Court of Appeals & Obamacare

KRAM1 · August 12, 2011

The Court of Appeals in Atlanta just ruled 2-1 against Obamacare...said the mandates were unconstitutional! Great day...excellent decision. Now, since it pretty much negates the other earlier court of appeals ruling in Ohio (I think Ohio) that ruled in favor of Obamacare mandates, it should now be headed to the Supreme Court for a final decision. This is really good news no matter which side of the issue you are on. If you are like me, and believe the mandates within Obama Care are unconstitutional it is a great day...if you favor the earlier ruling, you should be pleased that it should ... SHOULD ... now end up in the Supreme Court.

Wow...this is really turning into a great day for me...first the press conference on the naming rights and now this excellent ruling by the court of appeals.

This will be great to watch, and should be a great lesson in how our court systems work and how the various branches of government function.

Also, let's all not forget...GO MEAN GREEN!

FirefightnRick · August 12, 2011

Federal mandate unconstitutional.

Rick

Harry · August 12, 2011

The interesting thing is that if the Supremes rule it unconstitutional it will really put the insurers in a bad way. The big insurance companies agreed to a lot of the good aspects of the reform based on the fact they would get everyone to participate. I would bet that the Insurance companies are not too happy about this development.

Coffee and TV · August 12, 2011

Don't understand why either side gets excited every time one of these court decisions comes out. No matter what the lower courts say, it'll ultimately go to the Supreme Court. No need to feel triumphant or defeated until then. And in any case, no court will throw out the entire bill, only very limited aspects of it.

KRAM1 · August 12, 2011

The interesting thing is that if the Supremes rule it unconstitutional it will really put the insurers in a bad way. The big insurance companies agreed to a lot of the good aspects of the reform based on the fact they would get everyone to participate. I would bet that the Insurance companies are not too happy about this development.

Corporations are actually individuals in the eyes of the law, and most individuals will act in what they see as their best interests. If the insurance companies are, indeed, unhappy with this ruling they will have every right to express that displeasure, BUT, let's all not forget...THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION REGARDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY THINGS...in this case medical insurance. That is, it is a mandates question...not really a health insurance issue at all. The reason this case has been brought is a Constitutional one, and in this case, I firmly believe, as do many other people and many states that the mandates in the bill are unconstitutional. The fact is, it could have been another issue rather than health care that brought this forward. I am excited because this ruling is in opposition to an earlier ruling and that's how this thing will get to the Supreme Court. If both appeals courts had agreed, the Supreme Court would never have taken up the issue of federal mandates in the first place. That's what excites me...this ruling keeps it moving to the Supreme Court. I actually could care less that it involves health care.

This administration and this Congress passed a bill in direct opposition to the Constitution of the United States...or so I believe (as do others). The Supreme Court of the land has authority in these types of issues, and now the Supreme Court may well have the opportunity to rule. Yes, if the Supreme Court rules that the mandates in the bill are, indeed, unconsitituional, the whole bill and program will be DOA as the mandates are the heart of the matter in the bill. No mandates to purchase, no Obamacare, but to me, that is 100% beside the point here.

That's why this excites me...the Constitutional issue. I have read and heard from many constitutional experts on the issue, and many feel that the mandates are definitely unconstitutional, but that is for the Supreme Court to decide. Exciting times, folks, exciting times.

KRAM1 · August 12, 2011

Don't understand why either side gets excited every time one of these court decisions comes out. No matter what the lower courts say, it'll ultimately go to the Supreme Court. No need to feel triumphant or defeated until then. And in any case, no court will throw out the entire bill, only very limited aspects of it.

DUH...that's why it is exciting...this will speed the thing to the Supreme Court in the first place. If there were no conflicting rulings, it would never get to the Supreme Court...you do understand that minor point, right? It appears that you do not know that much about the bill itself either. Don't feel too bad about that as most people who voted for the thing hadn't read it either as Nancy Pelosi so proudly proclaimed. If you did, you would realize that this is the heart of the bill. Without the mandates the bill requires in forcing people to buy insurance, the bill is DOA...all of it! The mandates are the heart and soul of the whole program. Without the mandates, there is no Obamacare as we know it. This isn't any little part of the bill! It is an extremely exciting constitutional issue...perhaps you might want to read and study up on the U. S. Constitution a bit. You would be way ahead of the members of the current Administration and most members of the House and Senate if you would.

