NY Times News alert: " Federal Judge Invalidates Key Provision of Health Care Law"

[Mira]

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Mon, December 13, 2010 -- 12:24 PM ET
-----


A federal district judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the
keystone provision in the Obama health care law is
unconstitutional, becoming the first court in the country to
invalidate any part of the sprawling act and insuring that
appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from
below.

Judge Henry E. Hudson declined to freeze implementation of
the law pending appeal, meaning that there should be no
immediate effect of his decision. But the ruling is likely to
create confusion among the public and further destabilize
political support for the law.

Judge Hudson wrote that the law's central requirement that
most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory
authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of
the Constitution. The insurance mandate is central because
insurers say they cannot afford treatment for expensive
chronic conditions unless healthy people have policies as
well.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com?emc=na

[BrklynLiberal]

1. It will be interesting to see where this leads.....

The repukes' goal is total dismemberment of whatever Health Care reforms were enacted.

[mod mom]

3. HuffPo coverage says to SCOTUS where you can only guess what will happen

[kenny blankenship]

7. I predict SCROTUS will uphold the Constitutionality of this abominable provision of the law

It's a MONEY RIVER into the pockets of major traditional Repuke corporate donors - enforced by Uncle Thug. How could they not love it? Democratic appointees will want to uphold because it is Obama's putrid "legacy". Repukes will uphold because more than any law ever passed in the history of the Republic, it makes corporate symbiosis with government -and corporate control over govt's coercive power over citizens' freedom, and especially their money- OFFICIAL and EVERLASTING.

[Matariki]

10. No kidding.

The current Supreme Court is no friend to the people - or the Constitution, imo.

[BrklynLiberal]

27. The "unsung villain" in all this..IMHO: Sandra Day O'Connor

She let Dimson into the White House..and then she resigned to allow him to make an appointment to SCOTUS.
THEN she had the unmitigated gall to express "regrets" at the way the SC turned to the right.

Hypocrite.

[dennis4868]

15. "It will be interesting to see where this leads....."

To the republican friendly US Supreme Court... :-(

[kenny blankenship]

23. Fear not! They are just as venal & corporate owned as Baucus, Obama, Lieberman and Nelson

you have little to worry about - except being able to afford their deep friendships with the insurance mafia.

[pscot]

2. This could become

a big fucking deal.

[frazzled]

4. This is where we get from thinking a single judge can "repeal" a law

This is of course a highly conservative judge appointed by George W. Bush in 2002.

Let's take it to the Supremes.

[backscatter712]

5. Let's see where the appeal goes.

Hopefully this Bushie geezer will get overturned.

[alc]

11. only if we trust future congresses

It's short-sighted to only look at this with respect to the health care law. If the government wins, they win the power of "regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product".

That's a precedent I DO NOT want set. Think of all the other places we'd be "better off" if the government made EVERYONE purchase the product: mass transit, milk, corn, drug X, etc. All of these are good and the cost would go down for everyone if we all purchased them. But that's not the way our government should be doing it - collect taxes and subsidize these things like they do now. That way it's on the gov't books and they are accountable. Otherwise we will be paying lots of "taxes" that don't pass through the gov't and are not transparent. Fix health care with government payments, not requiring us to pay directly.

[notesdev]

6. Predictable

If the federal government has any limits on its power, surely forcing people to buy a product they don't want, at great expense, would be beyond that limit. That this provision targets the poorest the hardest makes it that much more odious.

[rgbecker]

14. I hate to mention this, but no one is being forced to buy insurance.

Simply, If you don't get coverage, you will have to pay a penalty tax to help cover the cost to the government for your probable care in the future. The poorest will be not the hardest hit, but rather, as presently is the case in Massachusetts, will be covered at government expense through subsidized rates.

That said, the SCOTUS, dominated by poor people hating, whacked out conservatives, may very well use this opportunity to extend their 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, and let this decision stand just to spite Obama, whose election they didn't get a chance to rule on.

[WinkyDink]

18. And would you care to speculate on HOW MUCH THAT TAX WOULD BE?

The legal effect is the same: The gov't is forcing, by threat of a tax collected by the IRS, citizens to purchase private-company insurance.

The judge would appear to agree with my argument.

[rgbecker]

28. In Massachusetts the penalty is based on your income.

As an individual, no kids, it would be $17/mo. if your (adjusted gross) income is between 16,249 and 21,660. $35/ mo. if income is between 21,660 and 27,084. $52/mo. if income between 27,085 and 32,496, and if below 26 even if income is more. $89/mo. if income is above 32,496 and you're over 26. Obviously one's age will be the determining factor as to whether paying the penalty or buying the insurance makes the most sense. In my case, the "market exchange" doesn't offer anything less than what they deem to be affordable based on my income, so they do not impose a penalty on me for not buying insurance.

As the new federal health care has been modeled after the Massachusetts plan, we can see how it is going to go based on Massachusetts' outcome. I do believe that more insurance companies will be involved and policies will be available at lower rates for lower income types like me.

Still in the final analysis, I think it is seldom that the SCOTUS has barred taxes and this penalty is simply a tax leveled at those not getting insurance. Could it be shown that someone with several million dollars in the bank for medical emergencies shouldn't have carry insurance? Might be the point I'd argue if before the court.

[Supply Side Jesus]

21. So, if I pay the penalty to offset my costs

then when I do go to the hospital, then it should be free!! I guess that's our public option now.
i always wondered, what would happen if i did'nt pay the penalty... usually when you don't pay the government the money, a warrant usually gets issued.

usually.

[AngryAmish]

22. And when you don't pay your taxes, what happens to you?

Then answer is not a 90 minute massage from the blow-job queen of Tulsa.

You go to prison, that is what happens.

[dennis4868]

17. Actually...

the commerce clause gives congress broad powers....the congress used this clause to pass civil rights legislation....and the truth is, the fact that someone does not have health insurance has a substantial impact on people in other states....

[notesdev]

25. We've come a long way

from "get your laws off my body"

[snappyturtle]

8. I laugh when I hear about something the insurance companies can't afford! B.S.

Maybe, just maybe, their CEO's, stockholders, etc. would have to acclimate to less than stunning bonuses and dividends.

[yodermon]

9. Only alternative to mandates is single payer.

If the government cannot force people to buy health insurance then it must provide that health insurance.

[somone]

12. Medicare for all!

[WinkyDink]

13. There was no other legal option: Mandating a purchase from a private company as a CITIZENSHIP

requirement CANNOT stand.

Any attempted analogy---e.g., to car insurance (only for automobile owners) or life insurance (completely voluntary)---is specious at best and cynical at worst.

[rgbecker]

16. Once again, there is no requirement to buy insurance to retain citizenship.

Please see my response # 14 above.

[WinkyDink]

19. Please see my reply, also.

[kenny blankenship]

20. Amazing how it took 220 yrs for them to discover a LEGAL DUTY 4 all citizens to purchase insurance.

It was there the whole time, we just didn't notice it! What other LEGALLY MANDATED PURCHASES will the NEXT 20 years discover are required of American citizens? And the next 200 years after that?

Private education, perhaps?

[Hello_Kitty]

24. Why not?

People who think mandatory private insurance is a good idea should have no problem with a privatized school system with mandatory tuition. Hey, we'll give you a voucher to help pay for it!

We'll call it Universal K-12 Education!

[Mira]

26. Here is another link - more than we want to know...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html?_r=3&hp