US Healtcare requirement of requiring having insurance reuled unconstitutional

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance, a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the president’s plan.

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

U.S. Health-Care Law Requirement Thrown Out by Judge
By Tom Schoenberg and Margaret Cronin Fisk - Dec 13, 2010 11:39 AM CT inShare4More
Business Exchange Buzz up! Digg Print Email
U.S. President Barack Obama. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Play Video
Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance, a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the president’s plan. Bloomberg's Megan Hughes talks with Tom Keene on Bloomberg Television's "Surveillance Midday." (Source: Bloomberg)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Richmond, Virginia. Photographer: Jay Paul/Bloomberg
The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance, a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the president’s plan.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, said today that the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health-care legislation goes beyond Congress’s powers to regulate interstate commerce. While severing the coverage mandate, Hudson didn’t address other provisions such as expanding Medicaid that are unrelated to it. He didn’t order the government to stop work on putting the remainder of the law into effect.

Hudson found the minimum essential coverage provision of the act “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.” Hudson was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002.

The decision left intact other provisions of the law and only affects the part that requires most U.S. citizens to maintain minimum health coverage beginning in 2014.

The ruling is the government’s first loss in a series of challenges to the law mounted in federal courts in Virginia, Michigan and Florida, where 20 states have joined an effort to have the statute thrown out. Constitutional scholars said unless Congress changes the law, its fate on appeal will probably hinge on the views of the U.S. Supreme Court’s more conservative members.

Supreme Court

“I am gratified we prevailed,” Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said in a statement. “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.”

U.S. health-care stocks extended gains after the ruling. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Health Care Index rose 0.5 percent at 12 p.m. New York time. UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Coventry Health Care Inc. led gains.

Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Justice Department, didn’t immediately reply to voicemail and e-mail messages seeking comment on Hudson’s decision. Reid Cherlin, a White House spokesman, did not immediately reply to an e-mailed request for comment.

‘Prominent Conservatives’

“Some prominent conservative justices will go against it, but there is no serious indication that every single one will go against it,”, Mark Hall, a professor at Wake Forest University School of Law, who serves on a federal advisory board set up to help implement the law, said ahead of the ruling.

“There’s a lot of activity focused now on alternatives to the mandate,” said Dan Mendelson, chief executive officer of Avalere Health, a Washington-based consulting firm. One option might be to provide access to all people, even ones with pre- existing conditions, to buy insurance, and limit the times they could sign up.

“It’s using a carrot instead of a stick,” Mendelson said in a telephone interview last week.

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for health insurers’ Washington lobby group America’s Health Insurance Plans, declined to comment on the record about whether insurers had discussed such an alternative with the administration or whether there was a way to design such a policy in a way that would be sufficient to replace the effects of the individual mandate. Through the individual mandate and expansions of Medicaid and employer-based coverage, the law is estimated to provide 32 million more people with coverage by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The case is Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, 10-cv- 00188, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond).

To contact the reporters on this story: Tom Schoenberg in Richmond, Virginia, federal court at tschoenberg@bloomberg.net and; Margaret Cronin Fisk in Southfield, Michigan, at mcfisk@bloomberg.net;

To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at drovella@bloomberg.net.

**Ahtman**

If one can't be forced by law to buy insurance, what does this mean for all the states that legally require car insurance?

**ShivanAngel**

You dont have to own a car

If you dont own a car you dont have to buy auto insurance.

**LordofHats**

I'm pretty sure you can own a car and not have insurance. You just can't drive it legally without insurance

**ShumaGorath**

Well this is gonna hit the supreme court faster then a speeding bullet.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:If one can't be forced by law to buy insurance, what does this mean for all the states that legally require car insurance?

There's also a mixing of fed vs. state issue. Fed can tax the states but not order every person have healthcare, as that amounts to universal imposition.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Well this is gonna hit the supreme court faster then a speeding bullet.

And SCOTUS can of course, not hear it.

**Ahtman**

It seems that people are taking my question as if I am against auto-insurance, but that is not the case. If anything I am indifferent but I am curious as to the implications of this case on similar legislation.

**ShivanAngel**

They are saying that yoy are required, no matter what, to have health insurance.

