11th Circuit overturns health-insurance mandate

In a 2-1 decision, the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the individual mandate in the Obama administration’s health-care reform package is unconstitutional, but has upheld other parts of the package.

But without the mandate, much of the reform becomes fiscally impossible….

More to come.

UPDATE: Some pertinent quotes from opinion:

“Economic mandates such as the one contained in the Act are so unprecedented, however, that the government has been unable, either in its briefs or at oral argument, to point this Court to Supreme Court precedent that addresses their constitutionality. Nor does our independent review reveal such a precedent….

“The fact that Congress has never before exercised this supposed authority is telling. As the Supreme Court has noted, “the utter lack of statutes imposing obligations on the States’ executive (notwithstanding the attractiveness of that course to Congress), suggests an assumed absence of such power.”

… the individual mandate is a sharp departure from all prior exercises of federal power.

“In sum, the individual mandate is breathtaking in its expansive scope. It regulates those who have not entered the health care market at all. It regulates those who have entered the health care market, but have not entered the insurance market (and have no intention of doing so). It is overinclusive in when it regulates: it conflates those who presently consume health care with those who will not consume health care for many years into the future. The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life. This theory affords no limiting principles in which to confine Congress’s enumerated power.”

In effect, the court seems to be saying that if Congress had used its powers of taxation to implement the mandate, it could have done so. But since it chose instead to use its powers under the Commerce Clause, it has stretched too far. …

Judge Stanley Marcus — a Republican originally appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan — published a lengthy and strenuously argued dissent:

“In the process of striking down the mandate, the majority has ignored many years of Commerce Clause doctrine developed by the Supreme Court. It has ignored the broad power of Congress, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, “to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 196 (1824). It 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. It has ignored the Supreme Court’s expansive reading of the Commerce Clause that has provided the very foundation on which Congress already extensively regulates both health insurance and health care services. And it has ignored the long-accepted instruction that we review the constitutionality of an exercise of commerce power not through the lens of formal, categorical distinctions, but rather through a pragmatic one, recognizing, as Justice Holmes put it over one hundred years ago, that “commerce among the states is not a technical legal conception, but a practical one, drawn from the course of business.”

….The plaintiffs and, indeed, the majority have conceded, as they must, that Congress has the commerce power to impose precisely the same mandate compelling the same class of uninsured individuals to obtain the same kind of insurance, or otherwise pay a penalty, as a necessary condition to receiving health care services, at the time the uninsured seek these services. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs argue that Congress cannot do now what it plainly can do later. In other words, Congress must wait until each component transaction underlying the cost- shifting problem occurs, causing huge increases in costs both for those who have health care insurance and for health care providers, before it may constitutionally act. I can find nothing in logic or law that so circumscribes Congress’ commerce power and yields so anomalous a result.”

“… Although it is surely true that there is no Supreme Court decision squarely on point dictating the result that the individual mandate is within the commerce power of Congress, the rationale embodied in the Court’s Commerce Clause decisions over more than 75 years makes clear that this legislation falls within Congress’ interstate commerce power.”

– Jay Bookman

270 comments Add your comment

stands for decibels

August 12th, 2011
1:51 pm

Single payer. It’s what’s for dinner!

jm

August 12th, 2011
1:55 pm

Indeed. The mandate, while obviously an Obamacare component, was really conjured up by economists and rational people to prevent free-riding on a universal coverage no exclusions system.

I can see both sides of the issue. Frankly, I think the toughest but most rational solution is to let hospitals turn away patients, with the exchanges offering catastrophic coverage at a reasonable price.

If you elect to walk around without insurance, you take the risk you’re toast when you get hurt. Your decision.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

August 12th, 2011
1:55 pm

So now there is a conflict in the circuits.

Doggone/GA

August 12th, 2011
1:56 pm

It ain’t over to ’til the fat lady sings. In this case, the fat lady is the Supreme Court

JOE C00L

August 12th, 2011
1:58 pm

Whole lotta money being spent on these cases, in which they mean nothing til it gets to the High court.

jm

August 12th, 2011
1:59 pm

Doggone – true. But the backup singers are done warming up and are already carrying a tune. We’ll see if the Fat Lady is on the same page or not….

