Individual Mandate is nonseverable from rest of Statute, and therefore entire Obamacare Law is unconstitutional.



BREAKING: Federal judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional

The full text of the decision from Federal Judge Roger Vinson is not available yet, but according to reporters who've seen the decision, he's ruled the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. The ruling favors of the 26 state attorney generals challenging the law. The judge ruled the individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance invalid and, according to the decision, "because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."

http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-...z1CeAIkz00

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47905955/Vinson-opinion

This will eventually wind up in the US Supreme Court, of course (doesn't everything?), but in the meantime, it's still good to see as many opinions like this as possible coming down the pike.

On deck: the 4th and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeal.

Too bad he didn't grant the injunction. If he would have, Obama would have moved for appeal today. As it is now it may be 2-3 years before SCOTUS hears it.

Where does it go from here and what is the likelihood that the Supreme Court upholds this ruling?

(01-31-2011 04:42 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Where does it go from here and what is the likelihood that the Supreme Court upholds this ruling?

The appeal of Judge Vinson's decision will be heard by a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal. No way to know yet exactly which three of those judges it will be. My guess is the 11th Cir. will issue hear argument in about 7-8 months, and issue an opinion about 2-3 months after that.

As for the USSC upholding this ruling, hard to say. It probably boils down to one man, Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan-appointee from Sacramento who *Usually* votes conservative, but is by no means a reliable vote the way Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are.

If our elected senators and representatives in Washington were truly interested in doing what's best for America, at this point they would get together and come up with a superceding act that would address these and other problems. Unfortunately, both sides are far more interested in scoring political points than they are in doing what's best for America.

If I were the one writing the bill, it would be pretty straightforward, "As quickly as transitional issues can be resolved, we hereby adopt the French health care plan with Swedish no-fault malpractice."

The really strange legal wrinkle to me is that I think the feds can obtain a favorable ruling if they simply admit this is a tax, instead of trying to proceed under the commerce clause. The tax powers are much broader than the commerce clause. But arguing that this is a tax means admitting that Obama--and Pelosi and Reid--lied. They lie all the time, what's new?

(01-31-2011 05:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If our elected senators and representatives in Washington were truly interested in doing what's best for America, at this point they would get together and come up with a superceding act that would address these and other problems. Unfortunately, both sides are far more interested in scoring political points than they are in doing what's best for America.

If I were the one writing the bill, it would be pretty straightforward, "As quickly as transitional issues can be resolved, we hereby adopt the French health care plan with Swedish no-fault malpractice."

The really strange legal wrinkle to me is that I think the feds can obtain a favorable ruling if they simply admit this is a tax, instead of trying to proceed under the commerce clause. The tax powers are much broader than the commerce clause. But arguing that this is a tax means admitting that Obama--and Pelosi and Reid--lied. They lie all the time, what's new?

They ALL lie or are just too damn stupid to understand their folly.

Owl...I respect your views...I admit my ignorance of the systems you refer to. It has spurred me to investigate. Thanks.

An interesting article that was brought to my attention through Facebook. I don't think this stands as a legal precedent unless it was challenged through the courts at the time.

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798 - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/0...e-in-1798/ Wrote:The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.

It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

(01-31-2011 06:10 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Owl...I respect your views...I admit my ignorance of the systems you refer to. It has spurred me to investigate. Thanks.

Thanks, Fo. Goes without saying that I value yours as well.

The French plan is not necessarily what a libertarian would dream of--but there is actually a lot less government involvement in health care than what we have here TODAY.

The French government basically functions like an employer does in our system. They negotiate plans with insurance carriers, deduct money from paychecks, and use the money to pay premiums. Couple of wrinkles--they provide the basic plan to everybody (so your payroll deduction is grossed up slightly to cover part of the cost for somebody who does not work) and this basic plan that everyone gets is very cheap (the government puts a strict lid on what they pay)--what we'd consider a really bad HMO here in the states. 99.9% of the people get this coverage (the only ones not covered being people who are transitioning into or out of the system). Like any other universal system, it does a pretty decent job of providing basic and preventive care--and a really crappy job of taking care of you if you actually get SICK, or INJURED.

