In Florida, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson has rejected an effort by the Obama Administration to dismiss a challenge of the health care law and has ordered the case to proceed — even criticizing the position of the Administration as “Alice in Wonderland” arguments.
While dismissing a couple claims, Vinson allowed two of the major counts to go forward: the states’ challenge to the controversial requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance and a required expansion of the Medicaid program. The former is the issue that was the subject of a prior column where I expressed concern over the constitutionality of the law. I also previously told congressional members and staff that I believed that this approach was unnecessary to achieve these results and would raise serious constitutional questions.
Vinson noted that the Democrats claimed at different times that the mandate was a penalty and a tax. He ruled that it is in fact a penalty. In stinging language, Vinson noted “Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an “Alice-in-Wonderland” tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad power in check.”
We previously discussed the shifting between the insistence that this is a tax versus a penalty in public statements — a failure of the Administration to adopt a consistent public position despite its obvious importance to the anticipated litigation. This lawsuit was filed minutes after President Obama signed the bill. This is a rather embarrassing failure of the Justice Department and White House counsel to educate Democratic leaders, including President Obama, on the need to adopt a consistent position of the mandate as a tax.
Vinson acknowledged that a district judge in Michigan upheld the power of Congress in another challenge, but ruled that the issue is not settled and that these powers claimed by Congress “have never been applied in such a manner before.”
The Florida lawsuit was filed on behalf of 20 states.
Source: Post
Jonathan Turley
Arizona residents are REQUIRED to carry car insurance, but that’s not the point nor the unchallengable legal basis for the methodology of the HCR Act. The federal government most certainly well within its rights to levy a tax. They’ve levied a tax for which there is a 100% deduction by carrying health insurance. End of story.
Bdaman
Thanks for helping to make those point in support universal health care. Obviously the health insurance industry is still the bully on the block. They still think Bush is in office and they can rape the public with impunity.
BTW, Arizona residents are REQUIRED
“There are severe penalties for violating the state’s financial responsibility law. A first conviction will result in a fine between $175 and $350. Subsequent convictions could result in fines of $350 to $1,000, suspension of your driver’s license, and impoundment of your automobile.”
Same in Florida.
The state’s largest insurer has been approved to raise health premium rates by 41 percent to 47 percent for some of its policies sold to individual buyers, in the largest price hikes yet seen in Connecticut since the adoption of national health care reform.
For all of its individual market plans, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield has received approval to raise rates by at least 19 percent — including a range of 30 percent to 44 percent for the brand of plans in the individual market that was most popular in 2009, Century Preferred.
The reason for the increases is the new federal health reform mandates, according to Anthem and the state Department of Insurance, which is defending its approval against charges by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. Those reforms took effect Sept. 23.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/obamacare-mandates-result-in-47-percent-hikes-in-insurance-costs-in-connecticut-105036299.html
mcoville,
Texas law:
“There are severe penalties for violating the state’s financial responsibility law. A first conviction will result in a fine between $175 and $350. Subsequent convictions could result in fines of $350 to $1,000, suspension of your driver’s license, and impoundment of your automobile.”
http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/pubs/consumer/cb088.pdf
Those who rebel against this law end up in trailer parks … or worse.
Where do you live?
mcoville,
“there is no mandate for every Texan to purchase auto insurance, nice try”
Wrong.
Become aware, even though it is not required by law.
Every state mandates automobile insurance or equivalent bonding for automobile owners who want to drive it.
Read and learn:
http://public.findlaw.com/traffic-ticket-violation-law/traffic-ticket-a-z/driving-without-insurance-laws.html
“Senate didn’t have the spine ”
Look at its Democratic leader.I’m quite sure his picture is next to the word spineless.
Tony C. 1, October 15, 2010 at 1:35 pm
I agree with Turley, the mandate is unconstitutional and should be rescinded. Then the Health Care bill might mean something; as it stands now I think the mandate hands the industry *more* profit than they give up by ending their most horrific practices.