Doggone/GA

August 12th, 2011
2:00 pm

“But the backup singers are done warming up and are already carrying a tune”

Doesn’t mean a thing. No one goes to a concert to hear the back-up singers.

JohnnyReb

August 12th, 2011
2:01 pm

We’ll take any court ruling in our favor, but Obamacare will be repealed by Congress and the Repub POTUS after Nov 2012.

stands for decibels

August 12th, 2011
2:02 pm

off topic as can be, but since FNM might be past my bedtime today–any Chuck Leavell fans here?

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2011/aug/12/

He’s Leonard Lopate’s guest; he talks and plays a bit. Statesborough Blues is about ten minutes in.

Normal

August 12th, 2011
2:04 pm

GOP courts to all y’all…”Healthcare? We don’ need no stinkin’ healthcare…Die y’all die! Dying opens up job opportunities, don’t you know? Good for the economy.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
2:04 pm

The SC will rule it is legal because it is corporate welfare.

The SC are corporate owned.

Get over it and move on.

jm

August 12th, 2011
2:05 pm

JohnnyReb – I’d bet on significant modifications rather than repeal, frankly.

sfd – met Chuck a couple times. Nice guy, good music (obviously).

Doggone/GA

August 12th, 2011
2:09 pm

“the government has been unable, either in its briefs or at oral argument, to point this Court to Supreme Court precedent that addresses their constitutionality”

In real-world speak: the Supreme Court needs to hear this case and set a precedent, one way or the other

stranger in a strange land

August 12th, 2011
2:09 pm

if / when the SCOTUS rules in favor of Obama care – with all due respect to stands for decibels – single payer is also what’s for breakfast and lunch as well as dinner

Peadawg

August 12th, 2011
2:11 pm

This is indeed good news. Neuter the invertebrate in the White House!

“But without the mandate, much of the reform becomes fiscally impossible….” – Not the courts’ problem, Jay. Obama should had thought about that when coming up with this law.

Finn McCool

August 12th, 2011
2:12 pm

Repeal? How many times did you conservatives try to repeal SSN? And medicare/Medicaid?

It’s here to stay. But now in the form of Single Payer!

OhLaLa!!

Mary Elizabeth

August 12th, 2011
2:12 pm

If this ruling stands, all citizens will pay even though those individuals may not pay for health insurance because of the free medical care that will be given to them in emergency rooms, paid by all. Of course, we could just turn away the very ill, or even dying, people in emergency rooms who have no health insurance, but surely we have not come to that as a nation.

Not a good decision. May even be a political decision.

TaxPayer

August 12th, 2011
2:12 pm

Republicans should protest and simply buy unaffordable non-healthcare insurance that can be rescinded on a whim while not covering any pre-existing conditions such as breathing. That’ll show us who’s boss. :lol:

Adam

August 12th, 2011
2:13 pm

I wonder if this will get to the SCOTUS before the election….

Tommy Maddox

August 12th, 2011
2:13 pm

Love the law; live the law.

stands for decibels

August 12th, 2011
2:14 pm

while obviously an Obamacare component, was really conjured up by economists and rational people to prevent free-riding on a universal coverage no exclusions system.

I wish there were a way I could link to it, but it’s behind a firewall–anyway, the New Yorker, couple months back, had a great feature length article about how Romney’s administration worked to make it a reality in Mass., and the complex political and fiscal case that had to be made for it, AND how the Obama administration did, in fact, work with people from his team to see how it could be implemented in national legislation.

(I know that Mitt’s got a good line in his stump speeches, where he says something like “I wish Obama had asked me about it”, but in fact that’s exactly what his team did.)

met Chuck a couple times. Nice guy

Glad to hear. Based on what I know of him, it seems hard to imagine he’d be anything but.

JohnnyReb

August 12th, 2011
2:14 pm

jm, you may be right on the modifications. The point, however, is Obamacare will not survive in its current liberal form. Adding more free rides has to go, as bad as that sounds, but it is unfunded mandates in an age of no money.

