• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Federal Judge: Obamacare is Void

    Today’s decision by Judge Vinson is another stinging defeat for the administration in its defense of Obamacare. Defenders of the health care bill had tried to paint any legal challenge as “frivolous.”  When then-Speaker Pelosi was asked by a reporter “where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate,” Pelosi responded incredulously, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”  To wit, Judge Vinson offered a serious response, striking down not only the mandate, but the whole of the health care bill.

    In a 78-page opinion, Judge Vinson dissects the two major claims at issue in this case: whether Obamacare violates the spending clause, particularly the coercion principles announced in South Dakota v. Dole, and whether the mandate to purchase health insurance violates the Commerce Clause.

    On the first claim, Judge Vinson sided with the administration.  In the second, he offered a detailed analysis of the law which reads like a treatise.  Rather than picking and choosing his cases, as many proponents of Obamacare like to do, he went through all of the relevant case law at length before concluding that the mandate violated the Commerce Clause.  He correctly observed that “it would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause.”  He then concluded that “the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit. The individual mandate cannot be severed.”  As such, he appropriately struck down the entire law.  Today’s decision should be a major source of concern for the Obama administration for at least five reasons.

    First, the parties involved. This case involves a majority of the states (26), and the National Federation of Independent Business.  If not completely unprecedented, the very fact that more than half the states marched into federal court on behalf of themselves and their citizens to challenge an unconstitutional federal program falls into the category of “beyond any recent memory.”  The sheer magnitude of the parties involved guarantees that the courts on appeal will pay particular attention to this case.

    Second, the case creates a very bad trend for the administration.  Those courts which have taken the time to more fully develop the record in the case, and to have more briefing and hearings (Virginia and Florida), have ruled Obamacare unconstitutional.  This is important because, contrary to the White House spin, litigation is not a scoreboard.  It is not enough to say that you have won some and lost some.  Some district court wins “count” more, because they are more indicative of what is likely to come next.  Here, the cases the administration has lost have been better developed, have significant and sophisticated parties, and are in a better position for appeal than the more cursory cases that they have won at more preliminary stages.

    Third, the case strikes down the whole of Obamacare based on the unconstitutionality of the mandate.  The administration has tried to have it both ways on this one, with the President and key proponents arguing how essential the mandate is, while the Justice Department arguing at times that it was absolutely essential, and at times that it was severable.  If the DOJ really wanted to keep the bill severable, perhaps they should not have argued in court that removing the mandate while maintaining the remaining requirements of the bill would “inexorably drive [the health insurance] market into extinction.”  Those who would falsely accuse the Judge of overstepping his bounds must recognize both the standards for severability, which he properly applied, and the damning concession made on this point by the Justice Department.

    The fourth problem for the Obama DOJ: Judge Vinson’s decision is thorough, well-reasoned, and likely will be very persuasive to appellate judges, and eventually Justices, who review the case.  He was judicious, ruling against the states on the spending clause claim and for them on the Commerce Clause.  The most important document in any appeal is the decision below, and Judge Vinson’s will give the court of appeals much to consider.  Put simply, Vinson has just made the Obama DOJ’s job much more difficult.

    The fifth problem, the Judge granted declaratory relief to the parties, which includes 26 states.  Because the entire act was struck down, the future requirements to expand Medicaid programs will be suspended, at least as to these 26 states, and these states will be relieved of their obligation to make plans for such expansion in the immediate future.  At a time when many states face insolvency, the removal of this burden is welcome news.  The Obama administration, rather than fight the relief for these 26 states, should extend it to all 50 until the case is finally resolved.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    59 Responses to Federal Judge: Obamacare is Void

    1. George Colgrove, VA says:

      Better than VA! YES!!!

      A government that has to defend itself against the people is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That government has perished from the earth. Nevertheless, we do have emerging a renewal to that form of government from the hard work of that people. Let us hope the momentum continues.

      Thanks Judge Vinson!!!

