Wednesday, June 29, 2011

"Obamacare" Found Constitutional by Appellate Court!

Today saw a major judicial decision on the issue of the individual mandate.

From Howard Portnoy at the Libertarian Examiner:
A federal appeals court in Cincinnati became the first to render a verdict on President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, ruling that Congress can require Americans to buy insurance coverage.

The decision, which was 2 to 1, is being hailed as by the White House and Justice Department as a major victory. Opponents of the law maintain that they will continue to fight the good fight all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the final determination will almost inevitably be made.
A conservative group, the Thomas More Law Center, argued before the panel of judges that the law was unconstitutional and that Congress overstepped its powers. The plaintiffs in the case also claimed that forcing private citizens to buy insurance or face penalties was not only in violation of the Commerce Clause but of ethical law in that it would subject them to financial hardship.
The majority countered that the measure was a necessary step in the overall plan to reduce health care costs, adding that the mandate will help keep the cost of changes from being shifted to households and providers. Judge Boyce F. Martin, appointed by President Jimmy Carter, wrote for the majority:
Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act’s larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance.
The minority opinion was voiced by a Ronald Reagan appointee who is a U.S. district judge in Columbus. He wrote:
If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress’ Commerce Clause authority would be. What aspect of human activity would escape federal power?
The third jurist on the panel was Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a Bush appointee. While casting his vote with Judge Martin, Sutton cautiously raising questions about the law’s impact on individual freedoms and the right of Americans “to be left alone” by the government. In the end, however, he opined that requiring citizens to buy health insurance isn’t the same as ordering them to buy other goods or services:

The novelty of the individual mandate may indeed suggest it is a bridge too far, but it also may offer one more example of a policy necessity giving birth to an inventive [and constitutional] congressional solution.
The ruling today was on one of nearly three dozen legal challenges that have been filed over the health care overhaul.
While the Obama-led Health Care Reform has faced other legal challenges, this appears to be the first to clear the Appellate Court.   For a list of other court cases working their way through the judicial system, you can find them at this web site which also includes information on who appointed the judges in those cases. A majority of the suits appear to be in some stage of dismissal.  Reuters also has a web site which covers each of the law suits individually which can be read here.

1 comment:

  1. IMO, a 2:1 verdict is not a resounding endorsement. Obviously, it will be appealed and eventually, the Supreme Court will rule. Considering the make-up of the Court and the current efforts to encourage Justice Kagen to recuse herself from the case, makes the outcome uncertain. The fact that at least one Appellate Court Judge agreed with the plaintiffs is not good.

    While I firmly support government involvement in healthcare, I have never thought that the mandate concept was the right manner … I felt that way when the Republicans were proposing it … and I blogged at that time that the better way was a National Sales Tax … that way everybody pays and everybody benefits (since most states already collect sales tax, the system is pretty much in place … and the rate would only be about 7% which is less than most people pay for a private plan).

    The Republicans have stopped talking about “Replacing Healthcare” and the Dems have not offered what they will do if the Supreme Court rules against the Act …
    Did you see the story about the decline in employer-sponsored plans …
    About 71 percent of people received health benefits from a company-offered plan during 2008 and 2009, the most recent data available. In 1999 and 2000, 81 percent of Minnesotans were covered.
    Those still covered by their employers are also paying significantly more, part of a nationwide trend as companies shift the burden of paying for health care to workers amid skyrocketing health care costs. The survey showed individuals pay 85 percent more for health care than they did a decade ago, or about $4,528 for those in the private sector. Family premiums rose 75 percent, paying a national average of $11,208.

    That was BEFORE healthcare reform … and people like John Kline is already “mis-informing” people about what will happen in the future …
    We definitely need something … but I am concerned that the Supreme Court could alter everything … and Obama will be blamed … and his fault may be in the fact that he wavered from his initial opposition for the Individual Mandate.

    ReplyDelete