GAPeach

August 12th, 2011
2:14 pm

Medicare for all. That’s what we really need.

Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)

August 12th, 2011
2:15 pm

The administration will probably appeal to the full 11th. circuit, but this ruling doesn’t bode well for ObamaCare. I thing ultimately this bill will have to go back to the drawing board. The Supremes may not even agree to hear an appeal

jt

August 12th, 2011
2:17 pm

I didn’t need the 11th Circuit Federal Bottom Feeders to tell me that the Individual Mandate was unconstitutional.
.
Maybe most of you metro/federo-sexuals did though.

Thomas

August 12th, 2011
2:18 pm

Of course, we could just turn away the very ill, or even dying, people in emergency rooms who have no health insurance, but surely we have not come to that as a nation

ME- you are hanging out with the wrong folks- this really doesn’t happen. My billing and coding division works almost every day with illegals and indigents to receive cancer treatment- generally free.

Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k

August 12th, 2011
2:19 pm

“But without the mandate, much of the reform becomes fiscally impossible….”

Much of the “reform” was already built on phony numbers to begin with, Jay, so fiscally impossible was already a reality.

And only in lib land could a defeat in court mean single payer becomes a reality. Especially since there is no electoral alignment like Dems had in 2008-2010 on the horizon.

Guy Incognito

August 12th, 2011
2:22 pm

TaxPayer wrecked his car without insurance. Then he had it towed to Allstate and said, “Gimme a check for the whole amount.”

Makes about as much sense as covering someone, without condition, with a health care plan

Richard

August 12th, 2011
2:25 pm

Just out of curiosity, the right wingers are claiming that Obamacare caused insurance premiums to rise. If Obamacare is overturned, I assume premiums should drop…right?

Peadawg

August 12th, 2011
2:26 pm

“The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life. This theory affords no limiting principles in which to confine Congress’s enumerated power.”

Exactly.

Matti's Disgust

August 12th, 2011
2:26 pm

What kind of deadbeat societal leeches are refusing to purchase affordable coverage for themselves and their families? Are these the lazy, no-good, refuse-to-plan-for-the-future types who expect the “nanny state” to take care of them when their bacon cheezeburgers blow up their arteries, or when their drunk behinds smash their cars into trees and EMTs (not being able to differentiate them from worthy human life forms) stop the bleeding in the nick of time and transport them to the hospital? The people who tried to get affordable coverage like responsible citizens– but were denied by greedy corporations — have been denied too long. Now there’s finally a chance to ensure responsible reasonable care for all, and these irresponsible deadbeat self-serving bloodsucking TICKS want to trash it all so they can continue depending on those of us who serve our corporate masters year after year for the privilege of overpaying for insurance and medical care. We carry the load; they squawk about “freedom.” SHAMEFUL!

Matti's Disgust

August 12th, 2011
2:28 pm

” If Obamacare is overturned, I assume premiums should drop…right?”

Uh-uh…. just about as much as premiums dropped after tort reform was enacted on the same promise.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
2:28 pm

Add this to the list of programs the gop will end if they win.

SS, Medicare, Medicare, health care, etc…..

Why in the world would you vote for that if you are get checks from SS and use heath care.

It is just plain ignorant and self defeating..

Junior Samples

August 12th, 2011
2:29 pm

new potus can make waivers to all the states once elected. that should pretty much kill that piece of garbage.

jm

August 12th, 2011
2:29 pm

Jamie Dimon for President

Show Low Here We Come

August 12th, 2011
2:29 pm

Hey Matti – I’m in the market. Please point me towards “affordable” health insurance.

Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)

August 12th, 2011
2:30 pm

There appears to be great angst in the liberal sector over this ruling.

Jimmy62

August 12th, 2011
2:31 pm

So what Jay is saying is that now politicians can’t force us to spend our own money on what they want us to spend it on.

I call that freedom!