    2. Michael Heilman Bob says:

      Amen, Praise the Lord. One more step down. Now let's find out what the Supreme court says.

    3. Bobbie says:

      Thank you for standing true to America's principles and by the people, Judge Vinson.

    4. Pingback: Tweets that mention Federal Judge: Obamacare is Void | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    5. Pingback: Michelle Malkin » Unconstitutional: Florida judge strikes down Obamacare mandate; full decision embedded

    6. Pingback: Unconstitutional: Florida judge strikes down Obamacare mandate; full decision embedded; all 47 GOP Senators sign on to DeMint repeal bill; White House reax: ruling is “odd,” “overreaching” | Daringminds.com

    7. Pingback: Unconstitutional: Florida judge strikes down Obamacare mandate; full decision embedded; all 47 GOP Senators sign on to DeMint repeal bill; White House reax: ruling is “odd,” “overreaching” “activism;” DOJ readies appeal | Daringminds.com

    8. John Paso Robles,Ca. says:

      This is good news.Lets hope this oppressive measure dies a quick death.

    9. Pingback: AntiObamaBlog.com » Federal Judge: Obamacare is Void

    10. Jill, California says:

      Judge Vinson did a great job!

      His court opinion is lengthy and at times hard to read. But it is well-reasoned and fair. Particularly interesting are his thoughts about how far Congress might extend the reach of the commerce clause if we start down this slippery slope with the individual mandate.

      Judge Vinson gets the notion of "right idea, wrong execution." Our healthcare system has many problems that do need to be fixed. But this is not the way. Judge Vinson admits his reluctance to strike down the well-intentioned parts of the law. But he knows that Congress overstepped its authority, and he knows it's necessary to stop this monstrosity.

    11. John, SC says:

      As discussed on Hannity last night with Ann Coulter, if this law were found constitutional it would set the precedent necessary for the government to require Americans to make any purchase it wanted and punish those who did not.

      The government could require all Americans purchase multi-vitamins or, on the other end of the spectrum, the government could mandate that all Americans purchase a gun.

      Think those examples sound preposterous?

      From Thomas Sowell's column "Spilled Milk" released today:

      http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2011/
      ………………………………..

      "We all understand why the Environmental Protection Agency was given the power to issue regulations to guard against oil spills, such as that of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska or the more recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But not everyone understands that any power given to any bureaucracy for any purpose can be stretched far beyond that purpose.

      In a classic example of this process, the EPA has decided that, since milk contains oil, it has the authority to force farmers to comply with new regulations to file "emergency management" plans to show how they will cope with spilled milk, how farmers will train "first responders" and build "containment facilities" if there is a flood of spilled milk.

      -snip-

      Does anyone seriously believe that any farmer is going to spill enough milk to compare with the Exxon Valdez oil spill or the BP oil spill?

      Do you envision people fleeing their homes, as a flood of milk comes pouring down the mountainside, threatening to wipe out the village below?

      It doesn't matter. Once the words are in the law, it makes no difference what the realities are. The bureaucracy has every incentive to stretch the meaning of those words, in order to expand its empire."

      …………………..

      When then-Speaker Pelosi was asked by a reporter “where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate,” Pelosi responded incredulously, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

      Yes, Ms. Pelosi, we were serious. As a heart attack.

    12. AFG, NV says:

      The core argument is that the mandate regulates inactivity as opposed to activity. But suppose the following hypothetical: Congress imposes an additional flat income tax equivalent to the size of the penalty on everyone in the country, and then exempts people from that tax (or gives them a tax credit) if they have health insurance meeting the minimum standards set by ACA. Would that version be unconstitutional in Conservatives’ eyes?

      Surely not. In that case, Congress is not punishing inactivity (not buying insurance), but is subsidizing activity (buying insurance). It also seems identical to every other tax exemption we already have, like for people that own a home. I tend to think, but am not sure, that opponents would argue that this is not a proper hypothetical, because there is a difference between regulatory penalties and taxes.

