FLA. Judge Strikes Down Health Care Law

@gladys46 (1205)
United States
January 31, 2011 2:13pm CST
Breaking news ... a Fla. federal judge has stricken down newly enacted Affordable Health Care Act declaring it "un-Constitutional"! What are you views?
2 people like this
14 responses
@sam3m1 (190)
• United States
31 Jan 11
the judge has to be a conservative republican. and therein lies my objection to his ruling. it has to be based on his political beliefs rather than legality. typically the objection is forcing people to get insurance who don't want it, but when uninsured people go to the ER for treatment, the cost, borne by us is hugely expensive. right now, we don't have the right to opt out of income tax, social security, and medicare. if those things are not actionable, how is the healthcare law? also, it can't hurt for our government to force us to be a little compassionate, given the greedy, self-centered route we are traveling down.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
31 Jan 11
sam2m, VA also has its challeges in their State high court as well. This is their contention among others: "All goods produced or manufactured, whether commercially or privately, within the boundaries of the Commonwealth that are held, maintained, or retained within the boundaries of the Commonwealth shall not be deemed to have traveled in interstate commerce and shall not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce." How's that for a far, far out reach? This may be verified by easily accessing VA's Health care lawsuit.
@Kenorv (344)
• United States
31 Jan 11
The difference is that the Obama administration is arguing that health insurance falls under the interstate commerce system. That's why when they passed this bill that they called it a penalty and not a tax for people that don't buy insurance. A commerce system gives people the choice to buy or not to buy a product or service. You can't force people to buy products or services. At least not in the U.S. where we're supposed to be a free and democratic nation. That's why this is unconstitutional and why it is different from a tax.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
31 Jan 11
Oh, btw ... the above quoted law was already passed in the VA house of Delegates ... that language is a sweeping mullification bill that directly conflicts with numerous Sup.Ct. decisions.
@petersum (4526)
• United States
31 Jan 11
I thought that the American constitution was fairly well known. I also assumed that there would be constitutional lawyers all over the place. Un-constitutional? Well someone has made a big boo-boo! Isn't it nice to know that your lawmakers are so educated?
1 person likes this
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
31 Jan 11
Reports are that this federal judge has struck down "parts" of the legislated health care act. You know petersum, we have a gazzillion arm-chair constitutional scholars of late!!
@Taskr36 (13926)
• United States
31 Jan 11
There was no boo-boo. The people who wrote and passed this bill knew it was unconstitutional, they just didn't care. They put their faith in judges that want big government hoping that they would side with the federal government over the states regardless of what the constitution says. "You know petersum, we have a gazzillion arm-chair constitutional scholars of late!!" How exactly does one become a "scholar" of a 6 page document gladys? Just read the darn thing. You could do it on your lunch break if you wanted to.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
31 Jan 11
I'd ask you to read perhaps on your lunch hr., Sup.Ct. existing precedents on the commerce clause.
@spalladino (17927)
• United States
1 Feb 11
He struck down parts of it...not the whole thing. I have to admit that I do have a problem with the madate requiring people to buy insurance but I can also understand why it's there. I heard today that some courts have struck it down while others have upheld it so, clearly, this will wind up in the Supreme Court.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
1 Feb 11
I think what the judge said was that since parts of the act he considered un-Constitutional and those parts could not be separated that the whole of the Act is in his ruling un-Constitutional. You can fact check that though. The Act does include provisions for people who can not afford to buy insurance ... those people will be given subsidies with which to buy insurance. President Obama's admin. did immediately respond by saying just that ... they will appeal to the Sup.Ct. ... but with such right-leaning, favorable to big corporations, activist justices ... who knows how they will come down?
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13926)
• United States
1 Feb 11
Gladys, why don't you realize how favorable this is to corporations? Insurance companies are corporations and they make out like bandits with this bill forcing people to be their customers. Obama has also made hundreds are large corporations exempt from this bill so they're riding high.
1 person likes this
• United States
1 Feb 11
I have a lot of friends who are in their late sixties but still work because they pay for decent health insurance and dental. Does anybody know how hard it is to get decent dental? I speak with elderly people who owe thousands of dollars because their healthcare didn't cover the treatment or policy. Some of their prescriptions cost hundreds of dollars a month. Now, that's unconstitutional. That is if the constitution has anything to do with healthcare??? The Republicans are the part of "NO!". They say no to every thing.
@Taskr36 (13926)
• United States
31 Jan 11
The ruling is very simple. The federal government does not have the power to mandate that people buy health insurance. It's not in the constitution and thus, per the 10th amendment, is a power reserved to the states or the people respectively. Can YOU find anything in the constitution that empowers them to set this mandate? So far not ONE judge has sided with Obama on this one.
1 person likes this
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
31 Jan 11
TheLambHasArisen ... TRUE!
