you to pay taxes, no matter how much you might object to how the money is used, including some of that money being handed over to private corporations that you and I don't approve of, for purposes we don't approve of. The individual mandate hardly breaks any new ground in that respect. And it's not even as if there is some technical, formal, difference here from common practice, in the sense that the arrangement by which money you pay to the govt in taxes that they hand over to a private corporation, at least doesn't require you to hand money over directly to the corporation (assuming that having the govt as middleman makes some sort of difference). Govt has privatized all sorts of functions, especially lately, creating arrangments that force you to pay a road toll, for example, to some private corporation that has been sold the right to collect such by the govt.
If the Federal government wants to tax me and give my money to corporations that's one thing... if it wants to force me to pay a corporation directly, that is an ENTIRELY different and unacceptable thing.
Taking the big picture, forcing people to pay corporations directly is feudalism pure and simple.... utter surrender to corporate rule.
Either man up and tax us.... or let the nation go to hell, but don't make that hell even worse by partnering with the agents of our oppression, the insurance companies and other corporations of America.
i'm on the judges side on this, the government does not and should not have the right to force anyone to buy a goddamned thing. the government does have the right to collect taxes and provide for the common good, which would be single payer. those of us not blinded by the light from the new messiah saw this coming down the pike. obama may win in the courts, doesn't make it right, a very dangerous precedent will have been set.
All he ruled was that the AG in VA has legal standing to file the suit.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
He also ruled that VA complied with federal pleading requirements.
The dems lost a lifelong voter by INSISTING that ins co's were the only path to healthcare...a system DESIGNED to leave the sick uncared for in order for executive scum to get exorbinant bonuses I refuse to participate. I'll slash my own wrists rather than give a dime to the scum at wellpoint.
The fines are too small to do very much to motivate anyone who has made the decision that giving money to Wellpoint is a bad idea, to change that opinion.
So it would seem that we have lost a lifetime voter for no good public policy reason. But I hope that you will at least consider voting against the Republicans at every opportunity. It's the main reason I vote Democratic. The Dems mostly seem to treat bad ideas like the individual mandate as a bug, where the Reps are enthusiastic about them as features. My prediction is that the mandate would be the only feature of the bill that the Reps would let stand if they get the majority at the next election.
The first three comments said just about everything I was going to say.
THE problem is that "Health Care Reform" FAILED to pass a NATIONAL program that provided UNIVERSAL care.
Like the civilized nations have.
Leaving it to the states to implement was pure cowardice and stupidity.
Mandating we purchase insurance policies is CLEARLY unconstitutional.
There .. now I said it too.
Edit: and might I add that leaving this kind of an opening for a rightwing idiot like Cuccinelli to exploit was political suicide.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
"Like the civilized nations have."
are you calling all other nations that are not white uncivilized?
[Stay on topic; quit flaming and attempting to disrupt the threads here-Sitemonitor]
:)
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
"Mandating we purchase insurance policies is CLEARLY unconstitutional."
It's really not. States already require motorists to purchase auto insurance. Is that "CLEARLY unconstitutional?"
And to the extent you argue, "No, no, driving is a choice, I can choose not to drive, but this Act requires me to buy insurance just for being me" then consider that the Act passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama doesn't actually force you to buy insurance, but instead taxes you if you don't. Imposing taxes is clearly constitutional, and it is legal to hit individuals with taxes based on elections they make, e.g., whether to incorporate as "S corp" or "inc."
I'd rather have a single payer system too (I attended high school in Canada, and it works great) but there's little question that the Act is constitutional.
It's really not. States already require motorists to purchase auto insurance. Is that "CLEARLY unconstitutional?"
they DO NOT mandate we buy auto insurance, in case you didn't know it, that's only if you have a car, driving a car happens to be a privileged NOT a right...HEE YOUUUGE difference
ask any Republican.
"Sigh"
Vomit.
me-oww!
I explained it in the simplest terms possible. There's really no controversy here despite Hudson's ruling.
why do I need to be a lawyer to bring that up?
me-oww!
