Judge Rules Against Obama Care Mandatory Coverage

[rushmc 18]

Dam straight!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/13/federal-judge-rules-favor-virginia-challenge-health-care-law/

Quote

Casting an unmistakable and perhaps permanent pockmark on the face of the Obama administration, a federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a major component of the new health care reform law is unconstitutional.

I would favor this judge for the SC

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,153]

Actually, they tend to build them curved to better deal with the pressure.

[lawrocket 3]

Using this to f avor him for the SCOTUS is a bit of a stretch, but the reasoning makes pretty good sense to me.
[Quote]"Every application of Commerce Clause power found to be constitutionally sound by the Supreme Court involved some form of action, transaction or deed placed in motion by an individual or legal entity. The constitutional viability of the minimum essential coverage provision in this case turns on whether or not a person's decision to refuse to purchase health care insurance is such an activity,"

For a primer, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution specifically enpowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce. since the New Deal, that has been reinterpreted to mean regulation of anything affecting interstate commerce.n said interpretation has been expanded to include any activity which by itself doesn't affect interstate commerce (like, say, setting up a tin can phone with your neighbor) but, if everybody did it, would affect interstate commerce. Seminal cases involve penalizing growing wheat for private consumption and growig personal marijuana.

What the Health Care Financing bill (which is what it's about, really) expected to pay for the health care primarily by requiring everyone to purchase insurance under threat of federal penalties. The law used to Commerce Clause as it's authority. However, this most recent stretch of the law requires that deliberate non-participation in commerce affects interstate commerce. Therefore, non-commercial activities (i.e., deliberate non-participation in the marketplace) is viewed by those who would decide what people do with government money (it's not private property, the government just let's us have what we have) cannot simply allow people to not spend money where they want.

This judge applied some common sense. He said you cannot call non-participation in commerce "participation in interstate commerce."

One could see where this would lead. Let's say next president C. Corporate Whore has a Congress that agrees that all adults should consume at least a pound of beef per day, and failure to purchase that amount of beef per year will result in a penalty of $2500.00. There is really ZERO practical difference. The government is REQUIRING private citizens to engage in private commercial transactions and purchase private products/services under threat of penalty.

Change "health insurance" with any other product and the problem is obvious. Requiring a person to participate in commerce. Congress can't do that, no matter how beneficial do gooders think it would be.

The Constitution exists to limit what the federal government can do. Subsequent Amendment apply those limits to the states. Some Amendments increase the authority of the government - such as the previously Unconstitutional income tax being authorized by Amendment. But - actually trying for an Amendment would suck. It'd take too long, it won't be passed, etc.


I also note that shit like this is not just a recent thing. Nor is it anything that is limited by party. Every federal politician or career bureaucrat wants more power. The Constitution is a royal pain in the ass for them. Hence, they will ignore it ofen. "We'll pass the law and duke it out. It will be a few years before the courts can overturn it, then I can be indignant and get votes by making it a party thing." When I was in law school, case books put a handy history of showing gradual encroachment by the government resulting in smackdowns by the court. That stopped thanks to the "Switch in Time Saves Nine."

I hope this decision is upheld...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Using this to f avor him for the SCOTUS is a bit of a stretch, but the reasoning makes pretty good sense to me.
[Quote]"Every application of Commerce Clause power found to be constitutionally sound by the Supreme Court involved some form of action, transaction or deed placed in motion by an individual or legal entity. The constitutional viability of the minimum essential coverage provision in this case turns on whether or not a person's decision to refuse to purchase health care insurance is such an activity,"

For a primer, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution specifically enpowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce. since the New Deal, that has been reinterpreted to mean regulation of anything affecting interstate commerce.n said interpretation has been expanded to include any activity which by itself doesn't affect interstate commerce (like, say, setting up a tin can phone with your neighbor) but, if everybody did it, would affect interstate commerce. Seminal cases involve penalizing growing wheat for private consumption and growig personal marijuana.

