(CNN) Breaking: Florida Federal Judge Strikes Down Key Parts of Healthcare Bill as Unconstitutional

[Tulane Skins Fan]

How about simply setting limits of care available free for those uninsured?

It should not be tied to employment,otherwise it discourages working

Sounds like death panels to me.

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 04:17 PM ----------

if thats the case how come they can force us to buy auto insurance. is it because of the other people involved?

You choose to buy a car. You don't have to buy it. You opt into that law.

But, I'm not really defending this opinion... yet. I think its a close call, but some of the reasoning strikes me as willfully blind. Others strikes me as valid though.

[December90]

Because that's the status quo and it's proven to be unsustainable. Buying coverage across state lines is only a start. One of the biggest problems that people always refuse to acknowledge is this: You have a class of uninsured. Currently those people have no primary access so they go to the hospital for all kinds of minor crap, and they don't get regular checkups. Hospitals can't just turn them away. So, what should the taxpayers pay for? Should we pay for a regular checkup and a cholesterol med prescription? Or should we pay for a cardiac surgeon and a hospital bed? Which do you prefer? THAT'S why people want the government involved. Because absent the "let the uninsured die in the street" idea, we're just going to keep on paying billions of unnecessary costs for preventable illness. Too many people without insurance DON'T pay as they go. That's the problem. Buying across state lines does not offer a solution to that problem.

So you think a big government program will suddenly make things better? Our current system while far from perfect, is much better than some unsustainable government program.

Medical care costs so much because we keep getting better at it. As we get better at it, the new things cost money. Money provides a means by which to allocate a scarce resource. It also provides the means to which that scarce resource is improved. I trust the open market with all it failings far more than I trust faceless government bureaucrats when it comes to my options with my own medical services.

The floor you want to create for those in greatest need shouldn't also be the ceiling for those with the greatest resources..

The reason Obamacare is accurately called "socialist" is because it seeks to make everyone equal by slightly bringing up a few and greatly bringing down the rest. I guess when nobody can get an MRI, then at least we will all be equal.

[Bliz]

Which just brings me back to, this is just about "beating" Obama at this point.

Surely that wouldn't be a part of this 70+ year old Reagan appointee on senior status's decision-making process, would it?

Footnote 30, p.76

On this point, it should be emphasized that while the individual mandate

was clearly “necessary and essential” to the Act as drafted, it is not “necessary

and essential” to health care reform in general. It is undisputed that there are

various other (Constitutional) ways to accomplish what Congress wanted to do.

Indeed, I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform

proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time

strongly opposed to the idea, stating that "if a mandate was the solution, we can

try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.” See

Interview on CNN’s American Morning, Feb. 5, 2008, transcript available at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/ltm.02.html. In fact, he pointed

to the similar individual mandate in Massachusetts --- which was imposed under the

state’s police power, a power the federal government does not have --- and opined

that the mandate there left some residents “worse off” than they had been before.

See Christopher Lee, Simple Question Defines Complex Health Debate, Washington

Post, Feb. 24, 2008, at A10 (quoting Senator Obama as saying: "In some cases,

there are people [in Massachusetts] who are paying fines and still can't afford

[health insurance], so now they're worse off than they were . . . They don't have

health insurance, and they're paying a fine . . .”).

[twa]

Sounds like death panels to me.

When you give up control what do you expect?

Somebody else determines your worth and they might not think you as valuable

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Ok, the guy really lost me when he compared the need for health care to the "need" for buying a home. Basically, the government argued that whether you buy health insurance in your life or not, you are guaranteed to need it at some point. As a living human being, you will one day require health care. He basically analogized this to buying a home. Which is a terrible analogy.

I'm still going, but his reasoning is breaking down around a lot of fancy citations and footnotes at this moment.

[redskinss]

Sounds like death panels to me.

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 04:17 PM ----------

You choose to buy a car. You don't have to buy it. You opt into that law.

But, I'm not really defending this opinion... yet. I think its a close call, but some of the reasoning strikes me as willfully blind. Others strikes me as valid though.

im not trying to de-rail this thread but couldnt the same argument be made for taxes that pay for fire stations and roads and schools, i mean you dont necesarily have to have any of these things but they force you into paying for them.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Ok, this is going awry:

The uninsured can only be said to have a substantial effect

on interstate commerce in the manner as described by the defendants: (i) if they

get sick or injured; (ii) if they are still uninsured at that specific point in time; (iii) if

they seek medical care for that sickness or injury; (iv) if they are unable to pay for

the medical care received; and (v) if they are unable or unwilling to make payment

arrangements directly with the health care provider, or with assistance of family,

friends, and charitable groups, and the costs are thereafter shifted to others. In my

view, this is the sort of piling “inference upon inference” rejected in Lopez, supra,

514 U.S. at 567, and subsequently described in Morrison as “unworkable if we are

to maintain the Constitution’s enumeration of powers.”[/Quote]

I mean, why would you buy insurance ever if you didn't have to and you could just buy it when you got sick? And the last part about people just agreeing to pay with the health care provider what they can? Is this chicken lady stuff?

