Judge rules health law unconstitutional...

[one_voice]

A federal judge on Monday ruled that the entire health care overhaul is unconstitutional, but he stopped short of ordering the federal government to stop implementing it.

Judge Roger Vinson ruled that Congress overstepped its legal bounds when it included the provision requiring nearly all Americans to buy insurance. Because the provision is key to the rest of the law, he declared the whole thing unconstitutional.

Last year, a Virginia judge knocked down the key piece of the law, but he didn’t declare the whole law unconstitutional.

Vinson said the Congress has no right to require Americans to purchase a product.

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications.,” he wrote in his ruling.

The issue is widely expected to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

The suit was filed by the state of Florida shortly after the reform law was signed in March. But since then, 25 additional states and the National Federation of Independent Business joined the case, making it the most high-profile and politically charged lawsuit against health reform.

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=54&threadid=5031922

[Deep13]

1. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce...

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

That of course includes not only actual transactions across state lines, but anything that affects interstate commerce. Clearly whether or not people buy health insurance has an effect on the national economics of health care since the demand on one place affects the supply all over.

So I guess I'm having a hard time figuring out just what could be unconstitutional about it.

[notesdev]

3. the logic is...

while Congress may have the power to regulate commerce, it doesn't have the power to force citizens to engage in commerce for the purpose of regulating them.

[jeff47]

10. Except that the "Necessary and Proper" clause means they do

In that it is necessary for everyone to buy insurance if Congress's regulations on commerce ban pre-existing conditions.

[notesdev]

12. Sorry, try reading the whole thing

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Try finding "forced purchase of health insurance" among the powers listed in the Constitution.

Either the words of the document mean something or they don't. If they don't, kiss your free speech and other valued liberties goodbye, because the next Republican President is going to kill them off for good.

I swear, the worst problem in this party is short-sightedness, people advocate for all sorts of powers to be given to the government with no thought whatsoever as to how they will be used by the opposition once in power.

[jeff47]

13. Seriously?

Ok, I'll lead you down the path.

1) Congress can regulate anything that affects interstate commerce, such as health insurance.
2) Using this power, Congress has made pre-existing conditions illegal.
3) In order for health insurance to function at all, healthy people have to buy it. Doesn't matter if they're buying private or public insurance, it will not work unless the healthy are paying in. So there has to be something that forces people to buy it. Whether it is public or private.
4) #2 and #3 makes it necessary and proper to legislate a mandate.

Now if you're unhappy that you are being required to purchase private insurance, then you should be fighting for a public option. Over the next 20 years, employers will be offloading their employees onto the exchanges, and a public option in the exchanges would result in de-facto single-payer.

[notesdev]

16. You leave out the most important and necessary reform

which is to pare down the rampant malpractice and witch doctory that passes for health care in this country at this time.

Without the running-up-the-tab on publicly paid medical care and rampant overmedication malpractice, there is no problem in paying for health care.

You should see your way through to options that do not lead to being forced to participate in a health care system which is neither healthy nor cares about any part of you other than your wallet.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. It's like a Moot court.

:popcorn:

[jeff47]

29. Um.....relevance?

Or do you actually believe UK doctors don't care about getting paid?

[kudzu22]

26. Except

By definition health insurance is never "interstate", since it cannot be sold across state lines.

I'm afraid it's going to have to be single-payer or nothing. That's really what Pelosi/Reid should have passed in the first place.

[jeff47]

28. Interstate commerce clause doesn't mean what you think it means

Congress can regulate anything that affects interstate commerce, even if the activity occurs entirely in one state. Health insurance definitely has effects on interstate commerce.

[Statistical]

33. However the Supreme Court has found limits to the CC in the past.

Also there has never be an instance when the court ruled that the government can regulated a legal non-action.

So at best this is an expansion of the powers granted via the commerce clause. Maybe the Supreme Court will find it Constitutional but the lawsuit has merit. The government is doing something it has never done before and pushing the limits of its enumerated powers. The check on that is a redress via the courts.