      But then my question is, what is the point? To any rational economic agent, the individual mandate and my hypothetical have exactly identical effects on their incentives. They are no more “free” than they were except for the rhetorical victory that the government now can’t require them to do something; it can just make it so they are effectively forced to by economic circumstances.

      -AFG
      http://www.afoolsgame.com/?p=63

    13. Pingback: ObamaCare Deemed Unconstitutional | Conservative Hideout 2.0

    14. Gabriel says:

      which specific sections of HR 3200 are unconstitutional? It seems nobody here, including the judge can cite specifics. anybody? It's funny that anybody is taking either of these rulings seriously. These are two well known conservative judges. Good luck getting this "repeal" throught the supreme court. Lets do nothing and see if we can get to 100 million uninsured by 2013, that will be fun to watch.

    15. Barbara Brown says:

      Thank you Judge Vinson. Now the States need to get to the Supreme Court as soon as possible., or they will be held up in Appeals Court. This Obamacare is a tradegy .to the United Staates of America., Again Thank you Judge Vinson

    16. West Texan says:

      This is the greatest news and best call since the three stooges passed this repugnant overreaching legislation. Thanks Robert.

    17. ladysusaniris says:

      May Judge Vinson's tribe increase.

    18. ladysusaniris Haines says:

      May his tribe increase.

    19. Robertg222 says:

      "which specific sections of HR 3200 are unconstitutional?"

      ummmm all of them.

      Obama should cut his loses now. Repeal the mess and start over. This time let the Republican lead.

    20. Roger Kingsland, Pit says:

      Gabriel, can you read? The article was very specific about the elements of the bill that are unconstitutional. Perhaps you should be less concerned with the politics of our judges and more concerned with improving your reading comprehension.

    21. Martin Jones says:

      Gabriel, are you serious? Are you serious?

    22. James Dunn says:

      @Gabriel – you wrote "which specific sections of HR 3200 are unconstitutional? It seems nobody here, including the judge can cite specifics. anybody?"

      On page 4 of Judge Vinson's decision (available from the link in the first paragraph) he states, "In Count I, all of the plaintiffs challenge the “individual mandate” set forth in Section 1501 of the Act". Now I always find it difficult to find exactly which document is the "official" bill that was passed but using the reference that Judge Vinson included in the first paragraph on page 1, "Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010)", I found the bill at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/… . On page 242 you'll find SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.

    23. Darrell, Powhatan, V says:

      Gabriel,

      If you actually READ the ruling in full. your questions will be answered. Any layman can read it and comprehend. Of course, this assumes the reader is able to comprehend and reason facts which are abundantly available in the ruling, something most Liberals are predetermined to ignore. Especially the parts that cite the Federalist (sure to make their blood boil).

      The text is also a solid example of what "limited and enumerated powers" means. Judge Vinson goes into explicit detail about ALL of the parameters of the case and the dangers of allowing Congress to compel someone to purchase something "simply because they are alive and reside in the United States".

      Unlike some judges; he does not get caught up in the emotions of the case, he simply evaluates what the Constituion allows Congress to do, under what circumstances, and does this Act supercede those limits. In other words, he DID HIS JOB.

      The spin is that this is judicial activism, but he did not legislate from the bench. He specifically addresses that in the ruling as well.

      This is not just a defeat for Obamacare, it is a case study of why American Progressive nanny-state government intrusionists see the Constitution as an obstacle and not the guise it was intended to be..

    24. Gabriel says:

      Robert,

      all of them? well, could you name a few out of the bill that are unconstitutional?

      Roger,

      ok then list the "specific" sections that are unconstitutional? so political preference is now allowed to be influential in a court of law? maybe you should try reading a little more.

      Martin,

      very serious. name a section in HR 3200 that is unconstitutional?

      You guys take Heritage opinion and two conservative judges word for it?…please.

    25. Pingback: Tennesseans Watching Federal & State Government

    26. Gabriel says:

      "Vinson was nominated to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan on September 9, 1983"

      enough said. We have too many conservative activist judges. Healthcare reform will stand and it will work. nice try though… :)

      anbody with specifics yet…?

