Breaking: Federal Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional (Updated: Gibbs Video Added)
Fox has the story, as does the AP.
Casting an unmistakable and perhaps permanent pockmark on the face of the Obama administration, a federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a major component of the new health care reform law is unconstitutional.
Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled Monday for the state’s claim that the requirement for people to purchase health care exceeds the power of Congress under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
This ruling covers the Virginia case, brought by state AG Ken Cuccinelli, against ObamaCare. The Florida case, which has been joined by Texas and nearly two dozen other states, proceeds. Oral arguments in that case begin on Thursday. The way the law was constructed, striking down the individual mandate, as this federal judge has, strikes down the entire law.
Josh Marshall, in a state of shock, says that “no one” took the constitutional argument against ObamaCare seriously. Obviously a majority of the voters did, a couple dozen state attorneys general did, and a federal judge has as well.
Next stop, the US Supreme Court (after appeals, of course).
Update: The White House has a spokesman on Fox now, pointing out that two other federal judges have ruled the mandate constitutional. True enough. That’s among the reasons this will end up at SCOTUS. Here’s the decision, btw.
Update: VA AG Cuccinelli’s reaction:
“I am gratified we prevailed. This won’t be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution,” said Cuccinelli in a statement.
The heart of Judge Hudson’s decision:
In a 42-page opinion, Hudson said the provision of the law that requires most individuals to get insurance or pay a fine by 2014 is an unprecedented expansion of federal power that cannot be supported by Congress’s power to regulate interstate trade.
“Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market,” he wrote. “In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]
Update: Elections matter.
President George W. Bush nominated Hudson on January 23, 2002, to a new seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia created by 114 Stat. 2762. The United States Senate confirmed the nomination on August 1, 2002, and Hudson received his commission on August 2, 2002.
Update: A note on severability from the NYT take on the ruling:
The officials stressed that the judge’s decision to not enjoin the law would defer any actual impact for years. They noted that the insurance requirement does not even take effect until 2014, when the Supreme Court presumably will have ruled.
The administration has said that if that provision eventually falls, related insurance reforms would necessarily collapse with it, most notably the ban on insurer exclusions of applicants with pre-existing health conditions. But officials said other innovations, including a vast expansion of Medicaid eligibility and the sale of subsidized insurance policies through state-based exchanges, would withstand even a Supreme Court ruling against the insurance mandate.
Repealers aren’t off the hook.
Update: Watching the WH press briefing. Robert Gibbs just went Orwellian, describing the mandate as “individual responsibility,” as opposed to the mandate/tax/penalty that it is. “Individual responsibility” seems to be their new sales line — he just used it again. Watch for that phrase in ongoing WH comms on ObamaCare.
This obviously an effort to soften ObamaCare, but it shouldn’t fool anyone. It’s a tax, one which puts the IRS inside the health care decision loop, and can result in Americans going to jail for the crime of not purchasing health insurance.
Update: And just in time, a new poll is out showing that ObamaCare is still getting less popular.
The law’s never been popular, with support peaking at just 48 percent in November 2009. Today it’s slipped to 43 percent, numerically its lowest in ABC/Post polling. (It was about the same, 44 percent, a year ago.) Fifty-two percent are opposed, and that 9-point gap in favor of opposition is its largest on record since the latest debate over health care reform began in earnest in summer 2009.
More also continue to “strongly” oppose the law than to strongly support it, 37 percent to 22 percent.
What to do about it is another question: People who don’t support the law fragment on how to proceed, with a plurality in this group, 38 percent, saying they’d rather wait and see before deciding on a direction. Among the rest, 30 percent would repeal parts of the law, while about as many, 29 percent, favor repealing all of it.
Update: Here’s video from Robert Gibbs’ WH presser earlier today.
This is Orwellian. If the responsibility is “individual,” then it’s not the government’s business to force it upon anyone. But as Gibbs makes clear, it’s not really individual at all, it’s collectivist. The mandate is a tax forcing some to pay for others’ health care.
Update: Guess who’s making the auto insurance to health insurance comparison now. If you guessed “the White House blog,” you guessed right.
For example, in most states, drivers are required to carry a minimum level of auto insurance. Accidents happen and when they do, they need to be paid for quickly and responsibly. Requiring drivers to carry auto insurance accomplishes this goal. Similarly, the Affordable Care Act, through the individual responsibility requirement, will require everyone to carry some form of health insurance since everyone at some point in time participates in the health care system, and incur costs that must be paid for.
If the commerce clause allows this then what doesn’t it allow? If this is constitutional then the power of the Federal Government becomes absolute.
Yes!!! At least we’ve got one good ruling in the favor of the Constitution and the people.
This highly welcomed decision should be upheld in the U.S. Supreme Court. My guess it will be by 5-4 count. Josh Marshall speaks for perhaps the majority of the intellectual “elites.” They simply take it for granted that the political philosophy of Progressivism dominates America. Nobody deemed serious should ever question it.
If I was one of the five, I would be careful about catching an accident.
The Chicago Gang is not going to go quietly away.
Is there any such thing as getting an injunction against the Act until the judicial process is concluded — hopefully with a Supreme Court decision striking the monstrosity down?