[jeff47]

41. No, there are other illegal non-actions

In many jurisdictions, it is illegal to not send your kids to school (home-schooled kids have to pass state tests to satisfy this requirement). Non-action is illegal.

There's also a lot of areas where the government requires maintenance of vehicles, buildings, etc. There's also building codes, which often require "deputy inspectors" to monitor certain activities. These inspectors are privately employed.

What's new in this situation is it takes the existing small-scale situations and applies it to everyone.

[Statistical]

43. None of which has to do with the commerce clause

The federal govt is limited and has specific limited powers. Anything else is reserves by the states and the people (see 10th amendment).

Thus for any action the federal govt takes it must show an enumerated power that grants it the authority. The govt claim is the commerce clause is that basis.

I was just pointing out:
a) the commerce clause has limits (see Lopez case)
b) never before has the commerce clause been expanded to mandate participation in a commercial transaction. Never. Not once.

[jeff47]

60. Pick an argument

Argument 1 is the government has never made non-action illegal.

Argument 2 is this isn't covered by the commerce clause.

Switching back and forth does not lead to productive discussion.

And no, the government claim regarding the legality of the health insurance mandate is not the commerce clause, its the necessary and proper clause.

[du_da]

77. The necessary and proper clause

is specific that it enables powers base on authority asserted elsewhere in the Constitution. As such the claim cannot be based on necessary and proper clause. The authority can be asserted via that clause but must source elsewhere in the Constitution. I believe the assumption in the post you responded to being that the Commerce Clause was the source for which the powers vested by the necessary and proper clause was being asserted.

[jeff47]

79. You're several posts behind

As I mentioned, this poster switches between complaints: 1) those regarding the commerce and necessary clauses, and 2) the claim that Congress has never made a non-activity illegal. Those are two independent issues, but this poster flips between them in each reply as if to say "but what about this?".

[WillowTree]

52. You confuse what the Feds can do w/ what the States can do. Often very different limits & criteria.

[jeff47]

61. Those were examples off the top of my head. Plenty of federal ones too.

If you want to be picky and say federal only, there's still plenty of illegal non-actions. If you'd like the felony route, there's plenty of people in prison for being an accessory to a federal crime because they did not report that federal crime.

[humbled_opinion]

55. Hold up...

You can choose not to have kids and you can choose not to have a vehicle but how do you suppose that in America, the Congress can mandate that you do something based on your simple existence as a citizen....

Your logic supporting this opens up Pandora's box. If of course the SCOTUS agrees with you, I have said it a million times be careful what you wish for, there are very evil people in this world that would love to have that type of Precedent to force people into behaving a certain way.

Its not something that I can support, and it never ceases to amaze me how some people cannot "see the forest for the trees".....

[jeff47]

62. Actually my entire point was that there was no choice.

"You can choose not to have kids and you can choose not to have a vehicle"

My point was that I can not choose to not have a vehicle, due to zoning and other local issues. I will be unable to obtain food without one, or paying a private service to drive me. If your solution to that problem is "move somewhere else", then I will offer it as a solution to your objections to the health insurance mandate. Both are equally silly solutions.

"Your logic supporting this opens up Pandora's box"

That box was opened long ago. You're about 50-100 years too late to this battle.

[humbled_opinion]

63. Your argument doesn't make sense...

Here I will play your same game, no woman wants to have an abortion, but abortion is a solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy, but so is abstenance, Choose.

[jeff47]

71. Your objections to the mandate are based on the lack of choice

And you asserted that there has never been a situation where the government has mandated a purchase.

My point was that the government has already done this, many times before.

Then you attempted to prove I had choices which I already dismissed as only theoretical choices.

Then you brought up abortion.

Perhaps you'd like to stay on one particular topic, instead of wandering all over the place?