[aREDSKIN]

I'm skimming the opinion online now... a few rambling thoughts:

2) It does appear that he's just ignoring a lot of case law he doesn't like, e.g. Gibbons v. Ogden

Can you help a non- lawyer out??

From Gibbons-

"While the commerce power does not stop at the external boundary of a State, it does not extend to commerce which is completely internal. State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating transportation and the internal commerce of a State fall within the state police power and are not within the power granted to Congress."

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/gibbons-ogden.html

[elkabong82]

I cannot understand why people want the government involved in this issue in the first place. )

Because of how badly the private system abuses people, and because government intervention is likely the only way to put a stop to that abuse.

I for one think they should just set it up as they do with schools. Have both a private and a gov't option. The gov't option should be real cheap but only cover basics, as that will force the private companies to conform to their customers demands else they lose busniess to the cheap version. The cheap version then gives millions of uninsured a viable option, plus people still have the option of going private if they can afford to rather than rely on basic level gov't insurance.

I think at this point the costs of health insurance, and the cost to tax payers for those who don't have insurance but are treated, means that we should mandate everyone have health coverage. Similar to auto insurance being mandated because the cost to the state for those who don't have insurance and have a costly accident or can't settle debts to someone they injured is very burdening.

There are positive aspcts to Obama's plan, specifically pre-existing conditions and the patient bill of rights, and we need to make sure these stay enacted. That's why I'm in favor of restructuring it, but opposed to a complete repeal.

Maybe mandating that each state provide a certain number of non-profit insurance companies/available coverage based on population figures would help and be a way to keep the government out of healthcare. I don't knwo if that would work though, just brainstorming.

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 04:34 PM ----------

When you give up control what do you expect?

Somebody else determines your worth and they might not think you as valuable

That was happening under the private insurance industry as well

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Ok, I skimmed enough. I am not a constitutional law scholar. But my thoughts are that the reasoning breaks down and 2) that the judge does a lot of selective precedent stating. He discusses precedent as if he gets to pick which cases he has to follow and which he doesn't. Which isn't how it works. He's supposed to analyze them all and try to reconcile all of them and then apply them. I sorta disagree with his application of law. Its too selective, and short on analysis.

Ultimately, and even though I'm not enamored with the judge, I think this is a VERY close call. I think the government is right, but I would not be shocked if the law was held unconstitutional by the SC. I think some of the ramifications for this are really big though: medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. I think the fed SHOULD tell the states to go to hell on the medicaid subsidies if they lose this though, as well as on all the other subsidies they send them. The opinion is loaded with "personal motivations." Which is not to suggest bias. I think its harder than most people think to put personal politics aside on such an issue, as it forms our own perspectives. Perhaps I'm doing it now. But, I think the analysis is too dismissive of both the arguments and the case law, and simple too pedestrian. And I do not think that this opinion will be upheld.

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 04:43 PM ----------

Can you help a non- lawyer out??

From Gibbons-

"While the commerce power does not stop at the external boundary of a State, it does not extend to commerce which is completely internal. State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating transportation and the internal commerce of a State fall within the state police power and are not within the power granted to Congress."

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/gibbons-ogden.html

Can't pluck one line out of any opinion and think you got it. You have to read the whole thing and parse out what the meaning is. While that line may sound "limited" it is actually pretty expansive if you put it into context of what the question presented was, etc. Also, Gibbons is often noted (and noted by this judge) as basically saying that the limits of the commerce clause should be decided by elections, not the courts.

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 04:45 PM ----------

im not trying to de-rail this thread but couldnt the same argument be made for taxes that pay for fire stations and roads and schools, i mean you dont necesarily have to have any of these things but they force you into paying for them.

Specific powers are granted to the states by their constitutions. What you refer to is generally called "the police power," and I wouldn't hesitate to guess that every state Constituiton has a police power clause. But, I doubt very much that health insurance falls into any state constitution's enumerated powers like what you just listed does.

[Mickalino]

my wife is an e.r. nurse and i think the real problem is abusing the system. they get people in there in the back of ambulances all the time with toothaches and other stupid crap, but the doozy of all doozies happened the other day when someone called 911 and when they arrived the paramedics were told they were called to help them shovel snow.

How is the new healthcare law supposed to alleviate situations like that ?

[redskinss]

How is the new healthcare law supposed to alleviate situations like that ?

i didnt mean to suggest that it would but i think if we could figure out a way to eliminate the abuse health care would at least be cheaper.