Judge Hudson denied the request for injunctive relief because DHS is bound by the judgment anyway. There’s really no need. See the last two pages or so of the opinion: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Virginia_ACA_Order.pdf.
To celebrate this minor victory I including some links to some humorous Obamacare cartoons.
See “Hit and Run” also known as “Grandma Got Ran Over by Obamacare” at http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/grandma-got-ran-over/
“A Whale of a Tale” at http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/a-whale-of-a-tale/
“Congressional Abuse” at http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/congressional-abuse/
Many states have required people to buy auto insurance for years. We gave up our rights long ago.
Owning a car may be common but is optional. With the choice to own and drive an car, you have certain responsibilities.
With the choice to own and drive a car, I say you take your chances rather than making insurance mandatory. Government is meant to manage not control. Costs to own a car spiral out of control. Why should I have to pay for new tabs? Why not make a license plate good for the life of the car? The people are just a source of income for government to indulge in social engineering.
You will get thousands of young people who don’t want to, or cannot afford to buy ‘car insurance’. I’m not sure how the American car insurance works,BUT in Australia ,we have to purchase 3rd party insurance with registration of the vehicle. If they have a crash ,at least it pays for the other persons property or personal damage.The insurance of their own vehicle is up to them ,as some vehicles are not worth the cost of the insurance.
You get some twits that will not register or insure the vehicle they drive,to try to save money.BUT If they hit someone then they pay for the rest of their lives.I was caught like that ,where the person who hit me did not have insurance and they just snubbed their noses up to the law. Luckily my insurance company came to the party and repaired my car.
There is a fundamental difference. First, states are requiring drivers to buy liability insurance to cover damages they might inflict on others in an accident. Auto liability insurance doesn’t cover the driver’s own costs for repairing his car and it only applies to auto owners. If you don’t own a car, you don’t have to buy it.
ObamaCare is the federal government mandating that all individuals must purchase a commercial product (health insurance) for their own use under threat of penalty. The judge in this case ruled that mandate is unconstitutional. This matter won’t be settled until the Supreme Court rules on the matter, if then.
States require that the registered OWNER of the vehicle provide liability coverage (self-insured is acceptable, albeit unusual given the limits) for any vehicle that will be used on public roads. There is no requirement for liability coverage (normally obtained through insurance) on vehicles that are not registered for street usage.
If you don’t operate a street legal vehicle on the streets, then there is no requirement to have insurance. Ride the bus? No insurance necessary for you. Walk? No insurance necessary.
Contrast this with the “individual mandate.” Breathe? Better have insurance.
Apples and oranges.
Except that
Driving is a choice and a privledge
Living isn’t
Driving is a choice and a priviledge. Living isn’t.
So you might think. But that’s precisely the intent of this so-called “Obamacare” legislation. Because at the end of the day, it is neither about health nor care. It is about control, the exercise of power. “Progressives’ above all desire to wield the power to decide who lives and who dies. Murder of the unborn is the prime sacrament in progressives’ church of death. At-will, on-demand abortion is their holy writ.
‘Progressives’ refusal to acknowledge the value of individual human life is one of the principal reasons why no peace can ever be made with them. It is a reckless, willful and evil disregard for the most fundamental of all of our rights: the right to live.
The foundational premise of leftism is: people are things. This premise is and has been absolutely necessary in order to justify the slaughter of millions – and to enslave and impoverish the rest. Once again, I refer you to the idea of killers without conscience and the pedigree of their ideas.
This is precisely the road down which that Marxist meat puppet of a President and his owners are taking us. History is my witness.
Why else would the modern American Left seek to ‘move the goalposts’ that define life? And further, to define the value of individual life by its utility? “Utility” – to whom or for what? We have moved from questioning whether any sane human being shouuld be allowed to make such decisions to ditheriong over who will decide. This is monstrous. And if any of you feel that this is hyperbole or tinfoil hattery, consider this:
We have the likes of Peter Singer speaking blithely of extending that ‘right to choose’ to children as old as 28 months! Why? Because Singer argues that at that age, well… they’re not fully conscious and capable of reason!
Why else would we hear of Ezekiel Emanuel – Rahm Emanuels brother – also an ‘advisor’ to 0bama, advocating the assessment of the relative ‘quality of life’ under the aegis of his innocuous-sounding “Complete Lives” program? Emanuel’s guidelines are strictly utilitarian, and are based in part upon the notion of an individual’s ‘value to society’.
What happens when:
1. The goalposts converge?
2. The decision as to who lives and who dies eventually passes to the state?
Who has the courage to answer that?
Years ago I read a short book entitled _Secrets of the SS_ (Glenn B Infield).
One of the topics covered was OSS Operation Paperclip. In this operation a number of SS officers were brought from Germany to work in the OSS at the end of WW II.
as I read the story my blood ran cold as I realized: They are here.
States have general welfare and police powers not afforded to the Federal government. The Federal government must rely on the specific powers delineated to it in the Constitution. If we would like it to be otherwise, the Constitution itself would need to be changed. (And in the real way…not through Court interpretation of words.)
Exactly. This is a point many people overlook.