Matti's Disgust

August 12th, 2011
2:33 pm

Show Low,

Will do! Just as soon as I find some! Looks like that pipe dream is fixing to be lumped into the can with all the other dreams we’ll never see.

Peadawg

August 12th, 2011
2:33 pm

“So what Jay is saying is that now politicians can’t force us to spend our own money on what they want us to spend it on.” – Online poker is still illegal so we’re not quite there. But a step in the right direction.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
2:33 pm

Your rates go up if they use waivers in all States. More ignorance.

You cons love self destruction don’t you.

Most Americans do not.

jm

August 12th, 2011
2:34 pm

Obama: Despair and Status Quo.

Vote no 2012. Time for new change :)

Logical Dude

August 12th, 2011
2:35 pm

Sounds like we have to go “all in” on a single payer system now.

a) I agree with this court that the individual mandate sounds unconstitutional
b) But we still – as a country – say that hospitals cannot turn away the sick and/or dying
c) So we – as a country – still need to figure out a way to have both a) and b) while still keeping medical costs from skyrocketing.

Adam

August 12th, 2011
2:35 pm

Premiums are set by the health insurance companies. And just like many universities, they have to say where they came from now, but they can still raise prices however they want and shift around what percentage comes from what. If one part is subsidized, but not the others, I fully expect more cost to come from the others while they keep the price of whatever part is subsidized the same forever.

Adam

August 12th, 2011
2:36 pm

Logical Dude: Or we could just refuse service to anyone for any reason, if you really think of health care as a business.

(ir)Rational

August 12th, 2011
2:36 pm

Recon – of course there is. Without their ability to control everything, and force people who can’t afford insurance to buy it or be fined, the liberals can’t move towards their ultimate goal of single payer. But then again, many of them actually seem excited at the possibility that their taxes will be raised, and the quality of the health care they receive will be lessened. But hey, why argue with them, they have all the “facts.” They have the righteous indignation that people are dying in the streets without any conceivable access to any type of health care. They are positive that people actually want this, they just don’t know it yet. Right?

Oh-well. Who is John Galt?

jm

August 12th, 2011
2:36 pm

Logical Dude – your heads are in the cloud. Single payer ain’t going to happen in a million years. Maybe you’re not aware the House is Republican….

getalife

August 12th, 2011
2:38 pm

We should cut defense and corporate welfare and use that money to join the rest of the civilized world and provide health care for the American people.

It will provide more jobs in health care.

Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)

August 12th, 2011
2:39 pm

The left saw ObamaCare as a stealth bill that would lead to a single payer system. It appears those dreams are likely gone.

Adam

August 12th, 2011
2:40 pm

(ir)Rational: Signing your messages with the John Galt thing just makes you look like a die-hard Ayn Rand fan, which doesn’t lend you credibility.

jm

August 12th, 2011
2:40 pm

There should be 3 levels of insurance.

1. Medicaid for the destitute
2. Cheap, nominally subsidized catastrophic plans for those that can’t afford it
3. Plans for whoever wants to pay up

End Medicare, end tax exemption of corporate health care, block grant medicaid. Call it a day.

Peadawg

August 12th, 2011
2:40 pm

“and provide health care for the American people.” – OH yes b/c the European nanny states are doing JUST fine. :lol:

Adam

August 12th, 2011
2:40 pm

jm: your heads are in the cloud. Single payer ain’t going to happen in a million years. Maybe you’re not aware the House is Republican….

And the House will be Republican for a million years….

Adam

August 12th, 2011
2:42 pm

jm: I disagree. There should be one level of health insurance, paid for by taxes and provided to everyone as needed.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
2:42 pm

That stupid rocket that failed yesterday was a prime example of defense waste.

Not a peep out of the suddenly fiscal cons.

jm

August 12th, 2011
2:42 pm

Adam – there was an element of hyperbole in the statement…. you get the point.

Single Payer dreams can be flushed

Adam

August 12th, 2011
2:43 pm

Peadawg: OH yes b/c the European nanny states are doing JUST fine.

