Federal Judge In D.C. Upholds Health Care Reform

[DRSmith]

A federal judge on Tuesday upheld the health care reform law signed last year by President Barack Obama and found that Congress had the clear authority to regulate health insurance under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler's 64-page ruling (below) takes aim at the argument espoused by many conservatives which holds that the passive act of not purchasing health insurance does not constitute an activity that can be regulated under the Commerce Clause.

"It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not 'acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice," Kessler writes. "Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/federal-judge-in-dc-upholds-health-care-reform-says-some-arguments-ignore-reality.php?ref=dcblt

[Larry]

In before attacks on the judge, and on the District.

[TimmySmith]

In before the passive aggressive statement that adds nothing to the thread.....oops too late.

I wonder if all of the Health Care Proponents realize exactly what these rulings mean. Basically under this interpretation of the Commerce Clause. You cannot opt out of ANY government program due to economic reason. And since this government program is essentially the promotion of private healthcare, you cannot opt out of any private enterprise due to economic reasons. In other words, the government can legally require you to buy anything from anyone, regardless of cost. If the Republicans were behind this, there would be a chorus of accusations about their being in bed with big business.

[Larry]

deleted post.

[twa]

Yep Timmysmith ,this case is all about the limits of govt power...or if there is one.

Gonna be interesting

added

The judge does join the rest in rejecting the mandate as a tax,finding it clearly a penalty

http://volokh.com/2011/02/23/the-dc-district-court-decision-upholding-the-constitutionality-of-the-individual-mandate/

[Madison Redskin]

In before the passive aggressive statement that adds nothing to the thread.....oops too late.

I wonder if all of the Health Care Proponents realize exactly what these rulings mean. Basically under this interpretation of the Commerce Clause. You cannot opt out of ANY government program due to economic reason. And since this government program is essentially the promotion of private healthcare, you cannot opt out of any private enterprise due to economic reasons. In other words, the government can legally require you to buy anything from anyone, regardless of cost. If the Republicans were behind this, there would be a chorus of accusations about their being in bed with big business.

I do not think you understand how to interpret court decisions, including the one discussed in the OP. But, if you want to pretend otherwise, I'm not going to stop you.

[twa]

Interesting that the govt can require free healthcare and then use that liability as a basis for requiring it.

[TimmySmith]

I do not think you understand how to interpret court decisions, including the one discussed in the OP. But, if you want to pretend otherwise, I'm not going to stop you.

Another yawner from MR. Read the ruling and get back to me.

[Madison Redskin]

Another yawner from MR. Read the ruling and get back to me.

Let me just get this straight - you think that the decision stands for the proposition that "the government can legally require you to buy anything from anyone, regardless of cost." Right? Please refer me to the language in the decision that stands for that sweeping proposition. I eagerly await your response as I have read the decision and didn't find anything that supports your ridiculous claim.

[mjah]

In other words, the government can legally require you to buy anything from anyone, regardless of cost.

Those are definitely other words!

That may be how you read it. That's not how I read it.

[twa]

Those are definitely other words!

That may be how you read it. That's not how I read it.

What can they NOT require you to buy under that reading?...just where are the limits?

[mjah]

What can they NOT require you to buy under that reading?...just where are the limits?

Are you really suggesting that this ruling could enable the government to force you to purchase, say, at least 10,000 gumballs per year?

The phrase, "given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice" is important. It's the only reason why the individual mandate was even considered in the first place. Your decision (or make-believe "non-decision") affects everyone else.

It's not open season on forcing you to buy gumballs.

[Madison Redskin]

What can they NOT require you to buy under that reading?...just where are the limits?

According to the Court, “[t]he only issues concerning the ACA presently before this Court are those raised by the parties: namely, whether § 1501 passes muster under the Constitution of the United States, and whether it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. (“RFRA”).”

In other words, the sole issue before the Court was whether the U.S. government could lawfully compel citizens to either purchase a minimum amount of health insurance or pay a penalty. No reasonable person with any legal training would argue that the Court was asked to decide, or unilaterally decided, the constitutionality of government mandates to buy anything from anyone under any circumstances.

