11th Circuit Court of Appeals finds Health Care Mandate Unconstitutional

[Miles Teg]

This is a pretty good example of why liberals need to be more proactive about appointing liberals to the bench when they get the White House. Frank Hull, one of the two judges that found this unconstitutional, was a Clinton appointee. This decision isn't out of character - she's a fairly by the book political conservative. Clinton appointed her because Orrin Hatch was threatening to veto any liberal or moderate he nominated to the bench, and Bill decided that he'd rather fill the seat with a bad nominee than let it sit empty. Now it's coming back to haunt Obama.

Of course, Obama has been horribly slow about appointing judges (there are a number of judicial seats that he hasn't even nominated people for, and many more hung up in Senate committees) He also hasn't appointed any high ranking judges under the age of 45, while Bush pushed through a raft of them. That's going to be a real problem for America down the road.

 

[MobBoss]

This is a pretty good example of why liberals need to be more proactive about appointing liberals to the bench when they get the White House.

Considering one is appointed to SCOTUS for...well....forever...and its getting a lib on the bench is dependent upon either retirement or illness to set in.....

How much more proactive are we talking here?

 

[Miles Teg]

How much more proactive are we talking here?

I'm not actually that worried about the Supreme Court, but it would be nice if Obama picked up the pace on getting judges nominated and confirmed. Judicially speaking, the 2012 election should effect vacancies from 2013-2016, not 2009-2016.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Not necessarily. You could have a dedicated tax to cover uncompensated ER care, like a tax on money orders and overseas wire transfers (ie getting undocumented workers to pay into the system by taxing remittances). States with larger numbers of undocumented workers could add other taxes like a sales tax on construction materials. Or you could put general fund revenues toward ER care. Other emergency services are tax funded in a lot of places (see police and in most places fire protection).

Fair points but umm... why should the taxpayer have to pay for some irresponsible person's healthcare? If you were quite able to pay for it, but went without it, you deserve to not get treated IMO. Reap what you sow, after all.

Making care affordable for the poor is one thing, subsidising laziness and greed is another.

Via mandates, we all pay for ourselves, fully deserving of emergency care since it's paid for out of our pocket, or through entirely-consensual insurance.

Another issue is that uncompensated care is only a small amount of overall health care spending, and ER care for uninsured people is only part of uncompensated care. Administrative overhead is a much bigger portion of healthcare costs. And that's because of all the red tape imposed by middlemen...at the end of the day we're better off eating the cost of unpaid ER bills than we are increasing the bureaucracy and red tape.

I'll leave it to other posters to give arguments as to why mandates need not necessarily increase bureaucracy.

 

[TopGearFanatic]

This is a pretty good example of why liberals need to be more proactive about appointing liberals to the bench when they get the White House.

The point of the judicial system is justice and proper law, not a method to push politics.

 

[Ahovking]

of cause the Obama healthcare was found Unconstitutional it forces poeple to pay for healthcare

 

[Miles Teg]

The point of the judicial system is justice and proper law, not a method to push politics.

If you really thought that, we'd be joining arms to keep "judicial conservative" out of the courtrooms.

 

[G-Max]

All Federal involvement in medicine is unconstitutional, and all attempts to claim otherwise are an egregious abuse of the Commerce Clause - or worse, the non-binding "general welfare" clause.

 

[Counterclaw]

Some have made the argument that the fact that the government can require Americans to buy auto insurance in order to obtain a license is proof that the government has the authority to mandate purchases.

This is a fair argument, but I an cautious for two reasons. First, because the fact that the government already does something does not make it constitutional. It may be that the auto insurance ban is unconstitutional as well.

Second, because one wonders whether there are limitations to this or not. Because the constitution does not seem to specifically give Congress the right to mandate purchases, ruling that such a mandate is constitutional is somewhat problematic, because, at least as far as I can see, there are no limitations on it. If the government
can force you to purchase health insurance, why could it not, for instance, force you to buy, say, firearms?