    27. West Texan says:

      To AFG, NV. It's still a federally forced hard-waiver choice prone to massive corruption regardless of how you look at it. Or as comrades Obama, Reid and Pelosi would say, "You wanted change! Welcome to the new USA (United Socialists of America)." The federal government has continued to overstep their limited role by interjecting themselves into the sovereign affairs of individual states and the private domain of free markets. Truth is, federal taxation was only to collect revenue to cover the costs of defense and foreign policy. Yes indeed, Social Security and Medicare are violations of states' sovereignty. That's not to say pull the rug from under today's recipients. Absolutely not! They should be secure knowing that won't happen. But current and future workers are faced with a festering national social scheme that's been ignored for far too long.

    28. Rick says:

      Gabriel,

      Specificly he struck down the entire bill, read the first paragraph of the article.

    29. CaliforniaConservati says:

      To Gabriel…

      Quit drinking the liberal kool-aid and try re-reading Vinson's ruling (have you read it in the first place?) Otherwise, try reading the shortened, Heritage stories on this subject to become informed…

      As for the country "have[ing] too many conservative activist judges"…give me a break!! Here in the land of fruits and nuts we've watched liberal activist judges 'show the finger' (twice) in opposition to the will of the people expressed at the ballot box regarding same-sex marriage. California (and this country's) morals are headed for the crapper due to the over-abundance of liberal activist judges seeking their 15 minutes of fame while turning the rule of law on its head.

    30. Ken in Fredericksbur says:

      Gabriel, I have to question your reading comprehension in that the written repose from Judge Vinson was written in English for all to interpret. There is no mystery here; no double meanings; no attempt at subterfuge. However, what is truly amazing is how an emotional cool-aid drinker can look at black and call it white and/or vise verse. You are a stranger to both reason and rationality because you cannot admit you made the wrong choice..

    31. Lisa G in NZ says:

      @Gabriel said "Healthcare reform will stand and it will work."

      No it won't. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You want nationalized health care, move to Canada or UK.

      …nice try though

    32. Wes - Northwest Indi says:

      It has been a painful process but it's encouraging to see the courts over-ruling this unjust legislation. No doubt it will find its way to the Supreme Court but if the majority of the states have anything to say about it we will overturn Obamcare and start over.

    33. chris, colorado says:

      @Lisa G in NZ i would rather help Americans by regulating a private sector that abuses all that it is supposed to protect. their profit motive is higher than their ethical standards any practices that make them money they will do even if that means letting Americans die

      @CaliforniaConservative, Fresno CA

      you say liberals are subverting the morals of this country, yet we want people to have life lines so the don't starve (welfare and unemployment) we make sure the air is and water is clean (EPA) we make sure your food is safe and that your medication is pure (FDA) we keep you safe (police and fire) we educate the youth (Public schools) we shuttle information (post office) the Obama administration made another agency that will prevent a mortgage from having hidden fees and will prevent bank abuses. and now we wanted everyone to have security in their health. but no, instead of everyone in a country pitching in so that all Americans can stand united helping one another stay healthy. but no, you chose the corporations over the people. congratulations we are now once again one step closer to a fascist corporate owned state, oh also as for the California judge that overturned the gay marriage law, he was a conservative judge.

      @Rick although you are right, he said only the individual mandate is unconstitutional. the other issue the states filled he said wasn't an issue

      @West Texan the (United Socialists of America, i find it interesting that we have a lower tax rate than during the 50's, back then we had more regulations over corporations, made them pay for health benefits, made them give veterans discounts and benefits and made sure that the interest of the government was that of the people not corporate profit. but now instead of looking out for people we protect corporations profits against the welfare of the people. also if you look at how our government is set up it is based largely off of Thomas Hobbes book the leviathan which is a socialist book, the founding fathers based this country off of the idea that the government should protect the people, which is what this bill did, and republicans have made it their vendetta to take it down.