And it’s all their fault for having the system in the first place right? Nope! It’s OUR fault they’re NOT doing fine because we TANKED the global economy with our overreaching capitalism and confidence in financial bubbles.

jm

August 12th, 2011
2:44 pm

Adam

“There should be one level of health insurance, paid for by taxes and provided to everyone as needed.”

You are clueless. Fine, you willing for everyone to pay $8,000 a year to the government before they can buy food for the year? Whatever dude, you’re just another crazy socialist.

Adam

August 12th, 2011
2:44 pm

jm: Single Payer dreams can be flushed

You’re right that it can’t be done now. One day the people will demand it, unless the majority of them are rich or die first.

Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)

August 12th, 2011
2:44 pm

(ir)Rational,

Most polls show that a majority of Americans want the healthcare bill repealed.

TaxPayer

August 12th, 2011
2:44 pm

TaxPayer wrecked his car without insurance.

It’s against the law to operate a motor vehicle on public roads without insurance. I thought you Republicans knew that. :roll:

getalife

August 12th, 2011
2:45 pm

jm is in love with the gop so take his comments with that in mind.

Doggone/GA

August 12th, 2011
2:46 pm

“Single Payer dreams can be flushed”

Actually, overturning ACA might open the door for Single Payer to be MORE likely, not less. Single Payer can be handled as a straightforward tax. And the tax is used for medical care.

Finn McCool

August 12th, 2011
2:46 pm

“I think the U.S. has every chance of having a good year next year, but the politicians are doing their damnedest to prevent it from happening — the Republicans are — and the Democrats to my eternal bafflement have not stood their ground,” Ian C. Shepherdson, chief United States economist for High Frequency Economics, a research firm, said in an interview.
NYTimes.com

That’s cause the Republicans have pictures on every one of our elected Democrats – Harry, Nancy, every last one of them.

They must have!

Adam

August 12th, 2011
2:46 pm

Fine, you willing for everyone to pay $8,000 a year to the government before they can buy food for the year? Whatever dude, you’re just another crazy socialist.

A payroll tax that replaces Medicare would be fine. So different amounts for different people. In effect, the only thing that would hold people back from buying food for a year would be the wages they make in that scenario.

I’m no crazy socialist. I may have some socialist ideas and support some socialist programs, but I like a good, fair mix. Some things need to be provided through tax revenue. In my opinion, those things include, but are not limited to, police, fire, health, safety.

RB from Gwinnett

August 12th, 2011
2:46 pm

Oh, gee, you mean I might not have to pay for the “less fortuate’s” healthcare policy in addition to their housing, food, power bill, free lunch, cell phone, internet, and disability payments?

poison pen

August 12th, 2011
2:47 pm

Mary Elizabeth

If this ruling stands, all citizens will pay even though those individuals may not pay for health insurance because of the free medical care that will be given to them in emergency rooms, paid by all. Of course, we could just turn away the very ill, or even dying, people in emergency rooms who have no health insurance, but surely we have not come to that as a nation.

” Not a good decision. May even be a political decision”

Boo Hoo Hoo I didn’t win so it must be political. Righr Mary.
Have you seen all the dead bodies laying around all our hospitals, terrible I tell you, Just terrible…

Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)

August 12th, 2011
2:47 pm

“It’s against the law to operate a motor vehicle on public roads without insurance.”

Only if you operate a motor vehicle.

TaxPayer

August 12th, 2011
2:47 pm

Most polls show that a majority of Americans want the healthcare bill repealed and replaced with a healthcare bill even better than that one such as an extended Medicare plan or equivalent.

TaxPayer

August 12th, 2011
2:49 pm

Only if you operate a motor vehicle.

Hence, the statement, “It is against the law to operate a motor vehicle…” :roll:

Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k

August 12th, 2011
2:49 pm

The only way single payer gets implemented is if Dems keep the White House, get back the House to 2008 levels and increase their hold on the Senate.

Not gonna happen for a very long time.

A majority of Americans saw what happens with unrestrained one-party rule, and it wasn’t pretty (cue the Nancy Pelosi reference here).