——————————–
I think you may fundamentally misunderstand how this bill works. Without the mandate, the rest of it falls apart.
The Federal bill is generally similar to MA’s MittRomneyCare – essentially everyone in the state needs to buy into the health insurance system, and this, in turn, funds coverage for low income people. Under MittRomneyCare, if you don’t have qualifying health insurance, then you don’t get to claim an exemption on your income tax. In other words, you get fined.
It’s too bad that the folks in Congress and the Senate didn’t have the spine to set this requirement up properly. If millions of Americans get screwed because implementation of the bill is delayed, the results will be tragic.
I agree with Turley, the mandate is unconstitutional and should be rescinded. Then the Health Care bill might mean something; as it stands now I think the mandate hands the industry *more* profit than they give up by ending their most horrific practices.
“But do not try to pass legislation that flies in the face of the constitution and expect Americans to accept it without a fight.”
—————————————————————
I don’t think this is an American ‘fight’. I think this looks like special interests obstructing attempts to protect Americans. Please correct me if I’m wrong (and I will humbly acquiesce…)but the ‘forcing’ people to buy was something that got added on because private industry was trying to prevent anything but total privatisation of insurance to begin with. This was not part of the initial single payer proposal which got gutted left right and center by private for profits who have proven undoubtably that they couldn’t care less about the ‘health’ in healthcare. If you want to fight for Americans why not stop beating them up and allowing others to do so?
Dredd: “Gosh, this is as bad as when they made Texans buy automobile insurance. Socialism!” there is no mandate for every Texan to purchase auto insurance, nice try.
It is good to see that someone is willing to tell the majority Democrats that they do not hold supreme power over the lives of Americans. If they want to expand mediciad, then try to expand medicaid and we can have that debate. But do not try to pass legislation that flies in the face of the constitution and expect Americans to accept it without a fight.
“In Florida, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson has rejected an effort by the Obama Administration to dismiss a challenge of the health care law and has ordered the case to proceed — even criticizing the position of the Administration as “Alice in Wonderland” arguments.”
————————————————————-
This is Wonderland all right, wake me when it’s safe to come topside….more from the land of blunder….er, wonders;
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/three-of-5-nurses-in-florida-are-leaving-732785.html?imw=Y
as an RN in Florida I can attest that what is going on here is neither healthy or caring. It’s all about the money and securing ‘market position’….which is a big fat joke since there is no market anymore…..
It looks like it will be 1-1 when the forum-shopped Judge Vinson makes his decision in December.
Gosh, this is as bad as when they made Texans buy automobile insurance. Socialism!
They refused which eventually led to more and more trailer parks as lawsuits led to bankruptcy, etc…
😉
Twenty Attorneys General should be able to get the courts attention, but I would hope that the White House has not created a bill that can be taken apart by these types of political inquiries. We will see…The the states win, there is probably a billion dollars waiting to run ads show how the Obama White House is inept.
This is corporatism at its worst, forcing citizens to purchase a product or else.
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?” – The Mad Hatter
Well at least we’ve solved the riddle of the Hatter’s employment status since leaving Alice’s company.
He works in Washington.
Does Wonderland have single payer? I may move there.
Health Care Lawsuit to Go Forward in Florida
By: David Dayen Thursday October 14, 2010 1:48 pm
A handpicked district court judge in Florida rejected a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, allowing challenges to the constitutionality of the law on two counts to go forward. Attorney General Bill McCollum, forum-shopping to the most conservative city in Florida, Pensacola, for the best opportunity to get a sympathetic judge, filed the suit on behalf of 20 states.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/10/14/health-care-lawsuit-to-go-forward-in-florida/
As Rodney Kings said….Can’t we just get along…..American is being victimized by political agendas….does Wilson’s League of Nations ring any bells….ok…SFO…maybe not a good place…but still….