. . . that so many people want to argue "constitution" yet they have no idea what it permits or how decades of jurisprudence applies.
That driving is a privilege and requires a license makes all the world of difference. You are without any doubt comparing apples to oranges in your driver's license example, as it proves the reverse of what you say. Driving is a privilege, and, thus, the state may impose conditions on same. Of course, you might be tacitly admitting that so is health care, which I hope is not the case, as that would bode unfavorably for the success of your argument, given that life is a constitutional right, while driving, no matter how much you think it is, is not a fundamental right.
. . . or unable to reason. You DO NOT HAVE TO BUY INSURANCE. But if you don't you. Be penalized come tax season.
clearly unconstitutional to demand that every man, woman, and child purchase a private sector product/service.
and clearly a lack of democratic leadership to submit this watered down right wing friendly corporate friendly HCR bill .. instead of the simpler solution of Universal Health Care.
I'm incredibly disappointed with democratic leadership.
So you oppose the "watered down right wing friendly corporate bill" but then protest because it tries to be universal by requiring you to purchase insurance?
Talk about contradicting youself!
the fact that Coca Cola is sold everywhere in the world does not mean that Coca Cola provides "universal soft drink beverages"
they only provide soft drink beverages, to those who purchase their product.
to claim that Coca Cola provides "universal soft drink beverages" because all citizens who don't buy Coca Cola risk legal punishment .. hardly sets Coca Cola in the same class as the NHS of England.
please.
don't be deliberately obtuse.
***
no, I don't want to pay health care out of my own pocket while HMO's still pursue profits over care.
I *WANTED* .. and voted for many many Democrats, to *ENSURE* .. that I pay more taxes, and in return, feel the comfort of knowing that every health care employee in the United States is a government employee, and HMO CEOs are rendered obsolete.
just like cops.
just like firemen.
***THAT*** ... is Universal Health Care.
to pretend that forced consumerism is in the same class as the NHS, is insulting.
The Democrats' calculation is that eventually enough people will slide off the rolls of private insurance and thus become enrolled in a public program.
Frankly, it would be best if every refused to pay for private insurance and ended up in the public program, wiping out the private insurers.
look, here's where I treat you as if you were on 4chan instead of a real person! :D (trollface.jpg)
>Frankly, it would be best if every refused to pay for private insurance and ended up in the public program, wiping out the private insurers.
>Frankly, it would be best if every refused to pay for homes and ended up in foreclosure, wiping out the banks.
yea, doesn't work out so good does it smart guy.
The primary difference between homes and health care is that home payments for most mortgages in the United States are fixed. Accordingly, absent some catastrophe, homeowners are usually able to pay make their scheduled payments. Indeed, given that most homeowners' salaries increase over time, and given that the monthly amount of a fixed-rate mortgage is static, i.e., it doesn't increase, the relative proportion of a homeowners' salary allocated to housing tends to decrease over time, thereby making the home more "affordable." Indeed, the mortgage failures we've seen over the last three years relate generally to the exotic mortgages, e.g., ARMs, etc., not the traditional 30-year fixed rate.
The fixed cost of home ownership stands in stark contrast to health care, where annual cost increases heaped on consumers outstrip inflation and increases in salaries. In other words, unlike a fixed-rate mortgage which becomes "cheaper" over time, health insurance costs are becoming more expensive over time, gobbling up an increasing percentage of consumers' take-home pay in the form of premiums.
Why is this distinction important? Well, first, it demonstrates that your attempt to conflate the two misses the mark. Second, it illustrates the Obama administration's reasoning concerning the Affordable Care Act. The principle underlying the Act is that private health insurance will eventually become too expensive for too many Americans, and this pool of Americans forced out of the private market will thereafter drive demand for a more comprehensive public program.
And yeah, I am a smart guy.
so let's all hope it turns out that way ..
.. not holding my breath!
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
"In order to make health care affordable and available for all..."
such a bullshit statement from the WH. if the obama admin wanted to make 'health care affordable and available for all' they wouldn't have worked tirelessly to ensure that the insurance company's stranglehold on the nation's health was sacrosanct.