    34. Gabriel says:

      Wow, you guys show such class with all the name-calling and personal attacks for someone that has a different viewpoint of the judges "viewpoints". This is all opinion. Which specific section of HR 3200 is unconstitutional. Don't waste your time posting a link that Heritage has already provided. Because all of you are so passionate about repealing this entire bill, please cite a specific section which is unconstitutional? The mandate is a tax anyways. Why is medicare constitutional?, why is Medicade constitutional?, why is auto-insurance constitutional? The conservative Judge Vinson couldn't even get into specifics. I have never heard a Judge with so many political talking points. Can any of you tell me exactly which specific sections of HR 3200 are unconstitutional?

      Another question is what is your plan? Just repeal? No replacement? So lets just throw out everything including the pre-existing condition section right? The reason I trust nothing conservaties say is the fact that they have done nothing for healthcare reform for over 35 years? You were the guys telling us our healthcare system is just fine, we do not need to change anything, now I hear conservatives talking about replace? What replacement, where? Also, I hear that this bill was rushed through, really? It was debated for over 7 months, available to the viewing public for 73 days and we had a nationalized, televised debate about healthcare for the first time in history. I read the ruling 3 times, HR 3200 and HR 3590. Since all of you are experts on the constitution and this bill, please cite specific examples of how it is unconstitutional?

      By the way, the name-calling and personal attacks don't really help your arguement. Cite specifics, otherwise stay off the keyboard :)

    35. Gabriel says:

      Here is a link regarding the constitutionality of the mandate and reform…
      http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/?p=2764

      Here is a link regarding the legality of the mandate and reform…
      http://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneillinstitute/nat

      Here is a link regaring a summary of a judges decision against plantiff…
      http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-court-up

      Here is the actual text of the judges ruling…
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/38913780/Thomas-More-La

      You see, we all have opinions just like Judge Vinson. To say that the entire healthcare reform bill must be repealed is ludacris. You are dealing in absolutism. Absolutism takes away all merit and credibility.

      These two recent ruling by very conservative judges means nothing. Try again… :)

    36. Gabriel says:

      Are any of you willing to tell me that the entire bill should be repealed without providing a replacement or solution for the problems in our healthcare system? The entire bill? Every single section is wrong and should be thrown out? Every section? You see, thats the problem with your argument, it's all one-sided. I have a number of sections I think should be taken out, including the tax cost of the mandate but do I think we should repeal the entire bill?, no. Why? Because I don't base every single decision on emotion that is brought by political websites(such as this one), radio and television. I have never seen such absolutism in my life and you wonder why conservatism is hanging on by a thread.

    37. Gabriel says:

      By who's standards Mr. Carroll, yours?, a conservative judge appointed by Ronald Reagan? Your interpretation of the constitution is not the rule of law, neither is this judges interpretation regardless of how many times you post blogs about it. This notion of "repeal" is nothing but politics. Without the mandate we still pay taxes for the uninsured. Every single time a person receives treatment from any urgent care facility across the nation, our tax dollars pay for it. We also pay for medicare and medicade. A large percentage of bankruptcy is due to high insurance cost. We have over 40,000,000 people uninsured(excluding the 10 million illegal immigrants) it's still 40,000,000 people, and what have conservative policies have been enacted to improve the problems of our healthcare system? Aside from Medicare Part D, name one single piece of legislation that conservatives have passed for over 35 years? Healthcare reform willl stand just as social security, medicare and medicade have stayed.

      This repeal is being driven by nothing but conservative leaders, elected officials, funding, lobbyist, special interest, conservative backed insurance companies and most importantly conservative politicians that will do everything they can to demonize this bill, simply because it was passed by a Democrat President and Democrat Congress, and heaven forbid it actually work for the american people! I saw right through this rhetoric before it even started. Your arguments are like clockwork and they never work.

    38. Lisa G in NZ says:

      Perhaps you'd have more persuasion over at HuffPo or DailyKos Gabriel…

      we remain unconvinced at your passion: THE WHOLE BILL is unconstitutional because the INDIVIDUAL mandate is woven throughout.