What the Health Care Financing bill (which is what it's about, really) expected to pay for the health care primarily by requiring everyone to purchase insurance under threat of federal penalties. The law used to Commerce Clause as it's authority. However, this most recent stretch of the law requires that deliberate non-participation in commerce affects interstate commerce. Therefore, non-commercial activities (i.e., deliberate non-participation in the marketplace) is viewed by those who would decide what people do with government money (it's not private property, the government just let's us have what we have) cannot simply allow people to not spend money where they want.

This judge applied some common sense. He said you cannot call non-participation in commerce "participation in interstate commerce."

One could see where this would lead. Let's say next president C. Corporate Whore has a Congress that agrees that all adults should consume at least a pound of beef per day, and failure to purchase that amount of beef per year will result in a penalty of $2500.00. There is really ZERO practical difference. The government is REQUIRING private citizens to engage in private commercial transactions and purchase private products/services under threat of penalty.

Change "health insurance" with any other product and the problem is obvious. Requiring a person to participate in commerce. Congress can't do that, no matter how beneficial do gooders think it would be.

The Constitution exists to limit what the federal government can do. Subsequent Amendment apply those limits to the states. Some Amendments increase the authority of the government - such as the previously Unconstitutional income tax being authorized by Amendment. But - actually trying for an Amendment would suck. It'd take too long, it won't be passed, etc.


I also note that shit like this is not just a recent thing. Nor is it anything that is limited by party. Every federal politician or career bureaucrat wants more power. The Constitution is a royal pain in the ass for them. Hence, they will ignore it ofen. "We'll pass the law and duke it out. It will be a few years before the courts can overturn it, then I can be indignant and get votes by making it a party thing." When I was in law school, case books put a handy history of showing gradual encroachment by the government resulting in smackdowns by the court. That stopped thanks to the "Switch in Time Saves Nine."

I hope this decision is upheld...

i hope it is upheld as well

Great to see some government limitaion being enforced. Even if just by a small amount it is a good start

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

There's a parallel thread on this that was started yesterday:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4013861;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

As discussed there, so far, this now makes it 1 judge to rule against the law, and 2 judges that have ruled in favor of it. SCOTUS review is very likely.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

There's a parallel thread on this that was started yesterday:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4013861;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

As discussed there, so far, this now makes it 1 judge to rule against the law, and 2 judges that have ruled in favor of it. SCOTUS review is very likely.

I saw that

Do you have a name or piece of info i can google them and learn more about them?

I tried in google that after I saw your post but I could not find anything. (the web is dominated by todays ruling)

Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

I didn't see the names of the district judges; but the articles which I just quickly scanned via Google said that one case was in the federal court in Detroit, and the other case was out of the federal court in Lynchburg, VA. Both are currently on appeal to their respective federal circuit Court of Appeals.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I didn't see the names of the district judges; but the articles which I just quickly scanned via Google said that one case was in the federal court in Detroit, and the other case was out of the federal court in Lynchburg, VA. Both are currently on appeal to their respective federal circuit Court of Appeals.

Thanks
I will see what I can find too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I didn't see the names of the district judges; but the articles which I just quickly scanned via Google said that one case was in the federal court in Detroit, and the other case was out of the federal court in Lynchburg, VA. Both are currently on appeal to their respective federal circuit Court of Appeals.

Quote

The judge, Norman K. Moon of Federal District Court, who sits in Lynchburg, Va., issued a 54-page ruling that granted the government’s request to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Liberty University, the private Christian college founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Last month, in a separate case, Judge George C. Steeh of Federal District Court in Detroit also upheld the law.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

What the Health Care Financing bill (which is what it's about, really) expected to pay for the health care primarily by requiring everyone to purchase insurance under threat of federal penalties. The law used to Commerce Clause as it's authority. However, this most recent stretch of the law requires that deliberate non-participation in commerce affects interstate commerce. Therefore, non-commercial activities (i.e., deliberate non-participation in the marketplace) is viewed by those who would decide what people do with government money (it's not private property, the government just let's us have what we have) cannot simply allow people to not spend money where they want.

This judge applied some common sense. He said you cannot call non-participation in commerce "participation in interstate commerce."