I love it when people trot out the old auto insurance chestnut. It leaves them open to the question, “We don’t tie auto insurance to employment, why should health insurance be linked with employment?”
As others have said, there are 3 big reasons the auto insurance analogy is bogus.
1. Driving is optional, you make a positive economic decision, buying and registering a car, thus you have initiated commerce, that can then be regulated. Being alive is not optional, and is not initiating economic activity.
2. Compulsory auto insurance is only for damage you may inflict on others, not on costs you may incur yourself. This is a reasonable function of government, protecting others from your possible negligence. But if it was also compulsory for you to buy auto insurance for your own damages, that would not be proper gov activity, since you are the only one that suffers if you dont do it.
3. The biggest reason of all, the limitation of the constitutional commerce clause only limits federal regulation, not state regulation. This there is no constitutional problem with the MA state health plan, which also has an individual mandate. The states may do whatever they wish regarding commerce, unless it violates the 14th amendment. The feds are limited by the interstate commerce clause. Thus compulsory auto insurance at the fed level WOULD be unconstitutional.
It is astounding how completely ignorant of the constitution most leftists are, when they continue to use this completely bogus auto insurance analogy.
You are so correct! State can enact certain laws to protect their citizens but the Federal Government can not require people to purchase anything at all, but as all leftists they didn’t fully look into the difference between States Rights and Federal Government mandates.
Actually I think there might be a revolt of States against the Federal Government especially with the new Republican Governors elected!
Let’s not forget that it is the states mandating liability insurance for auto owners, not the federal government. States could potentially be allowed to mandate citizens purchase health insurance depending on their respective constitutions. It is the Federal government that is prohibited from mandating the purchase. Progressives will however oppose state level action because when the costs on the productive to cover the unproductive exceed a certain level that unwritten check on state power, the ability to relocate, will cause the productive to move to lower cost states.
6. Ralph
“Many states have required people to buy auto insurance for years. We gave up our rights long ago.”
For your statement to sound like you are relating it to Obamacare your state would have to require “all” citizens purchase auto insurance. Whether they own an auto, or not!
If this results in Obamacare being struck down, this will result in a great legacy for Obama, He managed to waste over an entire year, ignoring severe economic problems, to completely ignore the will of the people, to pass a bill that nobody but the dem congress wanted, that was ultimately thrown out as unconstitutional. Now thats hope and change we can beleive in!!!
On the comments section many of the libs are saying that they are required to buy automobile insurance! I remind them all that first of all they do not have to drive, but also that it is a State law and not a Federal Law!
Many states required it to receive federal funds for highway projects and such, but might have such laws were it not for federal funds!
Well, you see, Steve, they imagine this an original thought which would never have occurred to a federal judge. That this argument is still being trafficked is testament to a lack of exposure to any real debate and to how little their arguments have evolved; which is to say, not at all.
One assumes that Breyer, et. al. will have a better line of reasoning; otherwise, Scalia’s opinion, should he author one, will be a delight to read.
In reality most people do have to drive. This is the source of great income for government which knows it has you by the gonads. To protest by not owning a car is to wreck your work options in life and social contacts.
Problem for you with that comment. You do not have to have a car. I live in NYC and do not and will not have a car here. I can walk to the subway or buses to get anywhere I want in NYC including work and all social affairs I am interested in. I can also walk to the supermarket, the laundromat, the barber shop, the bank, the post office and can take a bus to all my doctors and the hospital. There are all kinds of restaurants within walking distance from Mexican, Thai, Chinese, Italian, German, Russian, pizza shops, donut shops. A car is most definitely not needed for any part of my life. Now you tell me how not having a car impinges on me or any of the other residents of NYC.
Insurance on a car should I have one is only for the other person, not for me unless I buy collision insurance. Collision insurance is totally optional. Health insurance is for me thus it is like collision insurance and should be totally optional.
The whole concept of someone forcing me to buy insurance to take care of me is definitely not a part of auto insurance and should not be a part of health insurance. Your whole argument is stupid and misrepresents the whole point of the insurance in the first place.
I knew I’d have to belabor the obvious and point out the fact that not all people live in a compact urban setting. If something like 85% of Americans drive then this figure does not represent the idea of driving as optional and so the argument is academic and does not take into account the reality of life in America.
I simply don’t see why it is the person who does not want to be forced to pay insurance is asked not to drive in these arguments if they don’t like it. Why not tell people who are afraid of drivers without insurance that THEY should not buy a car?
At least those against mandatory insurance resemble our forefathers rather than bleating sheep as they wish to not be told what to do and wish to keep their own money in their pockets instead of paying for worst case scenarios. Enjoy your intellectual helmets.
Yes, Ralph, but this insurance is only for auto/truck/bus owners who are licensed to use the roads, not everybody, as the mandate intended. Gee, I loved using the past tense at the end there.
6 – time and time again we must reply to this claim. If you buy a car and drive on state roads you must buy insurance. There is a difference.
Buy a car and sit it in your back yard. Stop paying insurance on a car you’re not driving. No fines, no tickets.
no fines; no tickets
??
just an order from the township to dispose of the dismantled vehicle
And only removal if it is an eyesore. Buy a RR and park it in your yard and keep it clean and there will be no problem at all.