Single payer is dead. Like yesterday’s fish.

carlosgvv

August 12th, 2011
2:49 pm

By the time this gets to the Supreme Court, we could have another president. What happens if the Court upholds Obamacare and we have a Republican President?

poison pen

August 12th, 2011
2:49 pm

Finn, The reason we don’t have a very good year or the last is because the Democrats have stood their ground.

poison pen

August 12th, 2011
2:51 pm

Carlos, Then we don’t have any choice but to live with it, unless the Repubs make a new bill killing it.

Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)

August 12th, 2011
2:51 pm

“and replaced with a healthcare bill even better than that one such as an extended Medicare plan or equivalent.”

Haven’t seen a poll that said that, however, I have seen polls that said 80% of Americans were satisfied with their existing plans.

Finn McCool

August 12th, 2011
2:51 pm

Jamie Dimon for President? Why not just throw it all in:

Goldmann Sachs 2012

Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k

August 12th, 2011
2:53 pm

I don’t think so, carlos. This is going to be fast-tracked if I read the tea leaves right.

And if it is upheld and we have a Republican President, I suspect funding will be scarce for many of it’s provisions.

jm

August 12th, 2011
2:53 pm

Adam 2:46 – then you’re not capable of thinking. Healthcare spending is 15% of GDP, you’re talking about nationalizing healthcare. Fine. Wages and salaries are about 45% of GDP. So you would now need an additional average tax rate of 33% on everyone in order to pay for it.

Even if you assume huge savings if the government ran it (a giant stretch), then call it 20%. Who’s signing up for an increase of tax rates by 20%?

Why is it so difficult for liberals to use their brains? Too clogged with cocaine residue (obama), hops, barley, or resin I guess.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
2:54 pm

I think the mandate sets a horrible precedent to force Americans to buy corporate crap.

It does not matter what I think.

It matters what the SC thinks.

And they side with corporate most of the time.

TaxPayer

August 12th, 2011
2:54 pm

If unemployed people get jobs, do they get counted as both spending cuts and tax revenue increases.

Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k

August 12th, 2011
2:55 pm

“It does not matter what I think.”

By God, truer words were never spoken . . .

poison pen

August 12th, 2011
2:55 pm

getalife

” jm is in love with the gop so take his comments with that in mind.”

Getalife, And your not in love with the Democrats, so I guess we should keep that in mind, as you so elequently stated.

The Leg Lamp is a “major award”….

August 12th, 2011
2:56 pm

It’s all fluff at this time. Nothing will be resolved until the SCOTUS make a ruling.

Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)

August 12th, 2011
2:56 pm

“Hence, the statement, “It is against the law to operate a motor vehicle…”

Of course if you choose not to own and operate a motor vehicle the law doesn’t require you to purchase insurance. So where’s the corollary with the individual mandate in ObamaCare?

Adam

August 12th, 2011
2:56 pm

jm: In that case a flat tax rate would be a terrible idea. It would have to be a progressive tax rate for the new health care plan.

What, using my brain too much for you there? You just don’t like my idea. It has nothing to do with how much I’m using my brain.

poison pen

August 12th, 2011
2:57 pm

getalife

I think the mandate sets a horrible precedent to force Americans to buy corporate crap.

It does not matter what I think.

It matters what the SC thinks.

” And they side with corporate most of the time.”

Getalife, How about backing that up with 6 examples.

Paul

August 12th, 2011
2:57 pm

A great example of pick your position, then go to the majority or minority opinion to support your point.

Which remarkably few posters have so far done.

Me, I think it’s wonderful that conservatives want to keep paying for people with no insurance. Still haven’t figured out how that fits in with their ‘everyone should be responsible for themselves” philosophy, though.

Thomas

“My billing and coding division works almost every day with illegals and indigents to receive cancer treatment- generally free.”

This is fascinating. Is it a public hospital? Other kind? So a person can present with colon cancer, lung cancer, kidney cancer and no resources or insurance and your facility will provide them care at absolutely no cost for doctors, room, drugs, followup or anything? And you will never bill the patient for any of the cost of care and will never turn it over to a collection agency?