I can definitely see the reasoning behind this decision. I can also see the reasoning behind the requirement that everyone have some form of health insurance. It will be interesting to see how the SC (Supreme Court, not Speaker's Corner) eventually rules on this.

What I wonder about is, people can currently choose to "not participate" until they have an accident or serious illness, when they suddenly become "participants". At that point they are uninsurable, so they have to bear the full cost of care out of pocket. Many cannot pay, so after being treated they declare bankruptcy and pass the bill on to those of us who do have insurance. This seems to me to be unfair. What to do? One solution might be to demand payment/proof of insurance up front, and refuse to treat the "indigent", but that has perils too. When an ambulance responds to someone having a heart attack, or to a car accident with unconscious or critically injured patients, the priority is to get the patient to the hospital, and they don't waste time searching the house or the accident scene for a wallet or bank statement. I once asked a former student, who had become an EMT, how common is it for them to transport patients who don't have ID, and he said it's quite common, maybe 10% of his calls overall. A rule that says "don't begin treatment until proof of insurance or funds is secured" would condemn tens of thousands of people who actually have insurance to be left to die outside the emergency department door, just because their wallet with their insurance card was lost at the accident scene.

I wonder if you, or anyone, can see a solution that preserves peoples freedom to "opt out" without sticking those of us who "opt in" with the bill, or creating a situation where many people who have paid in are denied care when they most need it.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[mnealtx 0]

The "left to die outside the ER door" argument is an appeal to emotion and a false premise - EMTALA (passed in 1986) requires hospitals to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

Right, which is why he said, "One solution might be..."

- Dan G

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Right, which is why he said, "One solution might be..."

And the point was that there is current law that would prevent that from happening.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

No, the point is most people find the current situation untenable. Clearly GeorgiaDon was talking about ways to prevent the majority of people from having to pay for the emergency treatment of the uninsured. "One solution might be..."

- Dan G

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

No, the point is most people find the current situation untenable. Clearly GeorgiaDon was talking about ways to prevent the majority of people from having to pay for the emergency treatment of the uninsured. "One solution might be..."

I was pointing out that his 'one solution' was illegal re: EMTALA - do you have a problem with that being pointed out, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wmw999 2,171]

EMTALA passes the cost of treating someone who does not have insurance onto the rest of us.
GeorgiaDon was trying, I believe, to come up with a way that does not do so in the same manner, without the downsides that he proposes in his post.

I'd be interested in that discussion as well.

One possibility would be for people who choose not to have insurance while they're well to be limited to participating hospitals when they're injured. There's still access, but its probably not always to the hospitals of choice.

The problem is that our much-vaunted USA health care (which, at its peak, really is pretty frickin' impressive) is good enough that everyone wants the good result. We have pills and procedures to fix lots and lots of ills -- but they all cost money, and no one ever thinks they're going to need to spend that money, until they do.

Just as with homeowner's insurance. How many people only have it because their mortgage company requires it?

Even if they don't have homeowner's, the firefighters will come fight your fire (well, unless you also don't pay your volunteer FD tax, but that's a different and fairly unusual story). But you're fucked for follow-up.

However, with health care, you get that emergency treatment, and then there's lots of follow-up. Yeah, if you're poor, it's not as good. And that often turns formerly-productive people into unproductive ones.

If it were an easy problem, there wouldn't be all the heartache. But it's not. How to balance our distaste for treating individual humans like "just another poor person" when we're willing to do so in the aggregate?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

EMTALA passes the cost of treating someone who does not have insurance onto the rest of us.

Agreed.

Quote

GeorgiaDon was trying, I believe, to come up with a way that does not do so in the same manner, without the downsides that he proposes in his post.

I didn't disagree with the post itself, only pointed out that the 'leave them to die in the parking lot' scenario would be illegal under EMTALA.

Quote

One possibility would be for people who choose not to have insurance while they're well to be limited to participating hospitals when they're injured. There's still access, but its probably not always to the hospitals of choice.

How is this different from the current situation under EMTALA?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Do you believe the Constitution in any way limits what Congress can force American Citizens to purchase? If so what are those limits?