      Its unconstitutional for the Federal government to force individuals to PURCHASE something.

      what part you are NOT getting? try hitting yourself on the head a few times … or better yet; GO READ THE U.S.A. constitution

      it IS still in effect these days…. this ruling proves it. p.s. read the ruling because you really sound like a shrill leftist idiot

    39. West Texan says:

      Chris, how old are you? It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Not the slightest clue. I'd stongly suggest another history lesson, if it's not your first. Pull your head out of the cockpit, you'd quickly realize you're headed in the wrong direction. And watch out for Gabriel.

    40. Scott, Detroit, MI says:

      Gabriel. If you were to read the original decision or simply the article above, you would see that the judge ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional and because congress chose to not make any portions of the bill severable, therefore the entire bill was unconstitutional.

      The House chose to make the bill unseverable (most bills are severable for this reason) because if the mandate was severable, the bill would have shown to have a net cost well above $1trillion dollars. The Blue-dog democrats made clear that they could not vote for the bill if it had a cost above $1 trillion, and therefore the house leadership chose to make the mandate unseverable.

      It was a political decision made in order to get the bill passed, and they hoped get at least one or two republicans to vote for it, that made the entire bill stand or fall in the courts as a single unit.

    41. Russ, New Jersey says:

      Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but if the Act itself is Unconstitutional, every State, regardless of whether they were named Plaintiffs or not, is relieved of their obligations under the law because the law is, as of now, void as Unconstitutional.

      Clarification would be appreciated because I think you got this one wrong.

    42. Bobbie says:

      @Chris: you suggest- i would rather help Americans by regulating a private sector that abuses all that it is supposed to protect. their profit motive is higher than their ethical standards any practices that make them money they will do even if that means letting Americans die.

      Why do you trust government not to do the same? Why don't you start an insurance business the way you'd like to run it?

      Media and democrat rhetoric! Either you choose to do business with them or you don't. With government there is no choice. Who knows what government would "rather do" once it's out of your control?

      The private sector provides businesses of choice. Where laws are broke or abuse takes place, the customer can do something about it. You're opinion is redundant.

      Liberals are subverting the morals of this free country by disregarding personal responsibilities and subverting them to government. Narrowing the mind's ability to figure out how to help themselves.

      You have the gall to say "yet we want people to have life lines so they don’t starve (welfare and unemployment),"

      Bet you don't do a single thing unless you're paid to! what would the people do if they didn't have you? Bet they'd gain alot of intelligence.

      We don't need government mandates to help each other.

      Your last paragraph to West Texan? You say the government was that of the people not corporate profit? If government was of the people, they would be proud of those that profit. People make up those that profit and it would show good leadership of a free country. That's freedom. Why do you want to take that freedom of opportunity away from people? Why can't you respect where freedom got them and be inspired to do the same thing for yourself if that's your pursuit? Your dangerous will to insist government overstep their boundaries and stop individual achievement while you waste your time on endless rants? Why assume greed just because they're making it on their own? Why don't you start your own insurance company free of profit without the hand of government? Set the example to the private sector. Why put trust in a government that goes beyond their Constitutional duties?

      Gabriel, “Tell me exactly which specific sections of HR 3200 are Constitutional?

    43. Lisa, WA State says:

      From the outset I wish to state that, I detest Obamacare for its forcing individual people to purchase a product, ANY PRODUCT, and penalizing those of us who choose not to buy their "approved brand" of product. This is the crux as to why the Obamacare legislation is unconstitutional. Our constitution lays out the rules where we as individuals have the "inalienable right" to choose what we buy and our own destinies. Both Congress and the Senate violated the constitution.

      The unholy trio, Obama-Pelosi-Reid, have forced a totally unconstitutional law upon this land. The United Kingdom is curretnly in the process of moving away from having a government run socialized medicine…because it is financially unsustainable. Big brother nanny states have all found this to be their reality. This includes Russia, who during Reagan's tenure started their way toward capitalism, and away from a government run society. China is now more capitalistic than we are, and they constantly describe their government as a "communit socialist with chinese aspects."