Even if, at some point in the future, another court is asked to determine the constitutionality of legislation requiring people to purchase certain other products or services from other persons or companies, that court will not be bound by the District Court’s decision. Why? Because (1) courts are only required to follow decisions that have addressed the question presented and (2) as I noted, the District Court’s decision was limited to determining the constitutionality of legislation requiring people to purchase minimum amounts of insurance or pay a penalty.

But, I hate to get in the way of a good ole' fashioned freakout that has nothing to do with reality....

[Duckus]

According to the Court, “[t]he only issues concerning the ACA presently before this Court are those raised by the parties: namely, whether § 1501 passes muster under the Constitution of the United States, and whether it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. (“RFRA”).”

In other words, the sole issue before the Court was whether the U.S. government could lawfully compel citizens to either purchase a minimum amount of health insurance or pay a penalty. No reasonable person with any legal training would argue that the Court was asked to decide, or unilaterally decided, the constitutionality of government mandates to buy anything from anyone under any circumstances.

Even if, at some point in the future, another court is asked to determine the constitutionality of legislation requiring people to purchase certain other products or services from other persons or companies, that court will not be bound by the District Court’s decision. Why? Because (1) courts are only required to follow decisions that have addressed the question presented and (2) as I noted, the District Court’s decision was limited to determining the constitutionality of legislation requiring people to purchase minimum amounts of insurance or pay a penalty.

But, I hate to get in the way of a good ole' fashioned freakout that has nothing to do with reality....

For someone who has no legal experience, that was really concise and helpful. Thanks.

[Toe Jam]

Obamacare is not the answer.

Getting off your arse and finding a decent job is.

Personal responsibility=the way to go.

EDIT (since it wasn't obvious): :pfft:

[Larry]

Are you really suggesting that this ruling could enable the government to force you to purchase, say, at least 10,000 gumballs per year?

The phrase, "given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice" is important. It's the only reason why the individual mandate was even considered in the first place. Your decision (or make-believe "non-decision") affects everyone else.

It's not open season on forcing you to buy gumballs.

But, if this ruling stands, it will represent an unprecedented growth of government power.

Why, I could see the day, somewhere down the road, where the government will have the power to force people to buy smoke detectors.

To buy electrical circuit breaker panels.

To spend their own money to put fences around swimming pools and gravel pits, to keep kids from wandering in and hurting themselves.

----------

Obamacare is not the answer.

Getting off your arse and finding a decent job is.

Personal responsibility=the way to go.

Right. All them people who don't have insurance, it's their own fault for being so lazy.

[Madison Redskin]

Obamacare is not the answer.

Getting off your arse and finding a decent job is.

Personal responsibility=the way to go.

The provision of Obamacare that is in dispute is the provision that requires individuals to purchase health insurance. Why should the government require people to purchase health insurance? Because when people get really sick, they go to see a doctor. What happens if someone gets really sick, goes to see a doctor, and finds out he/she needs to undergo a pricey procedure, but doesn't have insurance or the cash to pay for that procedure? People who do have the cash or insurance end up footing the bill.

So, why should the government compel people to buy insurance? Because if they don't, there is a good chance that, at some point, they will end up leaving other people to pay their bills. In other words, Obamacare requires people to be personally accountable for the risk that they might get sick and require treatment.

[Toe Jam]

But, if this ruling stands, it will represent an unprecedented growth of government power.

Right. All them people who don't have insurance, it's their own fault for being so lazy.

I'm pretty sure you should know I was being facetious.

[Wrong Direction]

More context for the supreme court.

I have a feeling that we'll all be more interested in the substance of the majority opinion on this case than any case before it; even more than Roe v. Wade. There will be more layman conversations about the commerce clause than anyone could have ever imagined.

Larry, with respect to your examples of government mandates, you could end each of those examples with 1) if you own a house, 2) if you own a house or 3) if you purchase a pool). In other words, if I don't want to have a smoke detector, I just don't have to buy a house, but I accept that responsibility as a condition for purchasing that house.

For healthcare, you must purchase 1) if you're alive. That's the crux of the legal argument. Can you mandate something basically on the condition that someone is alive?

[TimmySmith]

But, if this ruling stands, it will represent an unprecedented growth of government power.