It's what happens then that's the good part. You just walk across the street to a private doctor, just like here in the US, and he or she takes care of you. You pay for it out of pocket, or your private supplemental insurance pays for it. Guess what? 90% of Frenchmen have supplemental insurance. That's a higher percentage of "insured" than we have here, and we don't have "free" health care. Because the "free" system exists, the government sees relatively little need to get involved in regulating the "pay" system. It's pretty much a free market. Care in the "pay" system tends to be relatively cheap for two reasons--one, it's competitive, and two, you don't use it for tetanus shots, you get those for "free."

(01-31-2011 05:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If our elected senators and representatives in Washington were truly interested in doing what's best for America, at this point they would get together and come up with a superceding act that would address these and other problems. Unfortunately, both sides are far more interested in scoring political points than they are in doing what's best for America.

If I were the one writing the bill, it would be pretty straightforward, "As quickly as transitional issues can be resolved, we hereby adopt the French health care plan with Swedish no-fault malpractice."

The really strange legal wrinkle to me is that I think the feds can obtain a favorable ruling if they simply admit this is a tax, instead of trying to proceed under the commerce clause. The tax powers are much broader than the commerce clause. But arguing that this is a tax means admitting that Obama--and Pelosi and Reid--lied. They lie all the time, what's new?

I agree, especially with your first point. Washington is now in the business of point making. The dems are now on the defensive and want to make a point of keeping the bill as is, while the repubs are hellbent on throwing the baby out with the bath water. If they really cared about anything other than making a point, we would have cut the fat out of the current law and it would probably not have much trouble making it out of congress.

I can also agree your comments on the French healthcare system based off of my knowledge of the Brazilian system, which is for all intents and purposes the same as the French. It also reminds me of the rising numbers of private hospitals in Quebec.

(01-31-2011 06:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-31-2011 06:10 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Owl...I respect your views...I admit my ignorance of the systems you refer to. It has spurred me to investigate. Thanks.

Thanks, Fo. Goes without saying that I value yours as well.

The French plan is not necessarily what a libertarian would dream of--but there is actually a lot less government involvement in health care than what we have here TODAY.

The French government basically functions like an employer does in our system. They negotiate plans with insurance carriers, deduct money from paychecks, and use the money to pay premiums. Couple of wrinkles--they provide the basic plan to everybody (so your payroll deduction is grossed up slightly to cover part of the cost for somebody who does not work) and this basic plan that everyone gets is very cheap (the government puts a strict lid on what they pay)--what we'd consider a really bad HMO here in the states. 99.9% of the people get this coverage (the only ones not covered being people who are transitioning into or out of the system). Like any other universal system, it does a pretty decent job of providing basic and preventive care--and a really crappy job of taking care of you if you actually get SICK, or INJURED.

It's what happens then that's the good part. You just walk across the street to a private doctor, just like here in the US, and he or she takes care of you. You pay for it out of pocket, or your private supplemental insurance pays for it. Guess what? 90% of Frenchmen have supplemental insurance. That's a higher percentage of "insured" than we have here, and we don't have "free" health care. Because the "free" system exists, the government sees relatively little need to get involved in regulating the "pay" system. It's pretty much a free market. Care in the "pay" system tends to be relatively cheap for two reasons--one, it's competitive, and two, you don't use it for tetanus shots, you get those for "free."

Thanks...I have always wondered why we don't concentrate on basic care and prevention first and foremost. Doing this would seem to logically reduce the instance of serious conditions and allow for the insurance industry to be able to lower the cost of catastrophic policies. As distasteful as any governmental program is to me...I fully understand it is not going to go away. I would consider a system like this as at least "harm reduction".