Do you believe that all immigrants and those applying for visas should be forced to purchase healthcare insurance before being granted entry to the US?

Do you believe that eventually the govt. will either exempt the "poor" from paying their premiums or at least subsidize them as they do with rent. food, utilities etc?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Quote

EMTALA passes the cost of treating someone who does not have insurance onto the rest of us.

Agreed.

Quote

GeorgiaDon was trying, I believe, to come up with a way that does not do so in the same manner, without the downsides that he proposes in his post.

I didn't disagree with the post itself, only pointed out that the 'leave them to die in the parking lot' scenario would be illegal under EMTALA.

Quote

One possibility would be for people who choose not to have insurance while they're well to be limited to participating hospitals when they're injured. There's still access, but its probably not always to the hospitals of choice.

How is this different from the current situation under EMTALA?

Mike, you're a smart guy, I'm sure you clearly understood my post. Still, I'll spell it out hopefully a little more clearly.

Under current law (EMTALA), people have the option to not pay for insurance, then go to the hospital when severely sick or injured, get patched up (save their life type care, not cosmetic surgery), then not pay for that either (perhaps by declaring bankruptcy). Since hospitals, doctors, nurses etc must get paid, the costs of this care are passed on to those of us who do have insurance or other means to pay. This is unfair in itself, and it drives up the cost of care for those who do pay including insurance companies. The result is higher premiums, which results in even more people "opting out". This is the status quo, and in the long run it is probably unsustainable given the fact that health care costs are escalating faster than growth in the ability to pay. How can this problem be fixed?

1. Require everyone to "opt in". Make it illegal to not be insured. This is the approach that was ruled unconstitutional today; eventually the supreme court will have the final say. Let's assume this one won't fly. What else is there?

2. Repeal EMTALA. If you can't pay, and didn't have the foresight to get insurance, too bad so sad. Personally I think this would be uncivilized in the extreme, as there are many circumstances aside from shortsighted greed that can lead to people being uninsured. As well, as I explained earlier, requiring proof of ability to pay before treatment is offered will result in many thousands of people who in fact are insured being denied treatment. I think this one is a non-starter too.

What else?

About all I've got right now is to fund trauma centers and emergency departments through a sales tax on something everybody buys, such as food or clothing. If you taxed alcohol and cigarettes I bet many of the "poor" would end up putting as much into the system as better off people who choose healthy lifestyles. You can't do it based on income tax, as too many people don't pay income tax so they would still be freeloading. Then, if you have an accident or need emergency care, you can go to one of the tax-funded treatment centers. At least a nominal copay will have to be charged, to discourage trivial use of the resource. If you want longer term care, physical therapy, anything more than life-saving treatment you'd better have insurance or be able to pay for it.

Anybody got a different idea?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Mike, you're a smart guy, I'm sure you clearly understood my post. Still, I'll spell it out hopefully a little more clearly.

[re[;u]1. Require everyone to "opt in". Make it illegal to not be insured. This is the approach that was ruled unconstitutional today; eventually the supreme court will have the final say. Let's assume this one won't fly. What else is there?

No it wasn't. The bill had a 'get insurance or pay a fine' provision - remember all the talk about it? So, of course people are going to game the system and not get insurance until they *really* need it. Same thing with pre-existing conditions - if insurance companies have to allow them no ifs, ands or buts, why pay month after month? Just wait until the condition flares up, THEN get a policy.

Quote

2. Repeal EMTALA. If you can't pay, and didn't have the foresight to get insurance, too bad so sad. Personally I think this would be uncivilized in the extreme, as there are many circumstances aside from shortsighted greed that can lead to people being uninsured. As well, as I explained earlier, requiring proof of ability to pay before treatment is offered will result in many thousands of people who in fact are insured being denied treatment. I think this one is a non-starter too.

Agreed, and that was all I was saying in my other post - EMTALA makes the 'pay for play' option illegal.

Quote

What else?