[du_da]

35. Step 3 is where the problem comes in,

Your assumption is not accurate. There is a legitimate argument that full participation is necessary to keep insurance affordable and that is a valid endeavor however it is not necessary to keep the system functional. Necessary and proper could be argued to cover functionality but not affordability. That would be a desirable and proper clause.

Economic inactivity is not the same as economic activity. This really is a slippery slope that I don't think the Democrat party or the progressive movement should be comfortable going down. It potentially leads to a very dark place which is why this kind of authority was not originally granted to the federal government. We may not always agree with their goals but constitutionalists are right when it comes to literal design more often than not, it's sort of their niche. We need to stop trying to convince ourselves that are we are smarter than everyone else and be open about the reality that we are focused on how things should be not necessarily how things have been. Which is why the progressive movement should be working to make changes through the agreed upon process instead of trying to ignore the fact that there are purposely limitations in place. Doing so simply hurts the cause both in setting precedence that could be used against us and in turning off potential supporters who might agree with the movement if not for some of the chosen methods that if had been used by the opposition we would be crying foul thus creating the appearance of a do as we say not as we do mentality. To this regard the progressive movement's is often its own worst enemy.

Before someone mentions it, keep in mind, slippery slope is only a logically fallacy when assumed it will occur not when used to evaluate what might occur. Thus it is not any less of a valid concern when determining the power structure to protect against what could potential occur.


End result, the endeavor is noble but we need to do this right and push to change the agreement made with we the people to grant the federal government such authority. Either that or push for a tax funded government ran system. However, either way we can't be afraid to put the progressive ideals on the table for the general populace to digest which seems to be what many with the neccessary influance seem reluctant to do. I assume this is out of fear of rejection however not putting it out there seems to lead to the same place as rejection none the less.

[jeff47]

42. You can't make an argument by completely glossing over the problem

"however it is not necessary to keep the system functional"

Please demonstrate how it is not necessary. In a world without pre-existing conditions, why on earth would I buy health insurance while I'm healthy? I can wait to buy it when I'm sick, and suffer no penalty for doing so.

"This really is a slippery slope that I don't think the Democrat party or the progressive movement should be comfortable going down."

The fact that you can't get the name of the Democratic party correct makes me unable to consider the rest of your argument.

(also the rest of your argument is incoherent. I have no idea what you're actually trying to say, since you're so busy trying to dress up your point as elegant that you've failed to actually explain it)

[Statistical]

44. Does your employer offer health insurance?

Are you healthy? Why do you buy insurance.

The reality is every day millions of Americans take affordable health insurance when offered by their employer and are greatful for the protection despite the sometimes huge out of pocket costs.

There is no factual evidence to indicate that people would willfully not participate. They young and healthy participate in employer based system. They do so right this very minute.

[jeff47]

57. You're forgetting something

The healthy bought insurance for years because insurance would not cover pre-existing conditions. As that is banned, the mandate kicks in.

[kudzu22]

64. The healthy buy insurance now becaue pre-ex conditions are not covered.

Therefore you have to have insurance before you get sick. If that is changed, then there is zero reason to buy insurance when you're healthy. It's the same reason people buy homeowner's insurance -- because insurers won't cover your house if it's already burned down.

If we want to ban pre-ex denials (and we do), you have to have healthy people in the pool.

[Statistical]

66. Employer based coverage is already restricted in deny pre-existing conditions.

Yet people still routinely purchase health insurance.

"If we want to ban pre-ex denials (and we do), you have to have healthy people in the pool."
Currently healthy persons join the pool without mandate in the employer based system.

[kudzu22]

68. There are conditions on it

You have to have had previous coverage and less than a 30-day gap in coverage or they can exclude your pre-existing condition for up to 12 months. Therefore, you still need to maintain coverage when you're healthy, or risk going 12 months without treatment for your unforeseen illness.

[Statistical]

69. So something similar could be done in private sector right?

There is requirement for a mandate. None. Insurance companies simply loved the idea of mandated profits and the Democratic leadership caved.