1 person likes this
• United States
31 Jan 11
And two have struck it down. So, I guess it is a tie? But the truth is that forcing people to buy health insurance or pay a fine is against the Constitution.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13926)
• United States
31 Jan 11
My mistake, you're right, two judges (both liberals) have upheld it. We'll see how the rest do.
• United States
1 Feb 11
Affordable my foot! I am one of those uninsured Americans that this bill was supposed to help, but back then I lived in New Jersey and most 'other' health plans were not available let alone affordable. Coupled with my having multiple sclerosis (noticeable to me but no one else), I'm often denied insurance. Forget affordable--it's always, Oh you have a preexisting condition! Guess what? I rarely go to the doctor, either the meds I'm prescribed are with $4 generic ones or stuff anyone can buy, or I just go without. I've learned to make due without health insurance. Benefits--are you kidding me? Why should I be forced to pay $350 or $400 a month for something I rarely use, just because I have a preexisting condition? STOP treating illegal immigrants as if they're citizens here in the US and taking away from a true-blue American like myself!!!
@Maggiepie (7821)
• United States
2 Feb 11
MY meds went up due to his "health plan," according to my pharmacy (Liberty Medical). Now I go without. Maggiepie “Vienes una tormente!” (A storm is coming!) ~ Prophetic warning to Sarah Connell ending the first ‘Terminator’ movie.
@Maggiepie (7821)
• United States
2 Feb 11
Well, I knew it would happen when I knew what sort of people had proposed the stupid bill. I hope it really is repealed. Sure, there are several legitimate (& far less costly!) ways to fix the problems health care has, but that surely wasn't it! Maggiepie “During times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ~ George Orwell "1984"
• United States
2 Feb 11
The only part I like but isn't available until 2014 is the portion to no longer disqualify those people with preexisting conditions. I don't think it will be repealed now because opponents do not have enough votes but there will be more decisions by judges to find aspects of the bill itself unconstitutional. I believe that there are over 20 lawsuits waiting to be heard over constitutional issues.
• United States
2 Feb 11
I'm no Republican, but Judge Vinson was absolutely correct in striking it down. If the federal government REQUIRES me to purchase something, it breaches on my liberty. I believe affordable health insurance should be made available, but it shouldn't be required to have. Invalidate one portion of the Constitution, and the entirety of it is under threat. Now he didn't necessarily oppose the whole thing but advised that it needed to be reworked and the individual mandate removed. According to Vinson, the law is "outside Congress' Commerce Clause power and cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause" (Wall Street Journal). I would like to point out that Judge Vinson was the second federal judge to declare the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate unconstitutional. Tere are also 26 states who filed suit against the federal government in direct reaction to the Act. So when this does hit Supreme Court, it's going to be big. I only hope Obama revises the Act before things get incredibly ugly. Breaches on liberty have divided our nation before; I hope our government can learn from the past.
1 person likes this
• United States
2 Feb 11
I think he's right to do so. Nowhere is the Federal Government given the option to insist every American person must purchase anything. To demand every person buys health insurance is totally unconstitutional. It is a privilege, not a right. With this insurance law they are taking away our free will. There are a lot of people who don't buy insurance because they want to spend their money on something else and it isn't always because they don't make enough. My nephew made $250,000 a year and never bought insurance. When he finally stopped working for himself, got married, and worked for a large company that offered it, he accepted. They even gave him pet health insurance as part of his job package. There may be 30 million without insurance, but it isn't necessarily because they can't afford it. Another problem with this package is that people who DO have insurance through their companies are losing it because paying the FINE is cheaper for the company than paying for the insurance. The companies are choosing the fines, which means the insurance is now costing the people what they paid before PLUS what the company was taking off their hands. Now they can't afford the insurance and are adding to the numbers who don't have it. And, in putting so much time into this package the first two years and ignoring millions losing their jobs AND insurance, even more are uninsured. It's a farce. The only problem with the judge's ruling was that he didn't send a paper saying STOP THE LAW NOW. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE IT TO THE SUPREME COURT FINE, BUT DO NOTHING UNTIL IT IS HEARD BY THE SUPREME COURT. Instead, our government is merrily continuing to spend money on something that should have been immediately halted when the ruling came out.
1 person likes this
@K46620 (1996)
• United States
1 Feb 11
That is very welcome news; however it's just a baby step towards real victory.
1 person likes this
@sierras236 (2740)
• United States
1 Feb 11
It is un-Constitutional. You should not have to buy something that you don't want. There was a point made today that was very valid. Health insurance can't guarantee quality of care. Nor can it guarantee that it will make things cheaper for everyone.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
1 Feb 11
And equal protection under the law ... where should that little constitutional law go? Why should those of us who afford health care be forced to pay high insurance premiums because the insurance cos. are continuously raising our coverage costs to recoup for those who have NONE??