Do you think that Washington is going to actually backtrack on this mess and reconsider this plan? I have my doubts.

(01-31-2011 06:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I can also agree your comments on the French healthcare system based off of my knowledge of the Brazilian system, which is for all intents and purposes the same as the French. It also reminds me of the rising numbers of private hospitals in Quebec.

err... Quebec? Did I miss something?

(01-31-2011 08:04 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(01-31-2011 06:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I can also agree your comments on the French healthcare system based off of my knowledge of the Brazilian system, which is for all intents and purposes the same as the French. It also reminds me of the rising numbers of private hospitals in Quebec.

err... Quebec? Did I miss something?

Sorry, I meant to say all of Canada.

The interesting thing: Every Orthopedic Surgeon (that takes care of me) and every Cardiologist / Internal Medicine Specialist (that takes care of my parents) is of the opinion that Obamacare is a total nightmare and that the status quo is better.

Lets start all over from scratch....

Obama wants to cover the alleged 30 million 'uninsured' plus the 15 million illegal aliens that come in under the 'back door'.

(01-31-2011 06:22 PM)I45owl Wrote:  An interesting article that was brought to my attention through Facebook. I don't think this stands as a legal precedent unless it was challenged through the courts at the time.

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798 - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/0...e-in-1798/ Wrote:The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.

It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

That is the first time I have heard of the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen Act of 1798. I suspect that most living Americans have never yet heard of it. Just on the face of it, it seems to apply *Not* to "all citizens and legal residents", as the Rick Ungar blog would have it, but rather to people employed in one precisely defined, and highly dangerous, profession.

ObamaCare advocates (obviously) will hungrily devour the text of this 213-year-old Act, looking for words and phrases that might conceivably justify the current law that Judge Vinson struck down today. I am sure they will let us know what they find.

On Edit: It turns out that the 1798 Relief Act was "discovered" in some sections of the blogosphere back in March, 10-11 months ago. The Act did not require anyone to actually enter into a contractual relationship with a third-party as ObamaCare does. There are plenty of other relevant distinctions, but that's the core difference, right off the bat.

(01-31-2011 08:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(01-31-2011 08:04 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(01-31-2011 06:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I can also agree your comments on the French healthcare system based off of my knowledge of the Brazilian system, which is for all intents and purposes the same as the French. It also reminds me of the rising numbers of private hospitals in Quebec.

err... Quebec? Did I miss something?

Sorry, I meant to say all of Canada.

Ok. I was thrown by your transition from the French system to Quebec. I was wondering if one or the other of us misunderstood 250 years of of history...

(01-31-2011 10:06 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-31-2011 06:22 PM)I45owl Wrote:  An interesting article that was brought to my attention through Facebook. I don't think this stands as a legal precedent unless it was challenged through the courts at the time.

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798 - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/0...e-in-1798/ Wrote:The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.

It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

That is the first time I have heard of the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen Act of 1798. I suspect that most living Americans have never yet heard of it. Just on the face of it, it seems to apply *Not* to "all citizens and legal residents", as the Rick Ungar blog would have it, but rather to people employed in one precisely defined, and highly dangerous, profession.

ObamaCare advocates (obviously) will hungrily devour the text of this 213-year-old Act, looking for words and phrases that might conceivably justify the current law that Judge Vinson struck down today. I am sure they will let us know what they find.

On Edit: It turns out that the 1798 Relief Act was "discovered" in some sections of the blogosphere back in March, 10-11 months ago. The Act did not require anyone to actually enter into a contractual relationship with a third-party as ObamaCare does. There are plenty of other relevant distinctions, but that's the core difference, right off the bat.

It's definitely the first time I had heard of it. My first reaction was that the founding fathers were not above blatantly violating the constitution when it suited them - the Louisiana Purchase being probably the glaring example. My second reaction is that if it wasn't challenged in court that it was not a genuine precedent for the courts.