When they moved to provide pre-existing coverage protection for employer based plans (years ago) the idea of a mandate never came up. They could have mandated you use employer coverage if offered or face penalties but a non-mandate solution was found.

A non-mandate solution could be found now.

[kudzu22]

70. You could extend the same conditions

to individual plans and/or a government plan, and build in the same financial incentives so that it's better to have coverage when you're healthy. In fact, I thought that's what they were going to do back when all this started. But, because a certain percentage of people would choose to take the risk of being uninsured, they couldn't claim it was "universal health care", and we'd be faced with the choice of covering them anyway and driving up costs, or not covering them and letting them die. Neither is an attractive option and that's probably why they didn't pursue that possibility.

[du_da]

47. Who said anything about glossing over the problem.?

The issue is, that the desired resolution may not fit the allowable actions. In such an instance you have two options to resolving the problem. First find another solution, or second you (edited to complete thought) add the action in question to the allowable list.

You ask how it is not neccessary. The answer being that the federal government can do away with preexisting conditions with a one page bill if they so desire, for which there is a valid arguement as a protection for individual consumers of that product. That does not require an individual mandate to accomplish, it may be desireable but not neccessary. The mandate must therefore stand on its own merit as a protection to warrant regulation.

As for not understanding the rest, that explains your original question. If you didn't understand the post then you missed the point that we are fighting the wrong fight or at least taking on the various phases of the fight in the wrong oder which is why may very well losing this battle. We have to start by acknowledging where the legal hurdles reside and first addressing those obsticles before trying to get to the finish line. While at the same time ensuring that a resolution does not empower the opposition with the ability to cause more damage than we do good.

[jeff47]

59. So what you're saying is you're not thinking about the entire system

"The answer being that the federal government can do away with preexisting conditions with a one page bill if they so desire, for which there is a valid arguement as a protection for individual consumers of that product. That does not require an individual mandate to accomplish, it may be desireable but not neccessary"

In your proposed system, it would be stupid for the healthy to buy health insurance. With no healthy people paying into the insurance pool, there is no cost sharing. Which means insurance stops working. Anyone who gets sick will be stuck paying cash for treatment.

That's the entire point: Fixing pre-existing conditions creates a new problem that must be solved. One solution to that problem is mandated health insurance, via private or public insurance. Feel free to propose another.

We can talk about whether or not it's good ground to fight on when there actually is a choice where to fight. But unless you have something nobody has ever thought of, there is no other ground to fight on.

[du_da]

67. Desired outcome is not relevant to the question of legal authority.

Can this be done legally is a black/white issue. Should it be done is something altogether far more gray. If it needs to be done and must be done by government, but the existing limitations on government do not allow it then is it too much to ask that we start with the correct step in the process and work to change those limitations. That unwillingness to follow the appropriate path but to instead jumping straight to resolving issues with at best questionable authority is one of the main reasons the opposition has been able to paint us in the public's eye as arrogant and even alluded to desires or tendencies to become oppressive and they are able to do so without any consideration to the desired goals.

This should hardly be a surprise considering how our nation was formed. In a country that exists purely because the people came together and agree to unite but only did so under the an agreement of a limited power structure, then method matters. In the case of government that exists only through the will of the people, Machiavelli was wrong the ends do not justify the means. If in the eyes of the people we aren't willing adhere to the limitations put in place why should they continue along side us. Would we do that if roles were reversed? If both sides were in a sporting event and one side just decided to ignore the rules the teams agreed upon would either side expect the opposing team to stick around for the rest of the game? We have to consider the reality that we have to convince others to support what we view as noble causes and that starts with maintaining their trust.

So if we want to work outside the current agreed upon limitations of government then we need to follow the agreed upon rules for making the changes needed to so. If we have a disagreement on what those limitations are then we must first get that clarified.

[jeff47]

72. Legal authority was already established

A raft of SCOTUS decisions affirmed that Congress has the authority. This particular judge ignored all those precedents to come up with his ruling. That might fly if he was on the SCOTUS, but he's not.