THIS IS A BIG DEAL...if you don't understand that, you do not understand the US Constitution and that is a real shame. It's a great piece of work...it deserves to be read by everyone...and actually studied.

The issue for the Supreme Court is not about health care at all...it is about the constitutionality of the federal...note FEDERAL...government to require people to purchase something through a mandate and to fine/penalize those who don't. Thus bypassing the states' rights under the constitution. See, it's a constitutional issue, not a healtcare issue at its heart. That, folks, the constitutionality issue is what makes it so exciting and why you should be watching these court rulings closely.

Coffee and TV · August 12, 2011

DUH...that's why it is exciting...this will speed the thing to the Supreme Court in the first place. If there were no conflicting rulings, it would never get to the Supreme Court...you do understand that minor point, right? It appears that you do not know that much about the bill itself either. Don't feel too bad about that as most people who voted for the thing hadn't read it either as Nancy Pelosi so proudly proclaimed. If you did, you would realize that this is the heart of the bill. Without the mandates the bill requires in forcing people to buy insurance, the bill is DOA...all of it! The mandates are the heart and soul of the whole program. Without the mandates, there is no Obamacare as we know it. This isn't any little part of the bill! It is an extremely exciting constitutional issue...perhaps you might want to read and study up on the U. S. Constitution a bit. You would be way ahead of the members of the current Administration and most members of the House and Senate if you would.

THIS IS A BIG DEAL...if you don't understand that, you do not understand the US Constitution and that is a real shame. It's a great piece of work...it deserves to be read by everyone...and actually studied.

The issue for the Supreme Court is not about health care at all...it is about the constitutionality of the federal...note FEDERAL...government to require people to purchase something through a mandate and to fine/penalize those who don't. Thus bypassing the states' rights under the constitution. See, it's a constitutional issue, not a healtcare issue at its heart. That, folks, the constitutionality issue is what makes it so exciting and why you should be watching these court rulings closely.

Wow. What an ***OCCASIONALLY SHRILL BUT GENERALLY DELIGHTFUL AND FRIENDLY MAN***. Who pissed in your cheerios this morning?

Edited August 12, 2011 by TheTastyGreek
Edited to redact an inappropriate profanity and improve accuracy

TheTastyGreek · August 12, 2011

No name calling. No profane insults directed at forum members.

Unrelated blanket warning: Keep any political interjections IN THIS FORUM. Don't insert Hot Political Opinions or analogies in sports threads. No exceptions, please flag any violations.

oldguystudent · August 12, 2011

What is this? I poke my head into the Eagle's Nest and witness a "healthy" debate?

Bah dum bump! Tish! Thank you! Be sure to tip your health care provider!

TheTastyGreek · August 12, 2011

Be sure to tip your health care provider!

Socialist.

yyz28 · August 12, 2011

I could give a flip less about the insurance companies. I want the Constitution to be followed. I believe this law and the mandate is unconstitutional.

...the businesses and individuals who will be hurt by this law and the amount of liberty we surrender should this law stand far outweighs the pain a few insurance companies will face... ...but based on what I've read, most Insurance companies are pretty screwed by this law too... ...especially in the long run as this law does what it was designed to do and lead to single payer... That's REALLY going to suck for insurance companies when that happens.

Green2012 · August 13, 2011

I could give a flip less about the insurance companies. I want the Constitution to be followed. I believe this law and the mandate is unconstitutional.

...the businesses and individuals who will be hurt by this law and the amount of liberty we surrender should this law stand far outweighs the pain a few insurance companies will face... ...but based on what I've read, most Insurance companies are pretty screwed by this law too... ...especially in the long run as this law does what it was designed to do and lead to single payer... That's REALLY going to suck for insurance companies when that happens.

This is the part I don't understand. How can democrats publicly support this bill when Pelosi is helping businesses be exempt from it in her caucus. Is that not easy proof that this mandate is job killing?

The Fake Lonnie Finch · August 13, 2011

This thing was always going to end up in the Supreme Court.