I’d like to see this as the beginning of a broad, long term rollback of federal power. This country has no future as long as self-centered delusional idiots are running things. Let’s let power devolve back to the states. At least in that model, when California gets taken over by nitwits, you can at least vote with your feet and move to Texas.
This ruling is welcome but we must not ignore that two judges have so far, ruled that the federal insistence that all must purchase health insurance IS constitutional.
As others have pointed out, I’d like to discuss what is the difference between the requirement for purchasing health insurance and the state requirement to purchase auto insurance? Is it only state vs federal law – which is an important factor – but is there more?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/health_insurance_mandates_vs_a.html
The above outlines the differences between auto and health care insurance and the differences go beyond the state versus federal requirement.
“As others have pointed out, I’d like to discuss what is the difference between the requirement for purchasing health insurance and the state requirement to purchase auto insurance?”
The requirement to purchase auto insurance is only applicable when you (a) purchase a car; and (b) intend to use this car on public roads. Thus, there are in the least two conditions that must be satisfied until you are imposed with this requirement.
With the health care reform, there are no conditions upon which you are forced to buy health insurance. If you are alive, you must purchase. That is not the same as having to buy auto insurance because you own a car and want to use it on public roads.
Also, it’s a states rights thing, because requirement for auto insurance is not federally mandated. The Constitution warrants that the states can decide to do things which are not provided for in the Constitution.
Ralph,
As others have noted prior to my doing so, the power of the States to require people to buy autoinsurance is not covered by the FEDERAL Constitution and is predicated on a persons voluntary desire to drive a motor vehicle on the public streets. No one is required to buy a car and no one is prohibited from traveling without a car. This is quite different from the Obamacare which requires one to buy insurance simple by virtue of being alive.
This is HUGE on its way to SCOTUS take the vote now 5-3 with the new gal abstaining…NOW is the time to revisit the healthcare debate emphasizing cost containment, competition, doctor recruitment, malpractice lawsuits, chronic disease prevention, the whole nine yards…WE CAN DO IT!!!!!!
Wow, Mr. Marshall is quite a tool. He says: “And the idea that buying health care coverage does not amount to ‘economic activity’ seems preposterous on its face.”
What about NOT buying health care coverage, Marshall? Which is, I do believe, the entire point of the individual mandate – to force people to buy something.
Then Marshall blames “activist Republican judges” for this? Man, these elitists really have lost contact with the ground, haven’t they.
There’s something preposterous going on here, and it’s not this federal judge’s completely correct and logical reading of the Constitution.
They don’t agree with the Constitution. As a noted genius has said, it’s just a list of “negative rights” that makes it difficult to implement “social justice”.
When it happens to fit their agenda, they might give it lip service. Otherwise, it just gets in the way of their totalitarian vision.
So arguing whether the mandate is constitutional or not is like arguing with terrorists that killing women and children is illegal.
The progressives have complete disdain for the Constitution. It is an impediment to their statist, authoritarian agenda.
They will use every tool to circumvent it and make it irrelevant. That includes nominating justices like Kagan and Sotomayer to SCOTUS. We are in the fight of our lives for our very freedom.
The WH is now trying, in true Obama style, to redefine reality by switching words (eg, terrorism no longer exists because it is merely, like any accident, a ‘man-caused disaster).
Now, purchasing health care is beind defined as an ‘individual responsibility’. Hmm. If it is an individual responsibility, that means that the onus and the intent of such a purchase rests with the individual alone. Therefore, the federal government cannot mandate that any individual make this purchase – because that switches intention to the federal government.
Don’t forget that the penalty was not a tax when the bill was being passed. The penalty is now a tax for the purpose of defending it in court.
Yeah, baby, yeah! Can’t call it “individual responsibility” when the law sticks it to people by requirement as its whole means of working.
By the way:
The judge did not rule that the remainder of the Act would survive the striking of the mandate. He just didn’t strike the remainder AT THIS TIME.
He held that, in order to make the determination of whether Congress intended for the remainder of the bill to survive if the mandate was unconstitutional, he would need “extensive expert testimony and supplementation of the record.” In other words, he wasn’t making that decision YET, until he got more information. Because he didn’t have all that information at this time, he was taking the most conservative route in this ruling and striking just that one clause. See page 39 – 40 at http://www.scribd.com/doc/45213239/Commonwealth-of-Virginia-v-Sibelius-et-al
This is NOT a holding that, ultimately, the bill can survive without the mandate.
Strike that. I was wrong. This is a final order from the judge.
They passed this law violating the rules of Congress, against the will of the People, and in violation the Constitution.
A typical socialist coup.
And now the same socialists will scream all the way to the repealing of the obamaDOESNTcare.
What a show of dishonesty and stupidity.
They could have negotiated a decent set of important changes that would have greatly improved the situation for every American (no State limit for the insurance companies, etc.).
They don’t care about solving problems, they only take care of creating problems.