Why, I could see the day, somewhere down the road, where the government will have the power to force people to buy smoke detectors.

To buy electrical circuit breaker panels.

To spend their own money to put fences around swimming pools and gravel pits, to keep kids from wandering in and hurting themselves.

Yep. With certain choices, we will never buy any of the above. But we will buy health insurance. No choice in that, no matter what the cost.

[Wrong Direction]

The provision of Obamacare that is in dispute is the provision that requires individuals to purchase health insurance. Why should the government require people to purchase health insurance? Because when people get really sick, they go to see a doctor. What happens if someone gets really sick, goes to see a doctor, and finds out he/she needs to undergo a pricey procedure, but doesn't have insurance or the cash to pay for that procedure? People who do have the cash or insurance end up footing the bill.

So, why should the government compel people to buy insurance? Because if they don't, there is a good chance that, at some point, they will end up leaving other people to pay their bills. In other words, Obamacare requires people to be personally accountable for the risk that they might get sick and require treatment.

I think people understand the case for it. They don't understand whether the federal government is able to compel people to make the purchase. They're different issues.

For that person receiving an expensive procedure, other options would include 1) securing a personal loan, 2) accepting charity from the doctor or business performing the procedure (pro bono) 3) accepting other private charity or 4) being responsible for their own bill and filing for bankruptcy if they fail to plan for their own future. The government could also create a special fund for high cost procedures, means tested for various income levels. Of course, that would crowd out 1-4 above. Or the government could create a special fund to reimburse providers for uncompensated care, limited to certain expenses and emergent procedures.

In other words, there are other options than compelling someone to purchase a product simply because they're alive and the government says they need it.

I really hope the wise federal government never decides I need 10,000 gumballs because, under this interpretation, they could compel me to purchase it.

[Larry]

Larry, with respect to your examples of government mandates, you could end each of those examples with 1) if you own a house, 2) if you own a house or 3) if you purchase a pool). In other words, if I don't want to have a smoke detector, I just don't have to buy a house, but I accept that responsibility as a condition for purchasing that house.

For healthcare, you must purchase 1) if you're alive. That's the crux of the legal argument. Can you mandate something basically on the condition that someone is alive?

Ah, the old "the federal government can pass laws, but only if those laws don't apply to everybody" line of "reasoning".

I'm sure there are lots of people in federal prison on things like drug possession charges who will be thrilled to know that any federal law that applies to everybody is unconstitutional.

(FWIW, I think I read that Obamacare has an exception for the Amish. Does that make the law not apply to everybody, therefore it's Constitutional, in your opinion?)

[Duncan]

Are you really suggesting that this ruling could enable the government to force you to purchase, say, at least 10,000 gumballs per year?

The phrase, "given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice" is important. It's the only reason why the individual mandate was even considered in the first place. Your decision (or make-believe "non-decision") affects everyone else.

It's not open season on forcing you to buy gumballs.

I'll play along. Eating a balanced diet clearly has health related consequences. In fact, you could argue eating junk food, too much sugar, etc. is even more important to health-related issues than having health insurance. How about exercise?

Should the federal government be able to force you to buy fresh produce and gym memberships?

There are so many areas that can be classified as having "economic and health-related consequences" that the ruling does give the government way too much power IMO.

Using gumballs as an example is just silly.

[Larry]

I'll play along. Eating a balanced diet clearly has health related consequences. In fact, you could argue eating junk food, too much sugar, etc. is even more important to health-related issues than having health insurance. How about exercise?

Should the federal government be able to force you to buy fresh produce and gym memberships?

I do remember once reading a sci-fi story, where the main character owned a small country store, who got busted by the feds for selling black market items like eggs, whole milk, and bacon, which the feds had banned because they were bad for you, and after all, things that are bad for you cost all taxpayers money.

OTOH, we already have those laws. They're called drug possession laws. It's not like, if Obamacare passes, then the government's going to sieze this brand new power that they didn't have before, to tell us what's good for us. They've had that power longer then I've been alive.

[TimmySmith]

Using gumballs as an example is just silly.

It's not completely silly, because in essence this ruling states that commerce clause can be used to compel you to buy anything, when the option of not buying it could disrupt the economic flow of the US.