The problem all along has been that if Congress could tell private citizens to buy a specific product upon threat of fine or jail, they could do it for anything.

At that point, we've become nothing more than Communists pretending to be a Representative Democracy because we hold votes.

Anyone, left or right, really want for Congress to tell us we have to buy something or else? It was a stupid idea to begin, and the reason they didn't bother with too many details before they passed it.

UNT90 · August 13, 2011

Don't understand why either side gets excited every time one of these court decisions comes out. No matter what the lower courts say, it'll ultimately go to the Supreme Court. No need to feel triumphant or defeated until then. And in any case, no court will throw out the entire bill, only very limited aspects of it.

We agree. This will end up before the Supremes. The decision should be 9-0, but will probably be 5-4 or maybe 6-3 declaring the health care plan as unconstitutional.

Also would not be surprised to see a challenge to the current compromise on the debt in the courts. The legislation basically creates a super congress of 12 individuals, leaving many areas of the country unrepresented in the budget process. Not exactly what the founding fathers had in mine (not to mention a complete give up by congress).

Legend500 · August 13, 2011

you should be pleased that it should ... SHOULD ... now end up in the Supreme Court.

Absolutely. The supremes need to rule on this.

That is, it is a mandates question...not really a health insurance issue at all.

Yes, if the Supreme Court rules that the mandates in the bill are, indeed, unconsitituional, the whole bill and program will be DOA as the mandates are the heart of the matter in the bill.

Absolutely agree - the fact that this is a mandate is far more important than what it requires. However -

The Supreme Court can strike down only the mandate, and leave the rest of the legislation stand. They've done the same very recently, in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, where the court cut out a key provision of Sarbanes-Qxley and let the rest of the law stand. Even more importantly, the Justices who created this "presumption of severability" were Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy. There is no situation in which the entirety of Obamacare will be struck down.If the mandate is stuck down, it perversely leaves the government with two options: either keep the legislation and let insurance companies fail, or implement a single-payor system.

The decision should be 9-0, but will probably be 5-4 or maybe 6-3 declaring the health care plan as unconstitutional.

Also would not be surprised to see a challenge to the current compromise on the debt in the courts. The legislation basically creates a super congress of 12 individuals, leaving many areas of the country unrepresented in the budget process. Not exactly what the founding fathers had in mine (not to mention a complete give up by congress).

Nope. As stated, holding the entirety of the act unconstitutional won't happen. The most conservative members of the court would have to directly overrule a decision they made only 13 months ago. Even liberals on the bench don't throw away precedent that quickly.

As to holding the mandate unconstitutional, it's unlikely as well. Scalia and Thomas are in the bag to overturn the law, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will uphold. The swing votes are Roberts, Kennedy and Alito. Roberts and Kennedy have previously supported extremely expansionist theories of the Commerce and Necessary/Proper clauses (Gonzales v. Raich) and Alito has a expansionist view of presidential power.

Best-case scenario: 5-4 to uphold the mandate. Worst case: 7-2 to uphold.

Now the budget deal - that's a whole 'nuther topic.

Edited August 13, 2011 by Legend500

oldguystudent · August 13, 2011

Socialist.

Misanthropist.

KRAM1 · August 13, 2011

Wow. What an ***OCCASIONALLY SHRILL BUT GENERALLY DELIGHTFUL AND FRIENDLY MAN***. Who pissed in your cheerios this morning?

People who know not of what they speak! People who don't have a clue what is written in the U.S. Constitution or why such constitutional issues and questions are so very important to this great nation of ours. It is just this lack of knowledge that has lead this great nation of ours to where it is today and has allowed people to elect Congressmen, senators and a current president who have no clue about what is and is not constitutional. Should I continue?

Let's be honest here...how many people can honestly say they have even read the U.S. Constitution, much less studied it on any level? How many can explain anything about any of the amendments without first having to look them up?

Sad, very sad...

SilverEagle · August 14, 2011

So constitutionally, where does being required to buy auto liability insurance fall?

DoubleEagle · August 14, 2011

So constitutionally, where does being required to buy auto liability insurance fall?