It’s a tax, one which puts the IRS inside the health care decision loop
Sorry, it’s not a tax. Read Judge Hudson’s ruling where he slaps that canard down. From Legal Insurrection: After the mandate was challenged in court, the administration tried to backtrack and justify the mandate under the general taxing power. But the Judge did not accept that flip-flop, ruling that the congressional record and text of the legislation prevailed.
Actually, the White House is correct. Buying one’s own health insurance has always been an example of individual responsibility. And it has also always been an individual decision.
Will it be my “individual responsibility” to contribute to the Obama campaign in 2012?
Actually driving is a fundamental right and you don’t need a license to do it. You can look it up.
Second Re: the current case: RAICH.
Buy a farm tractor, throw some fertilizer on it, and drive it around town. Most states do not require insurance on farm tractors. And, oh!; Don’t forget the straw hat and overalls.
(Fertilizer keeps the spectators at a respectable distance.)
Leftists are not ignorant of the constitution. They care greatly about it and work day and night to subvert it. They are not indifferent to human rights and limited government power. They are on the other side.
Hmmm, very ‘odd’ our ‘Constitutional Law.. err, ‘Professor’ didn’t see this coming. I mean, being brilliant and all..
Its the severance clause stupid. All those pages nobody had time to read.
And they forgot to add in the clause.
Poetic justice.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is a very sharp individual. Instead of trying to beat this act of Tyranny on its merits and politics he went right to the meat of the Constitutionality that Obama Pelosi and Reid spun to justify their twisted double standard of the Rule of Law.
We will see how corrupted and infiltrated the judicial system is in the outcome of SCOTUS findings. This is broaching on the verge of total treason and abdication of oath of office by all involved if it is struck down.
“The way the law was constructed, striking down the individual mandate, as this federal judge has, strikes down the entire law.”
Perhaps this isn’t clear. My wife, an attorney, says that the law is missing a standard clause normally added to all bills, a severability clause. What this clause does, in essence, is say that if any portion of the bill is ruled invalid or illegal, it does not affect the rest of the bill. Without this clause it, if this ruling stands, the rest of the bill is deemed invalid.
Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor?
Actually, despite the lack of a severability clause in the law itself, Judge Hudson severed section 1501. So the rest of the law stands. See the next to last page of the opinion: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Virginia_ACA_Order.pdf
He refused to sever it, purposely leaving it to a higher court to decide. It was beyond the framework of the case brought before him. In other words, he did not leave his entire decision to be thrown out by one part later being determined to be wrong. The Mandate is OUT. No higher court is going to strike this down.
And I do not think it will be 5-3, either. It will likely be 7-1. There are times when the SCOTUS remembers its job. And I have to admit, it has happened more and more lately.
You and your wife are correct! However, courts are accustom to bending and ignoring the rules of law under many conceived and perceived exceptions. This is one of those cases. Simply a means by which to skirt the courts authority and facilitate the case to the Supreme Court. The Judges’ ruling was long on opinion and short on citations as has been the other two standing rulings inverse to this courts decision. It will be interesting to hear the Supreme Courts ruling in the face of so many decades of prevailing case law favoring the governments position.
A constitutional amendment of Article I, Section 8 Commerce Clause is the only real solution.
How selective they are. When it comes to the mandatory purchase of health insurance its a matter of “individual responsibility”.
But when it comes down to being worthless, like women who have spent their entire lives living off welfare, where is the requirement of “individual responsibility” there? The government gets to pick and choose as to who should be responsible?
It sounds like a rigged game to me. Don’t expect me to play it.
And then, forgive my paranoid thoughts, but if Obamacare is ultimately put into place all those folks who have to pay a penalty for failing to do so might become an important “revenue stream” for the government. Once that becomes the case it will be in the government’s own interest to make sure that the health insurance is either worthless or way too expensive.
The pride people here show in how much auto insurance is not like ObamaCare shows the slippery slope Americans have fallen down. Americans are reamed on auto insurance in what amounts to a con game in favor of, surprise, big insurance companies who get rich. One could equally say that if you are worried about insurance then don’t buy a car. Let those who haven’t turned into bleating sheep do what they want free of gov’t interference. If you want insurance buy it but don’t tell a country which runs on autos they are slaves to the gov’t.
Americans are nothing more than a source of income for all types of gov’t big and small and we are being plucked daily. How many times is the money we earned taxed, re-taxed and taxed again? Coming and going we are chumps.
I think of government as street lights, roads and managing ports and borders, not unnecessary wars, incessant spying, interference in other countries affairs, funding elections in Kenya, telling me what the hell I can do, endless bureaucracy just to renovate a house, surrounding ownership of an auto with endless fees, social engineering of colleges, gerrymandering illegal aliens, letting outdated laws favor illegal aliens.
Anyone who really thinks America is the land of the free should have their heads examined. It is the nature of government to consolidate, expand and control. It has become our nature as Americans to submit. Just look at how we stand and do nothing while criminals and terrorists are welcomed into our country like mad because illegal and legal immigration means income for government. Sweden just had their first taste of diversity rammed straight up their behinds by their government and there will be more to come there and here and the fees just to live life in America will become more and more onerous because we have not spines to stop it; the idea that we do is a myth. The rich get richer, the poor stay paid just enough to not riot and the middle class is plucked of every dollar possible.