However with auto insurance they are saying, You are required, by law, to have auto insurance to drive legally. however, we are not requiring that you buy a car. Therefor you have a choice whether or not you want to have auto insurance. If you dont want to be forced to pay for auto insurance, dont drive.

**Ahtman**

Having a car is an option in the US? I find that idea both funny and sad.

**Frazzled**

Don't they know? Nobody walks in LA!

**ShivanAngel**

Ahtman wrote:Having a car is an option in the US? I find that idea both funny and sad.

tbh I could survive just fine using buses and a bike. So yeah I could survive without a car.

**WarOne**

Ahtman wrote:Having a car is an option in the US? I find that idea both funny and sad.

Depends.

Some older urban areas with a larger concentration of residential and commercial zoning can be walkable/bike-rideable.

However, the truth as Frazzled pointed out, is that places such as LA have an urban sprawl of much greater size, especially on the West Coast.

A type of vehicle transportation is a must in that case.

**Melchiour**

Ahtman wrote:Having a car is an option in the US? I find that idea both funny and sad.

There are plenty of people I know who do not own a car. They either use public transit or coach and buggy. My grandparents live next to an Amish farm.

**Kilkrazy**

LA is designed for the car. They got rid of the suburban railways to make it that way.

**Ahtman**

ShivanAngel wrote:
Ahtman wrote:Having a car is an option in the US? I find that idea both funny and sad.

tbh I could survive just fine using buses and a bike. So yeah I could survive without a car.

What? A major US city and you have some form of public transportation? SHOCKING! I live in the city and could survive without a car as well.

Unfortunately if you get outside a major city PT becomes almost nonexistent. Much of our modern civil engineering was built around car travel (thanks Henry Ford), like the suburbs. Most people can't ride their bikes 15 miles to work 5 days a week. We are slowly seeing more of it coming about but at this time not having a car really limits a persons options, especially job related, a great deal.

While I appreciate your point on the difference between universal enforcement and choice I am willing to bet someone will take a swing at [enforced car insurance] if this ruling holds up.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:LA is designed for the car. They got rid of the suburban railways to make it that way.

LA never had them.

You're thinking of New Orleans maybe?

**kronk**

San Fran had those cable cars for a while. There might still be a couple in the tourist areas.

**Frazzled**

kronk wrote:San Fran had those cable cars for a while. There might still be a couple in the tourist areas.

Rice Oroni, the San Francisco treat...

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:LA is designed for the car. They got rid of the suburban railways to make it that way.

LA never had them.

You're thinking of New Orleans maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Railway

**ShumaGorath**

WarOne wrote:
Ahtman wrote:Having a car is an option in the US? I find that idea both funny and sad.

Depends.

Some older urban areas with a larger concentration of residential and commercial zoning can be walkable/bike-rideable.

However, the truth as Frazzled pointed out, is that places such as LA have an urban sprawl of much greater size, especially on the West Coast.

A type of vehicle transportation is a much in that case.

I live in Maine, cars are not optional here and there is essentially no general use public transportation. Even in the cities it's usually small and relatively useless.

**halonachos**

LordofHats wrote:I'm pretty sure you can own a car and not have insurance. You just can't drive it legally without insurance

In my state that's the case.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, go Virginia, WOO!

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:LA is designed for the car. They got rid of the suburban railways to make it that way.

LA never had them.

You're thinking of New Orleans maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Railway

Thats only a little bitty portion.

They currently have buses and BART. Don't forget to wear you bullet proof vest though. Taking a train to or from Crenshaw's a death sentence. Crenshaw Mafia baby!

**KingCracker**

I have to say Im glad to have read that. I have found that "plan" to be rather unsettling since I first heard of it. Im sorry, but not every American can squeeze enough money out their asses to afford that. They seem to forget that poor folk just cant do it.

**Stormrider**

Not to mention that the Government could imprison and fine you for not buying health insurance under this bill. This was a legal (but Unconsitutional) way for the Federal Government to compel to buy something, which is not allowed under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Ahtman, State Governments are a bit different in their jurisdiction. Several states don't have income or sales taxes, yet the federal government does have an Income tax. States have sovereingty over their own domain with regards to their own commerce and rules (like Auto insurance). I don't agree with compelling Auto insurance on people, but it does make sense to have it.