• United States
1 Feb 11
If this law were truly equal protection, why did Congress exempt themselves? Why has President Obama handed out over 700 exemptions in this last year alone? Oh, there is so much more. There is more to insurance costs than just recouping the costs of nonpayment. That is only part of the equation. There are many other costs that play into the health care business. There is malpractice insurance, tangible factors (by tangible I mean salaries, energy bills, janitorial staff, supplies, etc.), and dealing with Medicaid/Medicare. Some people who aren't on insurance still pay their medical bills. But isn't the whole point that people aren't equal in their health care needs. A 19 year old guy doesn't need to pay maturity care for a 26 year old woman. The one size works for all formula that the government is pushing on the system won't work for this country. Even if you have everyone buying into the system, it isn't going to push the price down. Remember, that little economic law of supply and demand. It works for health care too. The government also lacks the power to set the price of health care. The lack of price controls renders his whole argument about keeping costs down unattainable.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
1 Feb 11
I'm sorry sierras ... I just can't read all of that ... it seems to me, as I did a kind of cursory read, you are revisiting old arguments. To your last line though ... I believe we still pay taxes in this nation ... it would be really nice if corporations paid their fair share and those making millions and billions were willing to pay a fair share as well. We are actually, all in this thing together.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
1 Feb 11
"What are you views?" that it is unconstitutional.....*shrug* Don't know what else to add yet. I am sure this conversation will continue however, as I am sure you either feel it is constitutional or at least it is a cause worth violating the constitution for.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
1 Feb 11
Hi xfahctor ... I always like to say ... it's just a conversation! With the Sup.Ct. stacked with "activist" justices ... all for corporations, who knows what they will come up with ... insurance companies may rule at the end of all of this, who knows!! Witness how they (Sup.Ct.) ruled on Citizens United!! I'm actually always open for all interesting points of view. Just be gently! Hahhaa!
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
1 Feb 11
Oh, and thank you for your largesse ... I needed that "r" ! ;)
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
1 Feb 11
Now, be so very much larger and give me an "e" that will replace that "y" at the end of the word "gently"! One love!! ;)
• United States
1 Feb 11
Judge Vinson rules the present health care bill is unconstitutional and void.With out question the health care bill will go to the United States Supreme court.Judge Vinson pointed out some very interesting things in his note,read below!! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/ I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday. In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance. Judge Vinson cited Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could pass constitutional muster including then-candidate Obama‘s plan. During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance and Mr. Obama‘s did not.
• United States
1 Feb 11
Well, I guess Hillary did get her wish in requiring that everyone purchase health insurance....one thing that hasn't occurred to the current administration is that many of those without jobs simply cannot afford to purchase insurance! Wake up--there's a recession going on!
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
1 Feb 11
Wow, okay ... so the republican appointed judge of FLA uses a democratic candidate's campaign rhetoric as the basis or partial basis for his ridiculous ruling ..that's pitiful?? Why am I not impressed? How about this judge going to Mitt Romney's state and ruling against him as well ... you know, since mandatory health care was/is a republican thingy there and, why didn't we see republicans racing to courts of law to repeal, replace and completely overturn the great "read my lips" tax thingy .. what republican marched off to courts of law on that campaign rhetoric? If, we weren't experiencing a non-biased, non-activist judicial Sup.Ct., this would be an easy quash for the president's admin. We'll just need to wait and see!
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
1 Feb 11
"How about this judge going to Mitt Romney's state and ruling against him as well" How many times must the 10th amendment be pointed out to you: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Federal government mandate = unconstitutional State government mandate = constitutional.
• United States
31 Jan 11
Hooray! It is wrong to make a country built on personal freedom a law taking away ones right to choices with their health care.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
31 Jan 11
Remember, or note that this a FLA federal judge ... deciding for that state.
1 person likes this
• United States
2 Feb 11
Wrong - It was noted that attorney generals in 26 states, 2 individuals, and the National Federation of Independent Business had brought the challenge in Florida. Based on this, the judge was speaking for 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business. That's a bit more than a FL judge deciding for that state.
@artistry (4154)
• United States
1 Feb 11
...Hey there, Good old dependable verdict. No biggie as I understand it, if it stands, there will be "Medicare for all" which is much broader and I am quite sure the GOP will love that (not). There is supposed to be some kind of implied decoupling of the part that was a problem for the judge but to make big news he decided to make his friends happy as someone said and struck down the entire thing. In the mean time the implementations of the bill will go forward until 2012 when the appeals or whatever will get worked out, possibly going to the Supreme Court. See you there. Take it easy.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
1 Feb 11
Yupps artistry!! As I see it, republicans are never careful what they wish for! How will they defend a broken health care system that Americams should return to ... didn't they say it was broken! Public Option for ALL just as "progressives" wanted in the first place!
@Maggiepie (7821)
• United States
2 Feb 11
Great! Another stake through this demon's bloodsucking heart! Bravo, judge! Maggiepie “Vienes una tormente!” (A storm is coming!) ~ Prophetic warning to Sarah Connell ending the first ‘Terminator’ movie.