Va. appeals court dismisses health reform suits

[alp227]

Source: The Washington Post

RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court in Virginia has dismissed two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

The unanimous decision Thursday by a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the second appellate court ruling affirming the government’s right to require individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. A federal appeals court in Cincinnati also upheld the law, but an appeals court in Atlanta struck down the insurance mandate.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/va-appeals-court-dismisses-health-reform-suits/2011/09/08/gIQAcfTRCK_story.html

[ehrnst]

1. 4th Circuit Appeals Court Dismisses Virginia, Liberty University Challenges To Health Law

Source: Kaiser Health News

The Virginia case, brought by state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, was considered one of the highest profile health law challenges to the health law. In its opinion, issued today, the appellate court ruled that the state does not have standing to challenge the law's individual mandate because it lacks "a personal stake." It also concluded that Liberty University's challenge should be dismissed.



Read more: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2011/September/08/4th-circuit-health-law-decision.aspx

[ehrnst]

2. I'm glad to see Cuccinelli smacked down.

Though his fan club will keep cheering him on.

[hue]

3. Appeals Court Voids Lower-Court Ruling Against Individual Mandate

Source: Medscape Medical News

"September 8, 2011 — Citing technical grounds, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, today tossed out a lower-court decision that declared the healthcare reform requirement to obtain insurance coverage unconstitutional.

Today's decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth District in Richmond vacated a ruling by US District Court Judge Henry Hudson, also in Richmond, who said that the individual mandate "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers." In a unanimous decision by a 3-judge panel, the appeals court stated that the state of Virginia, which was the plaintiff in the case, lacked legal standing to bring its suit. The appeals court did not rule on whether the individual mandate was constitutional or not."

Read more: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/748399

---

US District (Virginia) Judge Henry E. Hudson's ruling against Obama's Affordable Care Act stating it "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers" was reversed today by a US court of Appeals.

[ixion]

4. uh, if a state cannot redress grievances, who can?

That ruling doesn't make sense to me. Anyone care to point out the law that they used as precedent?

[GodlessBiker]

5. Does a state have to buy insurance under the mandate? Perhaps someone who would...

have to buy insurance, once the mandate is in place, so that the issue is ripe, should bring suit, if they were so inclined.

[ixion]

6. I think it would be next-to-impossible for a single individual to accomplish

at the very least, it would have to be a class-action suit.

[cstanleytech]

7. What I am still confused on is why states like he one I am in atm

(georgia, and yes I hate it here) can mandate that people who drive a car have to have auto insurance in order to pay if they have an accident yet the state then tries to challenge a mandate that people who wish to use a hospital or services of a doctor have insurance to pay for it.

[24601]

8. Not a difficult question at all. Driving a car is a voluntary act - just

check with no shortage of New Yorkers who have never driven and never will. But when you choose to drive, the state can force you to be insured. That's different than requiring someone to buy a health insurance product, especially if you have the right to refuse medical care.

Not on point for the car insurance differences, but relevant to the debate is that States, and/or the people, have powers and rights not delegated by the Constitution while the Federal government must have powers delegated.

[cstanleytech]

10. Choosing to see a doctor is a voluntary act to though

unless your knocked unconscious.

[24601]

11. Exactly - you can choose not to drive and avoid completely having

to purchase auto insurance. And while you have the right to choose to accept no medical care - that would not get you out of having to pay for medical insurance or the penalty. You can be forced to purchase a product and enter a market for which you have no intent to request or accept services.

That's why they aren't equivalent. If they were, you could opt of of health insurance by a decision no to participate.

Put it this way - can the federal government force everyone to purchase auto insurance - even if they have no car or license but on the chance they might buy a car someday? Can the government force everyone to purchase home-owner's insurance on the chance that they might buy a house someday?

Something more certain - can the government force anyone to purchase life insurance even though the odds are trending high that all of us are likely to eventually die?

Why stop at mere health? Can the government force you to purchase dental insurance? How about vision care insurance on the chance that you might need glasses someday?

The encroachment on individual freedom in an area the constitution hasn't delegated the federal government power is why I believe this legislation will eventually be overturned. It might hold up as a state law since states are less constrained constitutionally, but that won't be the issue before the court.

[Cool Logic]

9. The United States has a federal structure, with power divided between the states and the fedgov.

The fedgov can only legislate in areas specifically delegated to it in Article 1 of the Constitution.

On the other hand, State laws in the sphere of something like auto insurance are Constitutional, for State govs can act in any sphere not prohibited to them, as defined by the 10th Amendment.

[neovente]

12. What happens if you can't afford it? n/t