True, yet this statement from the WH is surprisingly succinct, to the point, and clear. It is the number one economic reason universal coverage should be sought. Now how to do it...?
"over 70 years of settled law is on the side of the Affordable Care Act"
Slavery was settled law for 400 years, does that make it right?
Or find out where Suzy the Blow Up Doll and the other trolls are hanging out these days.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
...."The court (and Ken Cucinelli) should be careful what they wish for. If the court's logic is deemed sound and this case were to be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, a foundation will have been laid for Congress to pass Medicare For All....."
I can't decide if I'm jealous of your optimism, or stunned by your ignorance.
Cue the Kabuki....
I feel bad for Virginians, but I really don't mind if they decide to opt out of the health care reform. I just hope they're paying attention if the rest of the world passes them by, and they wonder why they are still having their health care canceled.
What I'm worried about.. is if health care corporations can then set their offices up in Virginia and claim that they go by Virginia law, and can therefore bypass any federal law.
It's what I've been saying all along: there is no prior legislation when the US Congress or any state legislature required the people to purchase anything from a private enterprise. It's like mandating all Americans to purchase a daily newspaper. They're not telling anyone which periodical, but everyone must choose one. Now, this could be easily justified on the ideal grounds that citizens must be well-informed to have a well-oiled Republic, and yet this was never done. I wonder why? Well, no I don't wonder because I know that the US Constitution did not empower Congress the prerogative to mandate that someone must buy anything from a private entity. There is no such power. Now, if the government required monies to be paid into the public treasury, that's an entirely different matter. Case closed. This is not about the Interstate Commerce Clause, no matter how much they want to make it out to be.
Could you explain how mandating health care is conceptually different from mandating insurance on cars? Saying that you don't have to is a bit disingenuous because owning a car in the US is like breathing air. :)
On a practical note, it's a fallacy that we have choice now. Any given employer shacks up with usually one insurer only, there's no way to opt out unless you want to leave your job as well. And in any given area there are usually few (or typically one) insurers to choose from in the first place.
For every State resident who chooses not to participate yet requires federal monies to cover a health care episode, the federal government will bill the home residency state (as determined by voter registration) for the full cost of any health care provided courtesy of the federal government.
There ya go.
in Arkansas in a primary on the basis of her perfidy on health care,
I am sure written commentary here attacking the Affordable Care Act will play a positive role in getting us meaningful reform in the next Congress.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
.
did you know which team is the fifth best (out of 30) in road attendance this year in Major League Baseball? (Hint: they are next to last in games out of first place.)
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
baseball isn't my strong suit
if for no other reason that being "ordered" by the federal government to purchase a private sector product/service .. I mostly dislike the mandate because its in direct contradiction with the 5th amendment.
here's why I feel that way. the 5th amendment protects you from self incrimination. now, with this bill its illegal to not have a private health insurance policy. but. it still remains illegal to review every Americans' financial records to see whether or not they're buying health care.
so say you don't buy insurance in .. when does the mandate take effect, 2012? 2014? anyway. say you don't buy insurance.
then you go for a joyride on your ATV or whatever.
break your leg, kneecap's dangling out of your thigh, oh the humanity.
go to the hospital.
nurse says "yes sir we'll treat you right away, just need to get your insurance card from you."
at that point, you can't get past the receptionist and into the care of a doctor, without ... incriminating yourself. but you have to incriminate yourself and declare that you're in violation of a law, in order to receive health care ... which is incredible amounts of duress.
or even better, you're taken to the hospital unconscious. one minute you're driving. next minute you get crashed into by a drunk driver. wake up in a hospital handcuffed to a bed because you're not insured and someone found out.