About all I've got right now is to fund trauma centers and emergency departments through a sales tax on something everybody buys, such as food or clothing. If you taxed alcohol and cigarettes I bet many of the "poor" would end up putting as much into the system as better off people who choose healthy lifestyles. You can't do it based on income tax, as too many people don't pay income tax so they would still be freeloading. Then, if you have an accident or need emergency care, you can go to one of the tax-funded treatment centers. At least a nominal copay will have to be charged, to discourage trivial use of the resource. If you want longer term care, physical therapy, anything more than life-saving treatment you'd better have insurance or be able to pay for it.

Anybody got a different idea?

Don

That actually seems a better idea, and I believe was mentioned before (billvon, maybe?) - federal funding of a basic level of service, and insurance for things over/above that.

The "doc-in-a-box" clinic with a $20 office fee would go a long ways toward reducing the type of ER exploitation that happens now. Truly serious ailments get admitted, the others get sent down the block to the doc-in-a-box.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SStewart 13]

Do you favor that we repeal mandatory car insurance as well?

Seriously, why do I have to pay for car insurance?
It is none of the governments business.

If I get pulled over and I don't have car insurance I will face a penalty. If I go to the hospital with no insurance I face no penalty and I will get treatment and go about my business.

Un-insured motorists cost us all and there are laws against it.

People with no health insurance cost us all and there are no laws against it.

So what is up with that?

Onward and Upward!

[skyrider 0]

Quote

The "left to die outside the ER door" argument is an appeal to emotion and a false premise - EMTALA (passed in 1986) requires hospitals to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay.

Exactly...My wife is an admin at Childrens Hospital, (Yes a brain married a lowlife biker) , she started there over 20 years ago as an ER nurse, they have never once turned anyone away...I'm not sure why so many worry about health insurance, it doesn;t seem to be needed other than for every day health care...If yer hurt, yer covered... Payment ...is a noen issue, ask any illegal .....

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Do you favor that we repeal mandatory car insurance as well?nope as it is a public safety issue

Seriously, why do I have to pay for car insurance?
It is none of the governments business.Because you can hurt me or someone else and then not be accountable

If I get pulled over and I don't have car insurance I will face a penalty. If I go to the hospital with no insurance I face no penalty and I will get treatment and go about my business.

Un-insured motorists cost us all and there are laws against it.

People with no health insurance cost us all and there are no laws against it.

So what is up with that?

Not the same thing
Then add to that the issue you bring up is at the state level. The HC bill is a federal one

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Quote

The "left to die outside the ER door" argument is an appeal to emotion and a false premise - EMTALA (passed in 1986) requires hospitals to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay.

Exactly...My wife is an admin at Childrens Hospital, (Yes a brain married a lowlife biker) , she started there over 20 years ago as an ER nurse, they have never once turned anyone away...I'm not sure why so many worry about health insurance, it doesn;t seem to be needed other than for every day health care...If yer hurt, yer covered... Payment ...is a noen issue, ask any illegal .....

How about this idea. Let's pass a law that bans hospitals from passing unrecovered bills on to paying customers. I'm sure your family, and everyone else who works at/for the hospital, won't mind paying for all that care by working for free, any more than all the paying patients mind (or can afford) to pay for it. [/sarcasm] Or just maybe people and politicians could get serious for once about trying to figure out a solution that will work. One thing for sure, the current limitations to the debate (no mandate to buy insurance, no taxes, and no change to EMTALA allowed) leaves us with nothing but a shit sandwich.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Do you favor that we repeal mandatory car insurance as well?

Seriously, why do I have to pay for car insurance?
It is none of the governments business.

If I get pulled over and I don't have car insurance I will face a penalty. If I go to the hospital with no insurance I face no penalty and I will get treatment and go about my business.

Un-insured motorists cost us all and there are laws against it.

People with no health insurance cost us all and there are no laws against it.

So what is up with that?

This line of argument is old, you must have missed it the last several times it was brought up here.

state laws require insurance, not federal. Take it up with your state legislature. Also you're not required to buy auto insurance unless you want to drive on public roads. You're being required to buy insurance because you're alive.

that's a 4 sentence summary of the discussions we've had on it in the past. I'm sure it won't stop anyone from the rehash.

--
Rob