“The pride people here show in how much auto insurance is not like ObamaCare shows the slippery slope Americans have fallen down. Americans are reamed on auto insurance in what amounts to a con game in favor of, surprise, big insurance companies who get rich.”
1) People are not required to buy auto insurance if they don’t drive cars.
2) Please make the argument that people who drive should be allowed to drive without auto insurance. Ever been in an accident with an uninsured motorist or involved in a hit-and-run accident? I have been involved both. Even IF auto insurance was not mandated since I drive a lot and don’t know the behavior of others I would still buy it. Auto insurance companies have a product I want and they want something I have. No one has been made worse off in that transaction. Again, you don’t have to buy auto insurance, even if the state mandates it. You can save lots of money that way until you get caught or get in a serious accident, at which point I bet you will think in the back of your head that you should have auto insurance.
3) Do I hate that the states mandate auto insurance? Yes, I do, but it is entirely negligible since I would have bought it anyway. Health insurance, in my opinion, is absolutely worthless especially if you’re young and very healthy. Being forced to buy health insurance when you’re young and healthy is a huge waste. I could use the extra compensation in the form of higher wages, but since the government decided that health insurance is more important than higher wages, employers give that to me instead.
4) Again, no one is forced to buy auto insurance and driving is a PRIVILEGE. With Obamacare, with the very nature of being American we are being forced to buy a product that we do not want. That is not liberty or protecting Americans from the vicissitudes of life, that is abject slavery.
At great risk of sounding arrogant and condesending……folks are simply far to ignorant of the Constitution and the documents providing the “intent” of each Article, Section and Clause; the Amendments to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
People have very little understanding and the Founders “intent” of the Constitutions Article I, Section 8 Commerce Clause. Likewise, people have little understanding of the Constitutions Tenth Amendment: ["The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, *nor prohibited by it to the states*, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."]
In the first instance, the Founders intent of the Commerce Clause was to give the federal government the *express authority* to regulate and enforce [tariff-free] commerce between the many States, in addition to regulating commerce with foreign and Native Indian tribal commerce. There is nothing complex in the documents language supporting the intent of the commerce clause…in fact, it is direct and short!
What makes the situation interesting and of great question between the Constitutions Article I, Section 8 Commerce Clause and the Constitutions Tenth Amendment… specifically the text [*nor prohibited by it to the states*], is the (lacking) of specific federal legislation “prohibiting” the States Right and authority to regulate commerce aside from federal authroity to regulate and enforce tariff-free commerce between the many States.
The ONLY thing allowing the federal government to encroach on States Rights in this instance is their, the courts and special interest laywers long held position of ignoring the Founders “intent” of the commerce clause. Essentially, the federal abuse progressed throughout the 20th century and continues today.
Also, to be considered, is what has commonly “become known as” the General Welfare Clause. This is yet another case of the federal government ignoring the most basic tennants of the constitution. THERE IS [NO] such thing as the “general welfare Clause” in the Constitution. What pertains to the Founders use of the term “general welfare” is precisely “DEFINED in the Sections and Clauses of Article I….nothing more!
Furthermore, 99.999% of all the socialist progressive advances has come through the federal governents abusive interpretations of the Constitutions Commerce Clause. Many things that aren’t even remotely relevant to commerce has been forced (Legislated or Judicial rulings) using the commerce clause. For certain, the Founders NEVER extended authority to the federal government to have any ownership of commerce by any slick tricks, such as, railroads, a number of mortgage insurers, aviation labor force, highways, federal lands and parks for profit, stock ownership of private sector industries under any terms, control and influence labor unions workforces over non union labor forces, control labor wages, control employer paid labor benefits, and the list goes on and on.
AMEND THE CONSTITUTIONS ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 COMMERCE CLAUSE!
Sorry, but since as a country we don’t allow sick people to die just because they’re poor, health care is already defacto mandated. The only issue is whether we let the current complex mess of a system to continue to spiral upwards in costs and mostly sideways in benefits. Obama’s health care plan is a response to an ever growing problem that Republicans not only been blowing off dealing with for over a decade now, but have been actually undermining any serious attempt as reform.
Cuccinelli is just another right wing Republican nutcase with no clue nor concern about what’s best for the country.
Your comments have NO “legal” merit (relevancy) whatsoever, regarding the health care issues proceding through the courts.
BC, let me show you your logical flaw.
The government seized control of a portion of healthcare providers businesses. They mandate that they MUST give care. So, the government made this situation, this “complex mess”.
Now you use it as justification of handling this situation? The government created the situation by unconstitutionally seizing private medical practice, and you think that makes it a legitimate stepping stone to even more unconstitutional seizures?
And the judge is a rightwing nutcase, because he adhered strictly to the Constitution? He has no clue as to what is best for this country? It is not HIS JOB to decide what is best for this country! He is only there to interpret the law as written and its relationship to the Constitution, which it is his sworn duty to uphold.
The problem with you Leftists is that you think so little of our Constitution. As long as you mean well, it is all good. You feel you can decide “what’s best for the country”. Well, you can’t. You are just not that smart, and we have no Kings in this land who get to decide such.
There’s nothing wrong with health care that getting government out of the way can’t fix.
