Healthcare mandate getting closer to SCOTUS

[ElNono]

Appeals Court Rules Against Health Law Mandate

ATLANTA (AP) — A federal appeals panel struck down the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care overhaul Friday, moving the argument over whether Americans can be required to buy health insurance a step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded Congress overstepped its authority when lawmakers passed the so-called individual mandate, the first such decision by a federal appeals court. It's a stinging blow to Obama's signature legislative achievement, as most experts agree the requirement that Americans carry health insurance — or face tax penalties — is the foundation for other parts of the law.

Read more (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/08/12/business/AP-US-Health-Overhaul.html?hp)

[boutons_deux]

The Eleventh Circuit’s Affordable Care Act Decision Cannot Be Squared With The Constitution

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Judge-Hull-235x300.jpg

the two judge majority explains how they will determine whether this law is constitutional:

In answering whether the federal government may exercise this asserted power to issue a mandate for Americans to purchase health insurance from private companies, we next examine a number of issues: (1) the unprecedented nature of the individual mandate; (2) whether Congress’s exercise of its commerce authority affords sufficient and meaningful limiting principles; and (3) the far-reaching implications for our federalist structure.

This is one way to evaluate whether a law is constitutional, but a better way is to ask whether the law can be squared with text of the Constitution.

The Constitution provides that Congress may “regulate Commerce…among the several states,” and the very first Supreme Court decision interpreting this language made clear that this power is “plenary,” meaning that Congress may choose whatever means it wishes to regulate interstate marketplaces such as the national health care market, so long as it does not violate another textual provision of the Constitution.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/08/12/295196/the-eleventh-circuits-affordable-care-act-decision-cannot-be-squared-with-the-constitution/

=====

but yes, DoJ will appeal up to SCOTUS where the VRWC activist cabal will kill it 5-4.

Here's one you sociopathic sadists will go for:

If the mandate is killed, then taxpayers should win the right for taxpayer-funded medical facilities to refuse medical care to uninsured patients who can't pay.

This would be a very effective death panel, and remove taxpayers from compassionate/humanitarian/socialist/solidarity policies. After all, the poor are lazy criminals so why should taxpayers pay for them? Isn't that how the righties argue it?

[ElNono]

SCOTUS is basically unavoidable now that you have appeal courts with differing opinions... Not that there was any doubt this was headed that way.

[DarrinS]

People wanted the economy fixed -- not this cluster fuck piece of legislation.

[ElNono]

People wanted the economy fixed -- not this cluster fuck piece of legislation.

People still want healthcare reform though...

[Yonivore]

People still want healthcare reform though...
They don't want Obamacare.

[DarrinS]

People still want healthcare reform though...

I agree. But even that should've been a second tier priority IMHO.

[Trainwreck2100]

yeah cause healthcare costs are not the giant gaping would where we are bleeding money

[ElNono]

They don't want Obamacare.

Agree.


I agree. But even that should've been a second tier priority IMHO.

Can't pass that unless you control Congress too. You simply will not find consensus with the political gamesmanship you have these days.

[Wild Cobra]

People still want healthcare reform though...
Yes, but reform means different things to different people.

I want comprehensive immigration reform also. But not the way that codephrase means.

[ElNono]

Yes, but reform means different things to different people.

No doubt. I'm pretty sure everybody wants to achieve the same ends, even though they don't necessarily agree the means to get there.

[Wild Cobra]

No doubt. I'm pretty sure everybody wants to achieve the same ends, even though they don't necessarily agree the means to get there.
the same ends... Are you high again?

[FromWayDowntown]

SCOTUS is basically unavoidable now that you have appeal courts with differing opinions... Not that there was any doubt this was headed that way.

Undoubtedly -- SCOTUS has always been unavoidable with this law. The only question has been which case it would choose to take.

[ElNono]

the same ends... Are you high again?

No. Everyone wants to reduce costs, and if possible have better access to care. What the disagreement comes from is how you get there from here.
Is it any more clear now?

[ElNono]

Undoubtedly -- SCOTUS has always been unavoidable with this law. The only question has been which case it would choose to take.

If you have a minute, the inclination or even care, I would appreciate your take on what we've been discussing with vy65 on this thread:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183516&page=11

I want to hear another opinion (even if it disagrees with me) from somebody with a law background.

[boutons_deux]

"Everyone wants to reduce costs"

excluding the sick-care industry, where the for-profit health insurers were handed 40M+ new clients by the individual mandate (except penalty for not buying insurance is way less than buying insurance).

Public option where EVERYBODY has to buy into a govt/Medicare health insurance is the best solution. That does not exclude the richies from also buying supplementary insurance from for-profit insurers and paying extra for doctors who only treat deep pocket clients.

[Agloco]

"Everyone wants to reduce costs"

excluding the sick-care industry, where the for-profit health insurers were handed 40M+ new clients by the individual mandate (except penalty for not buying insurance is way less than buying insurance).

Public option where EVERYBODY has to buy into a govt/Medicare health insurance is the best solution. That does not exclude the richies from also buying supplementary insurance from for-profit insurers and paying extra for doctors who only treat deep pocket clients.

Yeppers.....keep on increasing those costs. I care not.

/sarcasm machine off

[DarrinS]

Any time you see the words "for profit", you can pretty much stop reading.

[boutons_deux]

Show where public option would increase costs.

The main idea of a public option is that the premium money flows into a huge pool for all citizens, and run the pool at cost, rather than dozens smaller for-profit pools run for maximum profit and payouts to management and capitalists.

I would propose expanding the VA system of govt hospitals and govt employed medical staff to compete with private hospitals, which have shown they also have profits first, health care whenever.