"So if we want to work outside the current agreed upon limitations of government then we need to follow the agreed upon rules for making the changes needed to so."

As mentioned over and over again, this is not outside the agreed upon limitations of government.

[du_da]

73. If that was indeed decided

we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[jeff47]

74. We're having this conversation

Because you and a district judge believe that they can ignore SCOTUS precedents.

[du_da]

76. I didn't design the structure

As for the judge, this seems to be the intentional structure since the courts have a layered design to deal with just this type of situation. Besides as pointed out earlier, precedent is based on the common law aspect of our system. Historically precedent in common law sets a standard but allows for deviation since every case is different, which is suppose to be argument in favor of common law over a more codified structure. This is how common law adapts and/or reinforces itself throughout the years to keep up with the evolution of society. So, in that regard what is happening should not only be expected but one might argue is healthy and necessary. It gives the SC an opportunity to reinforce the standing precedent if it is still applicable.

[jeff47]

78. So what you're saying is you have no idea how the judicial system works

and the role of supreme court precedents in interpreting the Constitution.

K. So how long do you want to keep wasting time babbling about this?

[humbled_opinion]

54. Amen Brother, Amen....

[Deep13]

51. That's the distiction between power and purpose.

They have the power to regulate commerce. The purpose is to do the things listed in the Preamble, including promoting the general welfare.

[humbled_opinion]

17. Be careful about how much

power you want to give to the Federal Government. Oversight in protection of the people...all for it... Oversight of the people ....not so much... Imagine what Sarah Palin will be able to do with all that new found power your logic just gave to her administration with a Repub controlled Congress.... You may not even be able to escape once they lock the borders down....

LOL...

[Deep13]

50. Um, what power I want to give it is irrelevant.

I'm saying that Art. I, sec. 8 already gave Congress that power.

[humbled_opinion]

53. NO !!!

You interpret (Art I, sec. I) as giving Congress the power to declare that it can mandate individuals to purchase something outside of their free will. I submit that the subject article has never once been used to mandate any such things. Therefore following your logic if the SCOTUS upholds your point of the argument as fact, then with the precedent set, it will establish the ability for Congress to mandate anything it desires so your support for such an interpretation has the complete possibility to lead to my example.

be careful what you wish for....

[silverweb]

2. Then why isn't Medicare unconstitutional?

We have mandatory payroll deductions to purchase government-sponsored health care for the disabled and for seniors.

Where's the constitutional difference?

[Shrek]

15. The difference is taxation

. . . which is one of the powers granted to Congress by the constitution.

The insurance mandate is not a tax; it's a directive to purchase a commercial product from a third party.

[silverweb]

21. Got it.

And the constitutionality question would not not be an issue at all if the bill mandated taxation for a public option or Medicare for all.

This is one of the reasons the GOP will continue to fight tooth and nail against any public option or Medicare for all.

Thanks for the insight! :)

[Statistical]

23. It is a tax to support a government program vs.

a penalty to force consumers into buying a product they neither want nor value from a for profit 3rd party.

If the government can mandate that you buy for profit health insurance than may not offer you any value then they can mandate you purchase anything.

[Warpy]

4. Dixie and their conservative politicians have been millstones around

this country's neck from the beginning. There are days I wish Lincoln had just cut them loose. This is one of those days.

Save the flames, folks, I know all your responses, I've read them before.

And the poster above is correct. That idiot judge just declared Medicare unconstitutional.

Let's see how the old folks in Florida react to that one.

[HockeyMom]

5. Get OUT of miserable Florida

They only want you if you are old AND RICH. This is one really stupid, anti PEOPLE state. They think SUNSHINE solves all problems.

[Warpy]

6. My dad couldn't figure out why I never wanted to move to Florida

To him, it was Paradise. To my mother, and most other women, it was hell on earth.

Men get to retire. However, they still expect wives to come along to keep house and put 3 hot meals on the table every day.

My mother described it as having to work all day under a pile of hot, heavy, woolen blankets.

