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.

[americanophile]

En banc? I suppose they could, and it’s a question of significant enough importance, but I rather doubt it. I think this more likely to go to the SCOTUS.

[americanophile]

It doesn’t, but in reality, courts often don’t invalidate sections of the law that have an independent basis.

[ChildOfThe60s]

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

I wondered the same thing.

Either they don't care about severability (they are judges, they write their own laws when they feel like it) or they are saying that if the law were re-written those parts would be found Constitutional.

Like Obama's private army??? WTF?

[null and void]

It was the first thread on topic. The mod locked it after I posted.

Always a judgement call to favor the first with no link beyond the bare headline, or a subsequent thread with more starting substance.

Either way a single thread survives.

[edge10]

‘So, I guess if you don’t work, you don’t have to ‘buy’ Social Security and Medicare.......You can just starve to death. ‘

Nope. If you don’t work you get foodstamps and medicade and ...

[Colonel_Flagg]

From the decision notes:

15 Although the majority seems to take comfort in only striking down the individual mandate, see Maj. Op. at 207 n.145, all of the parties have agreed that the individual mandate is so essential to the principal insurer reforms that, at least for severability purposes, the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions necessarily rise and fall with the individual mandate, Gov’t Reply Br. at 58 (“As plaintiffs note, the federal government acknowledged below [and continues to acknowledge] that the guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions due to take effect in 2014 . . . cannot be severed from the minimum coverage requirement. The requirement is integral to those sections that go into effect along with it in 2014 and provide that insurers must extend coverage and set premiums without regard to pre-existing medical conditions . . . .”); States Br. at 63 (stating that the individual mandate cannot be severed from “the core, interrelated health insurance reforms”); NFIB Br. at 60-61 (stating that the mandate and the principal insurer provisions “truly are the heart of the Act,” and highlighting the government’s concession that the mandate and the insurer reforms “must stand or fall together” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Perhaps severability is a secondary issue given this statement. Legal minds, opine.

[schu]

Isn’t it about time we have an adult conversation about this topic?

I am not in favor of an individual mandate or other mechanism to compel people to pay for health insurance. This idea is antithesis to individual freedom.

At the same time, as long as we insist the medical delivery system provide service to anyone in need, regardless of the ability or willingness to pay, then we have a conundrum.

A reasonable, empathetic society needs to decide, either pay for those who are unwilling/unable to pay for health care or refuse to provide service unless you can prove ability to pay, insurance or otherwise. You cannot have it both ways. Where we are now, with lots of people using but not paying (or under paying) into the system, leads to bankruptcy of the system. Our medical delivery system is close to insolvency now, the cost of insurance and medical care is near unaffordable for many.

Obamacare is not a good approach, difficult decisions must be made … and soon.

schu

[kabar]

Someone noted earlier on the thread that perhaps the court anticipated that this would go to SCOTUS for final resolution and therefore did not want to impede the ongoing preparations to implement the bill. If I were a state, I would refuse to implement anything until this is ruled on by SCOTUS.

[LostInBayport]

The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional system.

So this court read a severability clause into a bill where there was none. Here's hoping the Supreme Court disagrees on that "finding" and scuttles the whole shebang...assuming Justice Kennedy agrees with the thumbs down on the mandate. Pray for him and the four conservative justices...so much depends on them.

[WOBBLY BOB]

And the country has a terrible couple years.

[Buckeye McFrog]

The real fun is going to begin if SCOTUS agrees and kills the mandate. All of those big insurance companies who signed on to Obamacare, drooling over the prospect of millions of new customers at gunpoint, are gonna realize they are on the hook for the rest of this crap sandwich without the additional clientele.

They are gonna do a 180 and start working for repeal faster than you can say Unfunded Mandate.

[sam_paine]

We do, however, refuse to abdicate our constitutional duty when Congress has acted beyond its enumerated Commerce Clause power in mandating that Americans, from cradle to grave, purchase an insurance product from a private company. AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

Next Obama Executive Order? "Nationalize the Insurance Companies."

No longer a private company, no longer a problem!

These court challenges may end up like Pickett's charge but with Hancock using tactical nukes.

[P-Marlowe]

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.”

[ken5050]

Weird..it was a 2-1 decision..Two judges in the affirmative were Democrat appointees..the dissenting, a Republican appointment...world is indeed screw today..

[tpmintx]

However, you need to read from the DISSENTING vote.

The majority "has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy," Marcus wrote.

This judge believes that eventually, Congress will be able to mandate our bathroom habits, among other things.

[SaraJohnson]

The Demon-crats committed treason to the constitution of the United States of America.

It's time to say so - loud enough for their friends across the aisle to hear! Between the socialist efforts to rob us blind and control us into slavery and the Rino effort to rob of freedom in the name of security... They are all traitors coming at us with different justifications of their existence.

[americanophile]

I don't disagree with you, but I think we have to go with a free market approach, so there's no one correct answer. Let the service providers themselves decide what they will require in order to provide medical services to their individual consumers, allow medical insurance companies to compete across state lines to introduce competition into monopoly markets, adopt and enforce clear differentials between emergency care and the use of emergency centers for non-emergency health care, reform Medicare and Medicaid so that the artificially high pricing resulting from government subsidies will find market equilibrium, enact tort reform, fast track FDA approval, and provide R&D incentives for drug companies so that it's cheaper for companies to develop and bring product to market, allow individuals to save money in tax-free medical savings accounts, allow low-income people to pool their resources in medical co-ops, and encourage insurers, providers and charities to provide a quantum of low-cost or free care through tax incentives, etc. The problem comes, in my opinion, with attempting to create a uniform system, all of which is regulated by the government. We can deliver better care to more people, for cheaper, if we practice some free market tough love.

[stephenjohnbanker]

BINGO

[mvpel]

So now there’s a “presumption of severability?” Then why were all these legislators wasting so much time writing severability clauses for all these decades? *rolleyes*

Geez, what a corrupt set of judges this is.

[americanophile]

Oh, that’s clearly the counterargument. The Commerce Clause is the unruly beast of the Constitution, but while ‘generally accepted’ may sound good, it’s not the same as ‘Constitutionally enumerated.’ This mandate won’t stand.