Kind of like everything else.
Good.
Glad to see that an unconstitutional law has been declared unconstitutional.
Hopefully, they’ll take a look at the Social Security Act next. That’s also unconstitutional.
The Obama Administration couldn’t care less about this decision. Obama-care’s objective it to put private insurance out of business, first and foremost. Once it does that we will have no choice but to put our very lives in the hands of incompetent, politically motivated government bureaucrats. Checkmate for the liberal fascists.
For example, in most states, drivers are required to carry a minimum level of auto insurance.
First of all, this is at the state level – and the states have rights granted by the Constitution that the Federal Government does not. Second, the individual driver has the choice to drive or not – he/she may take the bus or walk. Living or not living isn’t much of a choice!
Pelosi and Phil Hare responed to reporters and citizens who questioned the constitutionality of the health care bill with condescension.
I wonder if they’ll be as snotty to the Supreme Court Judges?
The analogy to auto insurance does not work. Auto owners are required to carry insurance that covers damages to other folks not to themselves. To make the analogy work, I guess the government could criminalize coughing in another person’s face.
This judge is a political friend of the Lt.Governor of this story and state. They also have a financial and political interest in a right wing
group..check this out for yourself..it is truth. this is nothing this
federal judgement but politics..nothing else. The worse part of this it
is a very bad thing to do..regardless of political ploys. Health care
costs..have been skyrocketing for years..the average person..in these times of today..can easily..yes even those still fortunate to have a job..
be unable to keep up paying these costs…that is the sole reason the Obama adminstration put this part in the very necessary and needed new
healthcare reform bill. if you know this provision they also put in
several ways those that signed up but could still not afford to pay..
still would be able to get health insurance. There were also many
articles in many major papers..St.Louis Post Dispatch for one of many..
with hosptials saying they were having so many people use the emergency
serive because they had no health insurance..they were totaly to swamped..
and often had to turn people away..and tell them to try again hospital
emergency that was not that busy. Be also wise enough to know…that
when people go to the hospital without any insurance..you with insurance
will pay their bill..the hospital will add these bills on money wise to
their other patients with insurance. Many corporations and other smaller
business situations want to stop paying for any health insurance with the
costs of this and one of the reasons they lay off workers..ie less working
people. fact..less working people..no health insurance paid by a business…more profit for the business..longer work hours for often less
pay for the remaining workers…this is happening and has for quite awhile. it is not a result at all of the news needed healthcare reform
bill…it is simply a way to make even more profits.. for business.
A
A well taken care of American citizen..on the important to life issues
is of extreme importance..if we do not have a healthy population how
can we as a nation do what we need to? There is in todays times and
expenses of healthcare ..simply no one that can actually afford not to
be able to have health care insurance..not one person of any age from
baby to senior age and in between can know when excellent health care is
not a matter of life or death. Health care should definiely be a right..
for all Anerucab citizens or we as a nation of nothing to be proud of.
pre exsiting conditions should be taken care of..there is so much talk
about children..okay what if a child has a pre existing medical condition
and in these times..the caretakers lose their insurance..should a senior
city have to suffer and just die..because they cannot afford their
It’s just plain dumb to “reform” the best health care system in the world.
Now, reforming unethical trial lawyers…that’s a good idea.
But it’s not really about health care, is it? Because if it was about that, then medicare fraud would already be eliminated, and tort reform would already be in place, and high deductable plans would be readily available, and there would be special tax incentives for medical research, and there would be interstate competition for health insurers, and medical consumers would have ready access to information about medical costs and quality.
No, it isn’t about health care at all. It’s about people who can’t be happy unless they have power over other people’s lives. Statists simply crave power, and what better way to get it than to wield life and death power over other peoples health decisions.
medicine or medical care because Medicare is not taken by doctors..look
at Palin Alaska..it is very difficult if not impossible for senior citizens there unless very well heeled or they have a very very long connection with a doctor or other clout connections to use their Medicare
even with supplement insurance..this was true while also Palin was govenor
there..she did zero about it. American should be ashamed if we as a nation cannot see our citizens all..have the ways to get needed medical
care..yet we give tax cuts to the ultra rich..which with these tax cuts
they have provided no American jobs. .or very very few and this has been
for years now. situations like decent health care should definitely be
above political play games..illness is not a play game nor should it be
for only the rich. perhaps if that federal judge and the Lt. governor
lost their excellent government paid for health care and their cushy
political jobs..they would understand better. of course as the ultra
right wing and tea party have said..their one agenda is to defeat anything
Obama tries..any and everything..it is not as personel except for the racits in this as it is complete power and control for them again with
their proven failed policy and theory..it never trickles down it only
gushes up..ie greed…in any country or place. leaving no middle class
only the rich and the poor. some of these people talk a lot about God
if they knew their bible better they would see Jesus healed many people
many poor people as well..in general it was more poor people. the churches should definitely stand for the people as to availability of
decent good healthcare for all American citizens..no wonder if they do
not some thinking young people are turned off about organized religion..
and having no faith of a true faith that is good is not a good thing.
In regards to health care, churches would do well not to talk about it and just do it. Who needs the government?