[Brilliantrocket]

7. Air conditioning works wonders

[Warpy]

9. Not if you're a Depression baby

I always called my folks' section of Florida "The Carport District" because the skinflints would sit on lawn furniture in their carports rather than run the air conditioning.

I often wondered why they bothered owning the houses.

[HockeyMom]

20. Never go outside?

Become a prisoner in your own home?

[w8liftinglady]

14. even though I live here... This despises me.

My state has THE LARGEST ADULT AND CHILD UNINSURED RATE IN THE NATION.
Every one of my congress members has voted to repeal this.

It's all I can do to not utter the "f" word.
I care for these people who suffer while Nero plays.

[TheKentuckian]

38. He did not. Not anymore than he declared the interstate or food stamps unconstitutional.

Medicare is a government program powered by taxes.

[unblock]

8. this is such a waste, and could have been easily remedied.

i appreciate the academic constitutional arguments, and have a certain amount of sympathy for them.

however, it's not unconstitutional for the government to levy taxes (subject to certain restrictions) and it's not unconstitutional for the government to fund private insurance companies. it would have been a simple matter to insert the federal government into the purchase mandate, so that instead of forcing people to buy insurance directly, they are required to pay a tax and in exchange they get insurance from the government, rebranded from the private insurer, or a voucher good for purchase directly from the private insurer.

a difference of form but not subtance, but suddenly it's clearly constitutional.

i mentioned this well before it became law, but president obama apparently doesn't listen to me.


unfortunately, this is no longer an easy fix, as the republican house would never play along.
having obama's centerpiece legislation being declared unconstitutional would be too politically juicy for the republicans.

[2Design]

11. gosh - read the forums loaded with misinformation and people

who really have not a clue - try to correct them and they spew the same rubbish- this is like the townhalls

[Hugabear]

18. So what? Other judges have ruled that it IS constitutional

Why should we get bent out of shape over what some judge in a very conservative area says. This will make its way to the SCOTUS, although I'm not very hopeful of its chances there given the conservative makeup of that court.

[CommonSensePLZ]

22. So what happens now (dare I ask)?

:dilemma:

[Statistical]

24. Split precedent all but guarantees that SCOTUS will hear an appeal.

I just am not sure which way they will go.

The corprotists would love to give their masters unlimited and never ending mandated profit streams.

On the other hand I can't really see Scalia railroading this through the commerce clause and defacto giving the federal government unlimited power.
It would forever shatter the concept of a limited federal government.

[riderinthestorm]

25. Right now there are (I believe) 2 rulings for the law, and 2 rulings against.

And many others pending.

This means HCR almost certainly goes before SCOTUS. While this SCOTUS IS a wild card, if it were operating normally the law should be ruled constitutional per most academic legal scholars because of the broad inferences of the commerce clause (I am not a lawyer and do not ask me anything else, I'm parroting other legal beagles).

But again, this SCOTUS is a wild card. So all bets are off.

[CommonSensePLZ]

39. Oh, well in that case

I'll tell you what the supreme court will do (though, I haven't studied my legal precedents but if they could have their way here's how it would go down):

They hear the case, and thinking only of the richest couple of percent of Americans rule that healthcare and all other government "entitlement," as they like to call them, programs are unconstitutional. Republicans laugh evilly and cackle about no longer having to pay taxes that go to poor people.

[du_da]

75. Assuming that is the case

then wouldn't the logical outcome for us to start working through the agreed upon process to change the Constitution to provide the federal government the authority we think they should have?

[kudzu22]

80. Good luck with that

An amendment can be proposed if it is approved by 2/3 of each house of Congress, and then ratified by 3/4 of the states. So it only takes 13 states to block it. I'd be surprised if the constitution is ever amended again.

[beevul]

27. Good.

Congress does not have the power to require commerce where none previously existed.

Anyone that thinks things should be otherwise, is thinking very shortsightedly.

Tax and public option, I could totally get behind.