[nonniey]

..Which just brings me back to, this is just about "beating" Obama at this point.

Actually the best thing that can happen for Obama is his health care bill gets thrown out by the courts. Right now Obamacare is an albatross around his and his parties necks, if the courts kill it that anchor is gone.

[shk75]

So you think a big government program will suddenly make things better? Our current system while far from perfect, is much better than some unsustainable government program.

Medical care costs so much because we keep getting better at it. As we get better at it, the new things cost money. Money provides a means by which to allocate a scarce resource. It also provides the means to which that scarce resource is improved. I trust the open market with all it failings far more than I trust faceless government bureaucrats when it comes to my options with my own medical services.

The floor you want to create for those in greatest need shouldn't also be the ceiling for those with the greatest resources..

The reason Obamacare is accurately called "socialist" is because it seeks to make everyone equal by slightly bringing up a few and greatly bringing down the rest. I guess when nobody can get an MRI, then at least we will all be equal.

Do you support the VA system? You do realize that is one of the most "socialist" health systems in the world, yet we use it for our soldiers, our patriots. If it is good enough for them, would it not be good enough for you? The VA health system is consistently rated very well by its users much higher then the general public rates its health system, yet is is government run. I find it ironic that those opposed to universal care call it socialist but are often the first to use the unpatriotic label for other issues.

[twa]

Do you support the VA system? .

Enlist if ya want it...then you will be good enough for it

[SnyderShrugged]

Do you support the VA system? You do realize that is one of the most "socialist" health systems in the world, yet we use it for our soldiers, our patriots. If it is good enough for them, would it not be good enough for you? The VA health system is consistently rated very well by its users much higher then the general public rates its health system, yet is is government run. I find it ironic that those opposed to universal care call it socialist but are often the first to use the unpatriotic label for other issues.

links please

[RansomthePasserby]

i didnt mean to suggest that it would but i think if we could figure out a way to eliminate the abuse health care would at least be cheaper.

Fine them for abuse of the system.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Do you support the VA system? You do realize that is one of the most "socialist" health systems in the world, yet we use it for our soldiers, our patriots. If it is good enough for them, would it not be good enough for you? The VA health system is consistently rated very well by its users much higher then the general public rates its health system, yet is is government run. I find it ironic that those opposed to universal care call it socialist but are often the first to use the unpatriotic label for other issues.

Okay, I gotta step in here. As a memeber of the military I don't think you can cherry pick the "what's good for them is good enough for us" argument here. After all, I can go to jail for telling someone my boss is a douche nozzle. I can be charged twice for a DUI (military and civililian courts). Technically I cannot say I support a politician and tell someone my occupation at the same time. So if military/veteran health care is good enough for the general public, is the rest of our guidelines good enough for you also?

[shk75]

Okay, I gotta step in here. As a memeber of the military I don't think you can cherry pick the "what's good for them is good enough for us" argument here. After all, I can go to jail for telling someone my boss is a douche nozzle. I can be charged twice for a DUI (military and civililian courts). Technically I cannot say I support a politician and tell someone my occupation at the same time. So if military/veteran health care is good enough for the general public, is the rest of our guidelines good enough for you also?

That is not the point I am making. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those that state government run health care is socialist and unacceptable yet at the same time they seem to have no problem that one of the most socialist systems in the world is in charge of our soldiers.

[SnyderShrugged]

That is not the point I am making. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those that state government run health care is socialist and unacceptable yet at the same time they seem to have no problem that one of the most socialist systems in the world is in charge of our soldiers.

maybe because they arent comparable at all?

[shk75]

maybe because they arent comparable at all?

How are they not comparable?

[Larry]

Dumb question, re: Interstate commerce and health insurance.

IS health insurance interstate commerce? Or does, say, Blue Cross have a subordinate company in every state they do business in, which offers insurance specific to that state, to comply with all of the state's regulations?

[twa]

TheGreatBuzz ain't it funny how people always want things w/o earning them?

[shk75]

links please

In 2005, VA achieved a satisfaction score of 83 (out of 100) on the ACSI for inpatient care and 80 (out of 100) for outpatient care, compared with averages for private-sector providers of 73 for inpatient care and 75 for outpatient care. In 2004, the ratings were higher for both VA and the private sector. For VA, the scores for inpatient and outpatient care were 84 and 83, respectively, while the average scores for the private sector were 79 and 81

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8892/MainText.3.1.shtml

[SnyderShrugged]

How are they not comparable?

because one is a benefit gained by volunteering to serve in the nations military and the other is an involuntary medical insurance program.

The only relation is that they are both Government run (and I use that loosely because the bulk of VA medical benefits are administered by private insurers.