The federal government does not require the purchase of auto liability insurance, that is a requirement at the state level and is allowed as the regulation of intrastate commerce is within the purview of each state.

Also, auto liability insurance is only required of car owners...not all citizens.

DeepGreen · August 14, 2011

So constitutionally, where does being required to buy auto liability insurance fall?

Just a minute- I need to talk to my lawyer.

UNTFan23 · August 14, 2011

Also, auto liability insurance is only required of car owners...not all citizens.

Actually, if you want a driver's license, you have to have liability insurance.

CMJ · August 15, 2011

Actually, if you want a driver's license, you have to have liability insurance.

I think that depends on the state.

KRAM1 · August 15, 2011

So constitutionally, where does being required to buy auto liability insurance fall?

State issue...not mandated by the federal government...again, that pesky Constitution and Amendments spells this out. Driving is a choice...driving laws are regulated by the states as a power granted to them under the Constitution. There is no mandate that you must drive...it is a choice...if you choose to drive in a state, you "choose" to obey the laws of that state relating to driving.

With Obamacare you have no choice and are forced to purchase insurance under threat of fine, etc.

BIG DIFFERENCE, Silver. But, that is a question that tons of people throw out to try to justify the mandate from the federal government. Unfortunately it is apples to oranges and in no way is appropriate to the question.

yyz28 · August 15, 2011

Everyone beat me to it. The federal mandate as in Obamacare requires all citizens, simply for being alive, to buy a product or pay a fine. The comparison to Auto Insurance fails immediately on several fronts. First, you make a choice to drive a vehicle or to get a driver's license. If you don't make the choice to own a car or drive, you don't have to purchase insurance. Second, the state mandates insurance as a cost of driving a vehicle, and the rules for insurance minimums, at what point you must have insurance, etc, as allowed in the 10th Amendment. Finally, the fine for failing to carry insurance is enforced through the legal system where you enjoy due process, whereas the mandate in Obamacare is enforced by the IRS, and it just is. No due process. No legal procedure.

The "Auto Insurance" argument thrown out by supporters of Obamacare has been and remains a straw man argument.

Harry · August 15, 2011

State issue...not mandated by the federal government...again, that pesky Constitution and Amendments spells this out. Driving is a choice...driving laws are regulated by the states as a power granted to them under the Constitution. There is no mandate that you must drive...it is a choice...if you choose to drive in a state, you "choose" to obey the laws of that state relating to driving.

With Obamacare you have no choice and are forced to purchase insurance under threat of fine, etc.

BIG DIFFERENCE, Silver. But, that is a question that tons of people throw out to try to justify the mandate from the federal government. Unfortunately it is apples to oranges and in no way is appropriate to the question.

KRAM, while I agree with your constitutional stance is it doesn't do anything to solve the health insurance cost problem - which if let unresolved - in fact it may push us closer to governmental health care. Can you imagine what a nightmare we would have if we didn't require drivers in Texas to purchase auto insurance? Do you realize how much the cost of our car insurance would go up for you and me without this mandate and we would be in effect subsidizing coverage for those who don't purchase it? If you don't mandate people to purchase health insurance then many or most will not buy it. Then when they get sick, instead of getting preventative care they will show up at the Parkland emergency room with a critical situation and guess who is paying for that (you and me). So while I respect and agree with your support of the constitution I would prefer that you and others would come up with viable solutions to the health care crisis that we face.

I never liked the mandate aspect of this reform until I started looking at the numbers. When you pull away the mandate guess what, the good people who do the right thing and purchase health insurance coverage get double dipped and end up paying for the ones who choose not to purchase it. I think if a VIABLE alternative was out there we wouldn't have had to go down the mandate road in the first place.

Remember, a key point to the recent Appellate court decision against Obamacare was they were not dissenting against the health care reform policies in general just specifically the individual mandate. I fear if they pull the mandate away, the private insurance companies will run away from the market because they will not see any advantage to insuring only the sickest of the sick pool. This will force many of the neediest to join up in state risk pools because they will have no other place to go. The states do not have the budgets or expertise to run these plans effectively when you are looking at large numbers of participants in my opinion. Essentially we will be pushing people to join governmentally sponsored and funded plans which, you guessed it we end up paying for in the end.