Handing this congress and all the future congresses that kind of power, and having no idea what they might apply it to next?

No thanks.

[ProSense]

30. CHIP is mandated health care. The judge is

a teabagger.

Tea Party Judge Roger Vinson ‘Borrows Heavily’ From Family Research Council To Invalidate Health Law

The New Republic: The Poorly Argued Florida Ruling

After that, read Alan Grayson's opinion on the law


As Steve Benen pointed out:

<...>

Indeed, overall, about a dozen federal courts have dismissed challenges to the health care law.

In other words, when you hear on the news that "courts" have a problem with the Affordable Care Act, remember that it's actually a minority of the judges who've heard cases related to the law.

[Statistical]

32. SCHIP is federal funded health insurance.

It is closer to Medicaid than a mandate by govt to purchase goods & services one may neither want nor need from for profit corporations.

[ProSense]

34. "It is closer to Medicaid than a mandate by govt..."

It's still a mandate. The argument is bogus. Dislike the mandate, hate it even, but it's not unconstitutional. When 17 judges and hundreds of Constitutional scholars deem it Constitutional, the argument of two politically motivated judges don't hold much weight.

[Statistical]

36. It isn't a mandate. It is insurance provided by the federal govt.

It is more a gift or charity than it is a mandate.

[JuniperLea]

46. We are forced to pay for Medicare...

Medicare = Healthcare

[WillowTree]

58. You really need to look up the definition of the word "mandate", Just sayin'.

[beevul]

37. I really don't care...

I really don't care.

I don't care if the decision was made by a Dem, a repub, a teabagger, a libertarian, a socialist, a marxist, an anarchist, a communist, the pope or elvis. I would shake the hand of, and pat on the back, any one of them for making it.


I don't think that sort of power belongs to government.

I think, personally, that its a bastardization of the commerce clause, and that its very dangerous and short sighted to allow it, even for the best of intentions.

For every time such power used in the name of good intentions, it will be misused by some future less than savory administration in multiples.

Do you think the bush administration with those muscles to flex at will would have been a good thing?

[kudzu22]

40. Exactly

Imaging future GOPer Congresses enacting a mandate to subscribe to cable TV as part of a "universal connectivity" bill. Or to buy a gun as part of a crime bill. Whenever you grant the government new power, you have to imagine how your worst enemy would use that power, because they will get to use it someday.

[TBF]

31. I agree with the ruling - we should be done with this farce and enact medicare for all. nt

[JuniperLea]

45. I guess they need to stop forcing us to buy into Medicare then...

We have been forced to pay for healtcare for decades. You can't say one way is unconstitutional but the other isn't.

[Statistical]

48. No you aren't. Nobody forces you to use Medicare.

The government has the authority to levy taxes to pay for government programs however. You have no Constitutional right to avoid taxation.

[humbled_opinion]

56. Yes you can...

Medicare is a TAX it is taken from your paycheck and is progressive based on your earnings, you aren't forced to purchase Medicare. This Healthcare plan would have worked if they had instituted it as a TAX based system otherwise known as a Public option...but they didn't and many warned at the time that this would come back and haunt and it has and it will because it is not constitutional no matter how you slice it.... and after the SCOTUS shoots it down this year then what? A Pub controlled House is going to do what? Thats the rub.... It would be better if the Administration got out in front of this instead of trying to rely on semantics to bolster their invalid points.....

[kudzu22]

65. Only if you work

If you don't have income, you don't pay medicare tax. They're taxing the activity of you having a job. The difference with PPACA is they're taxing your inactivity. You pay the tax if you don't buy insurance. It's never been done before and would seem to be outside of the limits of federal power.

We need to think long and hard whether we want the federal government to have the power to tax non-purchases. We need to think about what the GOPers could do with such power. They could pass a tax of $5000 if you don't buy some product as a payoff to their corporate donors. We all want universal care but it has to be done the right way.

[Toon Me Out]

49. more about the dbag

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/roger-vinson-florida-judg_1_n_816784.html