***
sorry but I agree with the judge on this one. there are, MANY, constitutional challenges to overcome and hammer down before this reform can finally be considered "finished."
it shouldn't be this complicated. it shouldn't have been. Congress should have just said "all health care is free and run by the government" and powered it past Republicans with their super majority. the fact that they didn't .. and instead offered these unconsitutional right wing appeasements which ultimately resulted in little to no right wing votes anyway .. it just underscores a serious lack of leadership.
not blaming Obama's lack of leadership on this one. but certainly frowning at Pelosi and Reid's lack of leadership. they should have anticipated these kinds of rebuttals .. I know I sure as hell did.
as a non custodial parent I'm required by law to purchase a private sector's product/service anyway. I have to buy insurance for my kid anyway, or I'm in contempt of court, and HMOs don't offer insurance to just kids .. they offer it to the individual, and also the individual's family if he wants to pay extra.
so its really no harm no foul to me, personally.
maybe someone should explain to these right wing AG's that they're on a slippery slope here. that they could be creating a precedent to allow deadbeat dads out of their insurance obligations.
It's much more probable that you'll be asked on your tax forms to supply your policy nuber: If you've got none, precede to form 38-55399548A.
What will happen at the E-room is that you'll just get charged the full rate that the uninsured are charged now.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
is it not anticipated to be a federal crime, to be without health care insurance?
is it not currently a crime to knowingly fail to report a federal crime?
the simple fact is, the watered down corporate friendly right wing friendly crap version that Congress finally came up with ... is saturated with potential for both right wing and independent/non-partisan lawyers to poke holes in.
a simpler, universal health care package, would not have been so easy to sabotage.
The crime will be not reporting on your tax forms that you're uninsured. This will be investigated by the IRS and enforced in tax courts, just like any other tax fraud.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Arizona is a Right To Work State with simultaneous picketing and limited bus service during the Sun Tran strike.
Affordable healthcare is a major roadblock at present.
http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12907750
I love it when the Federal govt gets challenged!!!
(they always think) they can do whatever they want, ...and it pisses me off.
Other states, (and/or individuals) will be challenging health care too.
This is just the beginning...and it looks like a good start!
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
BEginning today, CSPAN is airing a different live panel each day of the week concerning the health care law.
Today is was on implementation vis a vis the states.
Tomorrow, it will be on private insurance.
The sponsor, Kaiser Family Foundation is running it with a 24 hour delay daily on its web site:
www.kff.org
On CSPAN, catch them live daily at 9:45 AM EST.
And it all started when you know who get elected. Right?
Since any kind of medical treatment, including drugs, involves interstate commerce, it seems to me that anyone not wanting to participate should do it literally. Of course, there's no way you can prevent them one fine day from getting medical treatment....unless you make them liable for the entire bill.
Or just put the onus on individuals wanting to opt out (i.e. you selfish libertarians) to prove they wouldn't use medical services.
lol, yea ok.
You may be the exception that confirms the rule, but the majority of the "I can afford it but don't want to" crowd are in the libertarian camp.
I haven't seen any surveys and .. (glances upward) .. yep, there are a lot of self professed "liberals" and "progressives" and other registered Democrats just like myself, making the same statements.
the "majority" are libertarians?
hmm. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that.
plus. so what if the "majority" *are* libertarians.
its ok to compromise the constitutional rights of libertarians?
Don't just register as a Democrat- which is only a requirement for the purposes of voting in primaries in some states (it's been ruled unconstitutional here in MI)- but join the party and help steer it in a more progressive direction.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Isn't that whole "refusing to participate in interstate commerce" thingie the basis for why the federal government can tell me not to grow my own weed?
Gonzales v. Raich
There is no doubt that the Republican rubber stamps on the Federal benches will kill the whole bill. And that will put us back on square one where people will be worse off!
Does nobody read anymore?!!
I SPECIFICALLY referred to the "driving" is a privilege argument, and SPECIFICALLY stated why it amounts to horseshit. Instead of acknowledging the obvious, I am met with a chorus of "driving is a privilege" arguments.
Once again for those who refuse to understand: the federal government has the power to penalize through the imposition of differential tax schemes. For example, the government can reduce taxes on those who hire unemployed workers, a result essentially the same as taxing more on those who don't hire. Applied here, the Act is very clear -- you don't have to buy insurance, but if you don't and aren't otherwise covered you will be penalized at tax time.
The only way this might be held unconstitutional is based on ideological concerns. Congress has the right to make law regarding taxes and commerce.
Comments are closed on this entry