**Ma55ter_fett**

Damn, as someone who will soon work in the health care industry I was counting on the 2014 influx...

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:And SCOTUS can of course, not hear it.

Given two judges have given this constitutional approval already, and now one has rejected it, the odds of SCOTUS passing this up is very unlikely.

KingCracker wrote:I have to say Im glad to have read that. I have found that "plan" to be rather unsettling since I first heard of it. Im sorry, but not every American can squeeze enough money out their asses to afford that. They seem to forget that poor folk just cant do it.

The alternative is to not have insurance and just hope you don't get sick, which is a really gak state of affairs.

Thing is, I would think the insurance companies would probably want to get behind this element of the legislation* because it doesn't just keep insurance companies as the core of the system, it legally mandates they're going to remain there. Reform in US healthcare is inevitable, you can't have a system that costs so much, delivers so little, and has so much manifest unfairness and expect the status quo to remain.

And the reality is, the ability of insurance companies to reject people for pre-existing conditions is something that will have to go. No matter how persuasive the special interests might be, they're fighting a losing battle, because the reality of telling people they're not allowed insurance is just that ugly. Now, if you get rid of mandatory insurance, you can't require insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions (or who's bother to insure until they were sick?).

The only other option is an expanded public option, a default level of government provided care that you see in most other developed nations. The introduction of that would be disastrous for the insurance companies, as suddenly they'd have to start giving people a reason to want to bother with them, and that's a much less profitable business model. Really, in terms of where healthcare will end up, this really is the best of both worlds for insurance companies.

*lots of other bits, like the part about taking coverage away from people once they're sick, I can see them fighting tooth and nail, but not this bit.

**youbedead**

Stormrider wrote:Not to mention that the Government could imprison and fine you for not buying health insurance under this bill. This was a legal (but Unconsitutional) way for the Federal Government to compel to buy something, which is not allowed under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Ahtman, State Governments are a bit different in their jurisdiction. Several states don't have income or sales taxes, yet the federal government does have an Income tax. States have sovereingty over their own domain with regards to their own commerce and rules (like Auto insurance). I don't agree with compelling Auto insurance on people, but it does make sense to have it.

funnily enough they couldn't because in the bill it specified that they could not prosecute someone for not buying health insurance, so they could ask really nicely for you to pay but otherwise they couldn't do squat

**halonachos**

The big issue is the fact that you are born and have absolutely no choice in being born. So having to pay for health insurance or getting fined for not having it is punishing people just for living(which is entirely unamerican).

Secondly getting car insurance is mandatory because if you hit a person with a car or cause an accident somebody has to pay for it. If you can't afford to pay for it then further harm is caused to the already injured parties. So car insurance is insurance that allows the injured parties compensation.

Health insurance affects only one person, the person it covers. If I fall down and break my leg nobody else is harmed, only myself.

The healthcare bill they wanted to pass was gak, it really was. Its like GW creating a new rule book and only including half-assed ideas instead of actual rules.

This whole fine if you don't have health insurance is pure unconstitutional gak and if it passes I'll have to be like the students in England(although more respectful to the police officers).

**Phryxis**

Just so that people who think I'm stupid (Shuma for example), can witness that I am consistent, I find it annoying that we're using the courts to overturn legislation, even when it's legislation from a President/Party that I generally don't like.

It's doubly crappy in this case, since two courts already been ruled Constitutional twice, making our judicial process look preposterously arbitrary and stupid.

This is how I felt when the courts were used to attack DADT, this is how I feel now.

**Stormrider**

youbedead wrote:
Stormrider wrote:Not to mention that the Government could imprison and fine you for not buying health insurance under this bill. This was a legal (but Unconsitutional) way for the Federal Government to compel to buy something, which is not allowed under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Ahtman, State Governments are a bit different in their jurisdiction. Several states don't have income or sales taxes, yet the federal government does have an Income tax. States have sovereingty over their own domain with regards to their own commerce and rules (like Auto insurance). I don't agree with compelling Auto insurance on people, but it does make sense to have it.

funnily enough they couldn't because in the bill it specified that they could not prosecute someone for not buying health insurance, so they could ask really nicely for you to pay but otherwise they couldn't do squat

Really? Why did it allow the IRS to fine you for not buying?