Key Point of ObamaCare Unconstitutional - 11 Circuit

[ArthurWilborn]

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201111021.pdf

" ... the individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and cannot be sustained as an exercise of Congress's power under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The mandate is denominated as a penalty in the Act itself, and the legislative history and relevant case law confirm this reading of its function.

Further, the individual mandate exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives. We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers. "Uniqueness" is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision. The individual mandate also finds no refuge in the aggregation doctrine, for decisions to abstain from the purchase of a product or service, whatever their cumulative effect, lack a sufficient nexus to commerce."

The rest of the act was held up as constitutional - but how well can it really hold up without one of the key factors; "buy insurance OR ELSE"?

 

[Aught3]

Yeah it's interesting. A circuit split pretty much guarantees the case will eventually be heard by the SCOTUS. My prediction would be the SCOTUS will find the affordable heath care act constitutional but it will be a split court decision.

As to the question of how well the act can hold up without the individual mandate I would say not very well. Assuming everything else is kept the same, the major effect would be to massively increase the cost of health care insurance and decrease the number of people who are covered in case they need treatment. Given that the aims of the act were to increase the number of people insured and to reduce the cost of health care, it seems to me without the individual mandate the point of the act is moot.

 

[kenandkids]

Yeah it's interesting. A circuit split pretty much guarantees the case will eventually be heard by the SCOTUS. My prediction would be the SCOTUS will find the affordable heath care act constitutional but it will be a split court decision.

You're kidding... right? The same 5 judges that think corporations=people and money=speech are going to find this unconstitutional. They had their orders the moment that this law passed. The other four may or may not find for the act, but the conservative five will do what they are told and giggle all the way to the bank.

 

[televator]

money=speech

I prefer to frame it as "bribery = speech".

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I would have to agree with kenandkids' assessment; SCOTUS is unlikely to overturn this.

Even back when this was being proposed I thought this was the weakest part of the plan. Even if it were constitutional, it would be likely that the penalties would be low enough for people to safely ignore, thus wrecking the plan anyway.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

The rest of the act was held up as constitutional - but how well can it really hold up without one of the key factors; "buy insurance OR ELSE"?

Use government-built roads payed with taxes, OR ELSE you won't be able to make it to work on time!

I could play this game all day.

 

[IBSpify]

The rest of the act was held up as constitutional - but how well can it really hold up without one of the key factors; "buy insurance OR ELSE"?

Use government-built roads payed with taxes, OR ELSE you won't be able to make it to work on time!

I could play this game all day.

Comparing mandatory health insurance to mandatory auto insurance doesn't quite work, you can opt out of buying a car and thus not have to pay for auto insurance, you can not really opt out of living and thus not have to pay the health insurance (well you can but that sort of defeats the purpose).

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Comparing mandatory health insurance to mandatory auto insurance doesn't quite work, you can opt out of buying a car and thus not have to pay for auto insurance, you can not really opt out of living and thus not have to pay the health insurance (well you can but that sort of defeats the purpose).

Fine -
Call the Government-Funded Fire Department OR ELSE your house burns down and people die from the spreading fire.

The point is that we pay taxes and are forced into use of the services provided all the time. And, when we do use them, we're not bitching about having to call the Fire Department.
Mandatory Enrollment in Healthcare should be an entitlement to all Americans, and compliance to a government-run thing is just the same as any other tax. This one is just been made magically "special" somehow.

 

[IBSpify]

I actually favor a universal health care system, however, the Obama plan is not the way to go, all it does is give the health insurance companies captive buyers, allowing them to charge whatever the hell they want because you have to purchase health insurance from someone.

I dislike Obama's healthcare plan because i don't feel if goes far enough, in fact I think it gives too many cards to the health insurance providers.

This is why we wanted a public option, a government plan designed to keep rate down by ensuring that there was an affordable health insurance alternative to the private corporations.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

The point is that we pay taxes and are forced into use of the services provided all the time. And, when we do use them, we're not bitching about having to call the Fire Department.
Mandatory Enrollment in Healthcare should be an entitlement to all Americans, and compliance to a government-run thing is just the same as any other tax. This one is just been made magically "special" somehow.

As noted by the 11th circuit, it's not paying into a government system and getting a service from it - it is being forced to buy a private service or having the government fine you. Exercise a tiny bit of imagination, please, to see why this is a bad thing.

This is why we wanted a public option, a government plan designed to keep rate down by ensuring that there was an affordable health insurance alternative to the private corporations.

Well, that only works if the government lets its option run like a private business; paying comparable salaries, charging a premium that would cover the cost, not bailing it out of its foolish decisions; and what are the odds of that? The government option will face a higher cost of labor ( http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary ), they would be forced to run at a loss due to people complaining about premiums, and when the house of cards inevitably collapses (Fannie, Freddie, SS in ~30 years) the government will attach the money hose and prop it back up. In the face of that private businesses will be undercut and forced out of business