 

[Miles Teg]

*Cough*

Guys, brush up on your history. I don't recall the Founding Fathers ever talking about health insurance, but the second Militia Act, signed by President Washington, required every able bodied white citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 to purchase a good flintlock, musket, or rifle, plus ammunition and a knapsack. They were required to do this in six months.

If the federal government can make you buy a gun, I think it can require you to pay for health insurance.

 

[Counterclaw]

Touche!

However, I would note that the act did not mandate any sort of purchase. It only mandated arming oneself. Presumably, some individuals would have to make a purchase to meet the requirement. But I'm not sure it's fair to say that this is a purchasing mandate, any more than, say, requiring people to wear clothes in public is a mandate requiring the purchase of clothing.

Out of curiosity, when was this act overturned/ended? Or are we still required to buy muskets?

Also, again, I note that I am concerned about limitations. Are proponents of the healthcare act entirely unconcerned? Is it alright for the government to mandate the purchase of anything and everything or are there limits? If there are limits, where are they? If not, what would you say they ought to be?

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action:

I feel so sorry for Americans for the state of their health system.

That's nice to know, but it's not really relevant to the discussion.

[...]

It'd be better to expand, rather than just having 'yes/no' single word answers.

You'll say the supremes were wrong.

Is that really necessary to your argument?

of cause the Obama healthcare was found Unconstitutional it forces poeple to pay for healthcare

Please expand on any point you are attempting to make. This doesn't tell us much or add anything to the discussion.

 

[classical_hero]

*Cough*

Guys, brush up on your history. I don't recall the Founding Fathers ever talking about health insurance, but the second Militia Act, signed by President Washington, required every able bodied white citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 to purchase a good flintlock, musket, or rifle, plus ammunition and a knapsack. They were required to do this in six months.

If the federal government can make you buy a gun, I think it can require you to pay for health insurance.

You do realise that Defence is the one area where the government can do such a thing?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/stimulus-thinking?fsrc=rss

THIS (gated, sorry) was the most amazing thing I read today. It's a couple of weeks old, but bear with me here. It comes from a post by Judson Phillips, the Tennessee lawyer who heads Tea Party Nation, a far-right pressure group, objecting to prospective defence cuts proposed by the administration, which he refers to as "the Party of Treason". Rather than downsizing from 11 to 9 carrier task forces, Mr Phillips says, we should be building even more aircraft carriers:

If we decided to build a couple of new carriers, thousands of workers would be hired for the shipyards. Thousands of employees would be hired for the steel mills that would provide the steel for the hull and various sub contractors would hire thousands. Do you know what that means?

It means they would receive paychecks and go out and spend that money. That would help a recovery. That is a shovel ready project!

Increasing spending for the military does a couple of things. It not only not only stimulates the economy, it protects our nation. That is a better investment than say spending money on teaching Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly.

It does boggle the mind that such "forced" spending on healthcare can be good for the country.

 

[MobBoss]

*Cough*

Guys, brush up on your history. I don't recall the Founding Fathers ever talking about health insurance, but the second Militia Act, signed by President Washington, required every able bodied white citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 to purchase a good flintlock, musket, or rifle, plus ammunition and a knapsack. They were required to do this in six months.

Well, defense of the nation is a bit different than health insurance, wouldnt you say?

If the federal government can make you buy a gun, I think it can require you to pay for health insurance.

Wasnt it a given that every man owned a gun during that period regardless? Plus you forgot to mention that there were exemptions to this as well.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Fair points but umm... why should the taxpayer have to pay for some irresponsible person's healthcare? If you were quite able to pay for it, but went without it, you deserve to not get treated IMO. Reap what you sow, after all.

Making care affordable for the poor is one thing, subsidising laziness and greed is another.

Via mandates, we all pay for ourselves, fully deserving of emergency care since it's paid for out of our pocket, or through entirely-consensual insurance.

I'll leave it to other posters to give arguments as to why mandates need not necessarily increase bureaucracy.

What makes you believe insured people pay their own way? The insurance company (in the rare cases where it pays the claim in good faith) just raises everyone else's premiums to make up for it, so the cost is transferred to society whether the ER is publicly funded or paid by private insurance. The only way you pay yourself is if you're Bill Gates and pay out of pocket.