A well taken care of American citizen..on the important to life issues
is of extreme importance…
The heart of your argument, it would seem.
So – a question: To whom does your life belong?
Care to answer?
I’m guessing you’re not old enough to remember America and its health care before Insurance Companies, and government welfare health care.
Wealthy and poor alike were tended to equally according to the most currently advancements. I can’t recal a single rural county seat that did not have at least one or more doctors and a thriving hospital. Other county’s towns with a reasonable population would have their own doctors and hosptials. All other communities of the counties were served by the doctors who made house calls just as they did in their towns of residence. You paid cash for your services…payed payments for your services….worked your bill off…or, recieved community charity to pay the bill…or the doctor “glady” wrote your bill off.
Same for prescribed medicines if the doctor did not have enough “free” samples. If you needed specialty medical care in the larger cities and lacked the ability to pay at the time the patients local Doctors would pay the bill and you work with your doctor to pay it off….or community charity would pay for it. The old folks homes had real “working” nurses and doctors mades their rounds there just as they did at the hospitals, whether you needed medical attention or not.
I’ll leave it up to you to figure out how we got from there to where we are today!
The only places this was not always the case, was in the social cancer cities (over populated and under employed) just as today….but in significantly less numbers.
One in the times of today..simply cannot depend on any state to provide
the much needed reforms and care for the people. If that was possible
much would be and have been much better for all the citizens then it is
or has been in the last 20 years. that is exactly why a federal government with a presidenet that cares about all..American citizens was
needed. Alaska is a perfect example of a state that had lots of revenue
from oil and did nothing for the senior citizens there on healthcare as
to Medicare even with medicare supplements..it was nothing but all for
the well heeled only. look now at how many states are demanding that oil
be drilled even after the last oil spill..without them ..that state being
sure that the right regulations to avoid that type of situation are truly
in place..yet they cried out for immediate help when the disater hit.
It is very important voters are informed well enough on issues that they
only elect government people..who care about all the American citizens
not just in political ploy lip service..but what they propose as laws
and how they vote on what. key word..all American citizens.
Auto insurance is mandated to pay for liability, not damage to one’s own auto. Its intent is to guard against the pain, suffering, or economic damages to someone else. Health insurance is not protection against liability and is therefore not required in case of damages. A better analogy would be politicians should have liability insurance to pay for liability for stupid legislation.
I have not yet seen the truth that mandatory auto insurance laws don’t work, with 30% in some states driving without insurance. A food stamp survey done in Billings, MT, by the Montana DPHHS, showed that 12% of the food stamp applicants said auto insurance was a reason for needing food stamps. (http://www.foodstampstudy.com)
The mandatory health care bill does exempt religions that ban the purchase of insurance. I would imagine that businesses would be hiring less workers if forced to pay for worker’s health insurance.
Sam Hall proves that eventually “progressives” will give in to their totalitarian instinct and force their will upon people. Such is the sorry reality of a minority group of people who thinks it knows best for everyone else.
A federal judge who honors his oath of office and the constitution. We need more like him.
Yea! I really need some dumb ill-educated Harvard Graduate to administer what life I have left. I’m too stupid to do it myself. I really need him to show me how to fire a gun. I might go barn huntin’. BarB’cued barn; Good eatin’.
We are not looking at this issue with the fastest and easiest way to fix it and that is through State action like nullification!
There is always the act of “nullification” like that bill introduced in Texas HB-297 which states;
“The federal Act is not authorized by the United States Constitution and violates the Constitution’s true meaning and intent as expressed by the founders of this country and the ratifiers of the Constitution.
The federal Act:
(1) is invalid in this state;
(2) is not recognized by this state;
(3) is specifically rejected by this state; and
(4) is null and void and of no effect in this state.”
It also goes further making it a crime for any official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of any corporation to enforce any part of the health care act in Texas, and imposes fines up to $5,000 and/or five years in prison for anyone convicted of doing so.
All that needs to happen is the State Legislature have both the House and Senate to enact such a nullification bill and have it signed by the Governor. This way it doesn’t matter if the law is ruled unconstitutional or not by the Supreme Court the law is invalid in all states that nullify it!
Actually, the whole car insurance analogy DOES hold water.
You see, if someone else damages your car, they have insurance that will pay for the damage so that you don’t have to. When you wreck your car, you are responsible for damages to your own vehicle. This is a good system.
If you have health insurance and you need medical help, then your insurance will cover all or most of it depending on your plan. If you don’t have health insurance and you need medical help, you don’t need to have health insurance in order to seek treatment because hospitals cannot refuse treatment to someone if they cannot pay for it and the American people get to foot the bill. This is a bad system.
ObamaCare forces individuals to purchase health insurance so that the rest of the American people do not have to foot the bill in the event that they can’t cover the cost of their own medical treatment. ObamaCare will make it easier for people to afford health insurance and require that insurance be purchased so that they can be insured and don’t leave the rest of America with the bill. In the event that someone still can’t afford insurance, they can always opt into one of the already available government programs such as MedicAid or MediCare.
This is what ObamaCare addresses and is why there is nothing unconstitutional about it regardless of what a clueless judge thinks.
Toodles!