      I will readily agree that the health industry needs to be reined in, and pushing a seious reform. The reform would be to allow the insurance policies to move from one company to another as we change employers, to cross state lines, to not be able to refuse a pre-existing condition, and to cover our college age students on our health insurance policies could quiet easily be handled within a regulatory process that Congress and the Senate are legally able to accomplish.

      These regulations would NOT penalize those of us who are financially incapable of paying for insurance premiums. These regulations would NOT violate our Constitution. Nor would it violate our inalienable right to choose our own destiny.

    44. PapaJohn Texas says:

      Gabriel, You are showing just how smart you are by not even knowing how to spell "Medicaid".

    45. Pingback: Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing: Arguments for Individual Mandate’s Constitutionality Don’t Hold Up | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    46. Gabriel says:

      Here is the actual text of the judges ruling that delclared the mandate and bill constitutional…
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/38913780/Thomas-More-La

      -let me use your logic. have you read this ruling? have you read this ruling? it clealy states the mandate and bill are both constitutional, does it not? did you read this judges ruling? its pretty clear, why have you not read it? are you an idiot? are you stupid? everything this judge ruled upon is 100% correct and nothing anyone can say can change that fact. im right and your wrong.

      do you see how ignorant that sounds. i swear it's like trying to have a conversation with my 5 year old neice about nuclear fusion.

    47. Gabriel says:

      And in Michigan, a federal judge issued a similar ruling and upheld the law.

      The Affordable Care Act falls well within Congress’s power to regulate under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause. In order to make health care affordable and available for all, the law regulates how to pay for medical services – services that account for more than 17.5% of the national economy. This law came into being precisely because of the interconnectedness of our health care costs, and we need every American to act responsibly to strengthen our health care system. When people seek medical care without health insurance and don’t pay for it, it adds more than $1,000 per year to the premiums of American families who act responsibly by having coverage. To lower the cost of health care for everyone, we have to stop making those who act responsibly pick up the health care tab for those who don’t – and that means we need everyone to be a part of the health insurance marketplace. Just as you can’t wait to get car insurance until you get into a car accident or rely on others to pay for the damages, you can’t wait until you get sick to get health insurance, or rely on the fact that emergency rooms won’t turn you away even if you can’t pay.

      To fix the problem of uncompensated care and the shifting of costs to those who have insurance, the Affordable Care Act requires people who can afford it to carry minimum health coverage beginning in 2014. For the 83% of Americans who have coverage today, this means they are already taking responsibility for their health care, and will need to do very little. Many of the 17% of Americans living without health insurance either can’t afford it or have been denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. The Affordable Care Act provides tax credits to people who need help paying for insurance and hardship waivers to individuals or families who can’t afford it at all. And the Act expands Medicaid coverage for many lower income Americans. Those who can afford it, but refuse to buy it, will face a penalty.

    48. Gabriel says:

      The Affordable Care Act also bans insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. However, unless every American is required to have insurance, it would be cost prohibitive to cover people with preexisting conditions. Here’s why: If insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to anyone who applies for insurance – especially those who have health problems and are potentially more expensive to cover – then there is nothing stopping someone from waiting until they’re sick or injured to apply for coverage since insurance companies can’t say no. That would lead to double digit premiums increases – up to 20% – for everyone with insurance, and would significantly increase the cost health care spending nationwide. We don’t let people wait until after they’ve been in a car accident to apply for auto insurance and get reimbursed, and we don’t want to do that with healthcare. If we’re going to outlaw discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, the only way to keep people from gaming the system and raising costs on everyone else is to ensure that everyone takes responsibility for their own health insurance. If a court strikes down the individual responsibility provision, then protection for people with preexisting conditions will fall with it.