 

[bhsup]

Is the mandate unconstitutional because the constitution says so, or because it is convenient to say it is unconstitutional because the constitution predates health insurance?

The Constitution is silent on health care. Is that because it pre-dates it? I fail to see why that HAS to be the case. The authors of our Constitution were some of the most enlightened men of the age. Perhaps they all just instinctively knew it wasn't the job of the federal government in this federalist system we have set up where many things are the responsibility of the State,not Federal, governments.

Regardless, since it IS silent on that issue, health care is supposed to be in the realm of State governments if they want to do anything about it. Individually up to each State to decide what to, or not to, do.

If that bugs people, there is a process called amending the Constitution. It's been done 27 times so it isn't like it cannot be done if the issue is important enough.

*Cough*

Guys, brush up on your history. I don't recall the Founding Fathers ever talking about health insurance, but the second Militia Act, signed by President Washington, required every able bodied white citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 to purchase a good flintlock, musket, or rifle, plus ammunition and a knapsack. They were required to do this in six months.

If the federal government can make you buy a gun, I think it can require you to pay for health insurance.

Of course, there is that whole thing about the President being Commander-in-Chief as well as the clear Constitutional mandate of the federal government being responsible for the defense of the nation.

Apples and jellyfish. (apples and oranges, both being fruit, really are too similiar for that old phrase to work.)

Some have made the argument that the fact that the government can require Americans to buy auto insurance in order to obtain a license is proof that the government has the authority to mandate purchases.

This is a fair argument, but I an cautious for two reasons. First, because the fact that the government already does something does not make it constitutional. It may be that the auto insurance ban is unconstitutional as well.

In addition, auto insurance mandates are State, not Federal. It is Missouri, not Washington, D.C. that requires I carry auto insurance. And even that is waivable if I can provide a surety bond and other guarantees that I am financially able to deal with any accident.

 

[Ajidica]

The Constitution is silent on health care. Is that because it pre-dates it? I fail to see why that HAS to be the case. The authors of our Constitution were some of the most enlightened men of the age. Perhaps they all just instinctively knew it wasn't the job of the federal government in this federalist system we have set up where many things are the responsibility of the State,not Federal, governments.

The Constitution is also silent on the matter of posessing an Air Force. Airplanes, just like government health programs, were not within the realm of possibility when the constitution was written. Is that a reason why we shouldn't have an Air Force? Sure, we can quickly justify having an air force through the 'provide for the common defense' clause, but then isn't that on the same level of 'constitutionality' as using the Commerce Clause and the necesary and proper clause to provide health care?

Of course, there is that whole thing about the President being Commander-in-Chief as well as the clear Constitutional mandate of the federal government being responsible for the defense of the nation.

What the Militia act did was mandate that able bodied men purchase a certain type of musket along with shot and powder to standardize resupply. I don't see 'force people to buy a certain type of musket' on the list of presidential powers as commander in chief.

 

[Miles Teg]

Of course, there is that whole thing about the President being Commander-in-Chief as well as the clear Constitutional mandate of the federal government being responsible for the defense of the nation.

Well yeah. The federal government also has a clear Constitutional mandate to protect the general welfare of the American people and regulate interstate commerce.

 

[Junius]

Well yeah. The federal government also has a clear Constitutional mandate to protect the general welfare of the American people and regulate interstate commerce.

I think many americans would argue, despite Wickard, that not engaging in interstate commerce, isn't actually engaging in interstate commerce. Can't we agree also that the general welfare clause doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants?

 

[Miles Teg]

I think many americans would argue, despite Wickard, that not engaging in interstate commerce, isn't actually engaging in interstate commerce. Can't we agree also that the general welfare clause doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants?

The problem (if you see it as a problem) is that the Founding Fathers apparently didn't foresee that faster transportation, travel, and flow of information would bind the states so closely together that almost all commerce is interstate. The federal government's natural role is bigger than it was once upon a time, not because the feds grabbed unwarranted power, but because their constitutional powers expanded as state lines became less important.

Don't like it? Amend the constitution.