I’m serious. I really want to take a closer look at that facility and their business model.

jm

August 12th, 2011
2:57 pm

Leg Lamp – the SCOTUS is looking very carefully at the lower court rulings. They’re not irrelevant.

Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k

August 12th, 2011
2:59 pm

I do find it interesting that they went to a panel of judges, rather than the whole Circuit on this one. Not sure if it was procedural or a calculated move. I also wonder if an appeal can be in front of the entire Circuit before it goes to the Supremes.

I wonder how both the mandate and severability would fare in front of the entire Circuit?

jm

August 12th, 2011
2:59 pm

Adam 2:56 – if you think that proposing a 20% tax increase will get you elected in America, or is even just good policy somehow (its not), then go run for President. I’m sure you’ll win. Doggone is already hoppin to form a PAC for you. Unfortunately he only has $15 to contribute, but its a start.

Seriously, single payer doesn’t make any sense for a variety of reasons. But you’ll never be convinced because you’re too closed minded to acknowledge the facts, so keep muddling along.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
2:59 pm

pp,

No, the dems are weak and joined the gop to get those citizen united donations from corporate.

Basically, this health care bill is a attempt to regulate corporate greed again.

Your party repeals it, get ready to pay outrageous bills.

You cons love to self destruct yourselves and our country.

The dems do not want to end Medicare or SS so I lean left.

MAJOR historian

August 12th, 2011
3:00 pm

Dave R. – 3k/4k/5k

August 12th, 2011
2:55 pm

““It does not matter what I think.”

By God, truer words were never spoken . . .”

Parsed AND taken out of context.

Matti's Disgust

August 12th, 2011
3:00 pm

Getalife,

Corporations are people now, but we’re not, based on what the SC has been ruling lately. It’s in the interest of new feudal system that NONE of us can afford insurance except for what we can get by pledging our life-long fealty to a large corporate master. The all-American entrepreneurial spirit is nearly dead. When it stops breathing completely, everything we were raised to believe about this country will be pried from its cold, dead hands. Some of us are already “owned” by foreign corporations. The rest will join us soon.

Adam

August 12th, 2011
3:00 pm

jm: if you think that proposing a 20% tax increase will get you elected in America, or is even just good policy somehow

I don’t think you understood what I said. Read it again.

Jay

August 12th, 2011
3:02 pm

Dave R., it is standard to go first to a three-judge panel. The panel’s finding can then be appealed for a hearing of the entire appeals court “en banc.”

getalife

August 12th, 2011
3:02 pm

“Getalife, How about backing that up with 6 examples”.

It is not my problem you are intellectually lazy.

Look it up and prove me wrong con.

Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)

August 12th, 2011
3:02 pm

Given the opinions of two lower courts on the individual mandates the SCOTUS my choose not to hear it or throw it back for revision. I think the administration will be forced to put it back on the drawing board and then also be forced to enjoin Republicans in its revision.

(ir)Rational

August 12th, 2011
3:03 pm

Adam – just responding to your earlier post. To many of the people on here, signing my posts the way I do does nothing to diminish the credit they wouldn’t give me anyway. The fact that I present my viewpoint, which doesn’t jive with theirs is all they need to think I have no valid views. I’ll sign my posts the way I want to, and you can deal. If you have/had read the book, and knew what it is that I’m talking about, you might understand, but no one can force you to learn. I certainly wouldn’t want to force you to read a book that long against your will. But to you, and many others like you, Ayn Rand was simply a hypocrite who is propped up by people who believe differently than you and therefore should be discredited.

Oh-well. Who is John Galt?

Paul

August 12th, 2011
3:03 pm

Adam

You may not be a socialist.

A case can be made that the conservatives opposed to the individual mandate are more socialist, in a twisted sort of way. Now we have those in need who cannot get insurance, but those at the mid to upper income levels who have their premiums subsidized or paid for entirely by others.

So the lower income levels pay for the premiums of those making more than they do.

As I said, it’s twisted.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
3:03 pm

“Some of us are already “owned” by foreign corporations. The rest will join us soon”

Some of us will not bow down to corporate power.