Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law

Reuters ^ | Jeremy Pelofsky and James Vicini

[americanophile]

(Reuters) - An appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.

[awin]

Exactly! Well articulated!

[awin]

Exactly! Well articulated!

[MileHi]

How could they uphold the rest of the law when it does not severability?

Waiting for an answer...

[tobyhill]

Of course it would.

My guess is that Obama will now try to dump the individual mandate.

He can't go into the next election with the USSC ruling against him and that would be the case if he doesn't drop the IM.

[americanophile]

"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."

This is the heart of it. Were this allowed to stand, there would be no hope of curtailing federal power. The rest of the act can be dealth with by legislative repeal, but the as long as SCOTUS agrees with this line of thinking (and it's clearly unconstitional), we'll be fine.

[Semper911]

but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

Most people don't realize that beginning in 2012, next year, the premiums we pay for health insurance will no longer be considered pre-tax income. It is a tax hike on everyone.

If I am wrong about this, please prove me wrong. (Please!)

[kevao]

The court read the law and found out what is really in it.

Apparently not. Seems they didn't get beyond the individual mandate:

but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

Although I'm quite happy about them ruling the individual mandate unconstitutional, the rest of the law will utterly destroy our first-world health-care system. But perhaps the court was asked to rule only on the individual mandate itself.

[Semper911]

Oh, and I think we will be taxed on our employer’s contribution too!

Please tell me I’m wrong!

[chris_bdba]

I wondered that myself? If part is unconstitutional without the severability clause it all has to go?The only thing I can figure is they know they are not the last word on it?

[chuckee]

This is their reasoning from the opinion.

“The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the
Act’s myriad reforms. The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of
judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional
system. The Act’s other provisions remain legally operative after the mandate’s
excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the
presumption of severability has not been met.”

Losing the individual mandate eliminates the bill’s main source of funding for subsidizing 17 million new entrants to the health care insurance system. How will they pay for them now. No problem for deficit loving Congressional Democrats.

[Responsibility2nd]

They
Taki's Magazine ^ | August 11 2011 | Takuyan Seiyo

Posted on Friday, August 12, 2011 1:34:54 AM by Shalmaneser

 

 

 

Posted in the middle of the night last night. Deserves a look.

[americanophile]

I think the rest of the law will prove to be unworkable without the draconian mandate.

[xenob]

This made my day! While it doesn’t kill it entirely it chops off the head. Without funding the rest will fall...

[americanophile]

;) Sometimes it does feel like a race, no?

[tobyhill]

While I understand that the court is ok with the rest of the law, the Individual Mandate will not be able to be separated from the rest of the law.

This is the death nail in Obamacare because now the USSC doesn't even have to rule on the case, all they have to do is affirm this courts decision base strictly on the Individual Mandate.

[americanophile]

I don’t know whether that’s accurate or not. However, if it is, it’s terrible timing on Obama’s part.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Didn’t another court rule that the individual mandate component couldn’t be split from the bill as a whole?

[americanophile]

I agree, but SCOTUS may still kill the whole thing. In any event, the law without the mandate will prove wildly unpopular for the exact reasons you point out. It won’t survive.

[Semper911]

I don’t remember where I read it, but I just remember fuming about it. I will try to find a source. Someone here must know something about it.

[tobyhill]

That is the beauty of this ruling. It's court talk for, I take one leg out from your 3 legged stool.

The USSC can now just say,”we agree with the lower courts ruling on the Individual Mandate” and Obamacare is dead.