Posted on 08/12/2011 3:45:47 PM PDT by upchuck
There has been no shortage of court cases regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Before today, four courts, including the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, examined the health reform law and found it constitutional.
Today, a different court ruled against the Affordable Care Act’s individual responsibility provision. We strongly disagree with this decision and we are confident it will not stand.
The individual responsibility provision – the main part of the law at issue in these cases – is constitutional. Those who claim this provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce are incorrect. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are making an economic decision that affects all of us – when people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.
Judge Sutton, a Judge in the Sixth Circuit who upheld the law, declared that the individual responsibility provision is constitutional and wrote: “In choosing how to regulate [people who choose to self-insure], Congress also did not exceed its power.”
Judge Martin, another Judge who upheld the law in the Sixth Circuit, said the Affordable Care Act is constitutional under the Commerce Clause because “(1) virtually everyone requires health care services at some unpredictable point; and (2) individuals receive health care services regardless of ability to pay. Virtually everyone will need health care services at some point, including….those without health insurance.”
That’s why the Affordable Care Act requires everyone who can afford it to take responsibility for their own health care and carry some form of health insurance.
For the 83% of Americans who have coverage and who are already taking responsibility for their health care, the Affordable Care Act will help insurance premiums to decrease over time. And only those who are able to pay for health insurance will be responsible for obtaining it. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 1 percent of all Americans would pay a penalty for not having health insurance in 2016.
Without the individual responsibility provision, people could wait until they’re sick or injured to apply for coverage since insurance companies could no longer say no or charge more. That would lead to double digit premiums increases – up to 20% – for everyone in the individual insurance market.
By bringing everyone into the health insurance system, we can not only lower costs for everyone but also finally ban discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions.
Today’s ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act that we will see in the weeks and months ahead. In the end, we are confident the Act will ultimately be upheld as constitutional.
Stephanie Cutter is Assistant to the President and Deputy Senior Advisor
Wasn't there another court, I think in Florida, who ruled against?
This will get to the high court and they should deliver a verdict next year. If I were a conservative on the court I would get extra protection and not eat anything before someone else eats it first.
Defeating anti-Constitutional Marxism 101.
The Affordable Care Act MANDATES INDIVIDUAL commerce - a far cry from REGULATING INTERSTATE commerce.
The courts have been so liberal re. this interstate commerce business as to nullify the idea of limited government.
If growing a vegetable crop for personal consumption affects interstate commerce, then BREATHING equally affects the productivity of wind turbines, & is therefore subject to regulation. That is government with NO LIMITS.
“– when people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.”
OK, whadabout?:
– when people without auto insurance get in automobile accidents they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.
– when people without flood insurance house gets flooded and they cannot pay for it, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.
– when people without laiblity insurance are liable in a case, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.
– when people have a crack problem they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.
– when people lose a job and need unemployment, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.
– when people are retired and go on medicare, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.
– when people go on Medicaid disability, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.
– when people go on food stamps, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.
– when people send their children to public school, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.
C’mon. The argument of mandating a purchase if “those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab” has no limit whatsoever.
Since when does BHO give a rip about the taxpayer?
A: when it serves his Marxist agenda.
The Supreme Court cannot let us down.
Kegan has to recuse.
“Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are making an economic decision that affects all of us”
So according to this idiot if someone is sitting around minding there own business and does not purchase health insurance it is the same as activily engaging in commerce.
So just by the mere act of being alive is engaging in commerce.
Wonderful, truthful cartoon.
Thanks!
Let us hope so. There's an army of libs busting their asses (probably 24/7) to get this monstrosity implemented. My fear is that by the time SCOTUS shoots it down the refrain will be, "Sorry, too late. So much has been implemented it can't be stopped now."
This propaganda artist for the administration writes like an idiot.
I guess it’s only for their crowd to read. The entire thing is conclusory at best. Sheesh! How much is this clown being paid to say this stuff?
They may or may not obtain health care. They may or my not be able to pay for it.
The perverse thing is, many of these people that apparently can't pay, could pay if government wasn't so deeply involved in distorting and inflating the market for health care.
No contradiction there.
Obviously, too much :)
Funny
Well, that contradicts the democrat's claim that we needed ObamaCare because people were going without medical treatment because they couldn't pay.
Now they are arguing that we need ObamaCare because everybody gets medical care whether they can pay or not.
What a sad excuse for logic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.