    49. Ralph Calabrese says:

      I'm confused! Is the law dead now or can the Administration continue to

      implement it?

    50. Sheri says:

      I'm a pharmacist and I'll say it. The whole bill should be replaced! My husband and I have a seriously disabled child who is already losing her health care insurance benefits because of this bill. And if we can't get rid of Obummercare our child is going to be rationed out of all health care completely. My husband is retired military and the government's plan is to restrict most medical care to people between the ages of 15 and 40. Unfortunately that would eliminate care for my husband, myself, and our son – all of the family that is available to take care of our disabled child. If the government can't implement its plan to ration health care fast enough their backup plan is to drop insurance coverage for all military retirees and their families. So much for our daughter's pre-existing conditions being covered.

      Yes some reforms to our current health care system should be conidered but this bill is not the way to do it. And the whole law has just been ruled unconstitutional. I believe this decision will be upheld at the Supreme Court. If it isn't and we can't get the bill repealed there are going to be a lot of ppeople looking for health care on the black market that will surely spring up.

    51. Pingback: Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing: Arguments for Individual Mandate’s Constitutionality Don’t Hold Up | Big Propaganda

    52. Pingback: Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing: Arguments for Individual Mandate’s Constitutionality Don’t Hold Up | The Conservative Papers

    53. Tim, Topeka says:

      "yet we want people to have life lines so the don’t starve (welfare and unemployment)"

      These are entitlements that the liberal Democrats decided to bestow upon the people. As such, they are man-given and can be man-taken away. They are NOT rights.

      "we make sure the air is and water is clean (EPA) we make sure your food is safe and that your medication is pure(FDA) we keep you safe (police and fire"

      These are covered under the police powers the people have delegated to the government through the Constitution in order to protect freedom and property. The "we" you reference here are not liberals — the "we" is ALL of us.

      "we educate the youth (Public schools)"

      Liberals have inserted the federal government into this process and ensured that the school systems are the laughing stock of the world. There is no delegation of powers in the Constitution for the federal government to control education in this country. This should have been left to the States. It was done by the States during the first 150 years of our history and our students during that period were the envy of the world.

      "we shuttle information (post office)"

      ROFL! This isn't something "liberals" do.

      "the Obama administration made another agency that will prevent a mortgage from having hidden fees and will prevent bank abuses."

      Another agency. You should be so PROUD of this. Instead of making existing agencies do their job in the first place Obama creates another one. THAT is the legacy of liberals in this country. An ever expanding government. More and more bureaucrats writing more and more rules to dictate how we live our lives down to the minutest detail. Thanks to the liberals we no longer have a representative democracy — instead we have a Bureaucratic Hegemony.

      "now we wanted everyone to have security in their health"

      Are liberals God? Obamacare does nothing for health, in fact it will ensure that we get WORSE health care instead of better — that's what happens with socialized medicine. Just ask Canada, England, and France.

      Liberals are socialists, pure and plain. Socialism works till the money runs out. The money HAS run out!

    54. Bobbie says:

      Only in the case of a pandemic should the government involve themselves with personal health care and only for the protection of the people in "general." As the government's duty is to protect the people, but not from our freedoms…

    55. Gabriel says:

      Heritage, do you care to mention the 14 rulings from 14 different judges that have declared HR 3200 constitutional, including the mandate? I would hope that other rulings should count to….no? Michigan, Virginia, Mississippi, etc. Do you plan on blogging about those rulings or will you just leave those out?

    56. Gabriel says:

      Many people know we need healthcare reform. This bill is not perfect but it will work. Your pathetic politics will not work and you will not repeal this bill. Heritage, you are on the wrong side of history once again. Dont worry, conservatism will be dead soon enough, I give it about 5 years. Enjoy it while it lasts! :)

    57. Pingback: Will President Obama Abide by Court’s Decision and Suspend Obamacare? | Fix Health Care Policy

    58. Pingback: Wyden-Brown Won’t Give States the Flexibility They Need to Reform Health Care | Fix Health Care Policy

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×