"A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court," the Associated Press reports.
The wire service adds that "U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida."
Fasten your seatbelts, folks, this is gonna get ugly. It's fascinating that the Kelo vs. New London decision or Campaign Finance Reform bills - which were just as blatantly unConstitutional - did not face this sort of opposition. Kelo is understandable - it was, after all, a local issue even if it does have national implications. I can only assume that campaign finance reform went largely unchallenged because most folks can't be bothered to get involved.
But this is health care. Everyone, in one form or another, receives some form of health and/or wellness care. I know that when we had our annual health care review last month our Blue Cross rep made reference of the changes to our policy based on health care - like "children" being on the health plan until age 26 (!!!) as well as a cap on office visit and ER co-pays. I commented to a co-worker that it was interesting that the "direct" costs were affected so that the consumer pays less - but the overall costs are predicted to skyrocket. If nothing else, whoever drafted it had a keen eye for human nature - folks will accept a 5% increase in their health care premiums (I pay ~ $200 a pay period for a family plan, so $20 a month, let's call it) but will scream bloody murder over a $5/office visit co-pay increase.
In any case, it will be interesting to see how this plays out...
That is all.
6 comments:
I'm the exact opposite. I would rather my office visit co-pay go up, and my monthly payment go down. Why? It would save me money. I can choose when I go to the doctor. I can't choose the monthly payment.
As I said over at Nancy's, It's a nice read, albeit not as amusing (Scalia) or thought provoking (Thomas, with Scalia making a strong showing) as a lot of SCOTUS opinions.
Just waiting for the opinon that details how Congress has no more authority to regulate the conduct of health insurance under the Commerce Clause, given that they have prohibited interstate commerce in health insurance. That ought to be a nice read. . .
"It's fascinating that the Kelo vs. New London decision or Campaign Finance Reform bills - which were just as blatantly unConstitutional"
As I recall, both those SCOTUS decisions took most observers by surprise. Even many of those who voted for the McCain-Feingold law, and the fool who signed it into law, expected it to be thrown out. Kelo vs. New London was also a big surprise to courtwatchers. I like to think, though, that both issues contributed to the general "the government is out of control" feeling that led to the Tea Parties.
Then, too, both entered the public eye as Supreme Court decisions -- meaning they were already accomplished feats. There's no appeal from the Supreme Court. After that, the only recourse is a lot of slow careful legal maneuvering toward a test case in which the 'unconstitutional' issue is so clear that even a bunch of blind monkeys could see it.
THANKS FOR POSTING!!
We've been ALL OVER this on Common Cents...
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
"It's fascinating that the Kelo vs. New London decision or Campaign Finance Reform bills - which were just as blatantly unConstitutional"
Jay...this case is COMPLETELY different than the two you cite. Kelo, while unconstitutional, was an Eminent Domain case. And, even though the beneficiary of the Eminent Domain seizure was a private citizen, Kelo was offered (and if I'm not mistaken, received) some monetary cmpensation at market value, or close to it.
Campaign Reform...in my opinion, it was McCain-Fiengold that was an unconstitutional law, and SCOTUS made the right decision in overturning at least part of it.
What separates the decision today from the two you cite, and what evokes more opposition to it than the two you cite, is the fact that Congress tried to twist the meaning of the Commerce Clause, and claim that because insurance is a commodity that you buy, and your lack of buying (by choice or economic limitations) affects the Federal Goobermint (because the Fed mandates that hospitals MUST cover emergency visits, and is on the hook for said visits because hospitals write it off their taxes as a loss, effectively billing the Goobermint) the Federal Goobermint then has the right to *regulate* said commerce by *COMPELLING THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN* to purchase a product/service, else suffer economic penalty for failure to purchase what the Goobermint mandates.
And no, this is NOTHING like the auto-insurance requirement...the requirement of carrying auto insurance is NOT a *Federal* mandate. The FedGov was smarter back then, and told the *States* that if the *States* did not compel mandatory auto insurance, then they would suffer a severe cutback in federal monies for the upkeep of the *federal* highways that that connect the states...ie: the Interstate Highway System.
Thats how the mandatory auto fiasco is maintained, and evades judicial scrutiny by SCOTUS...because it is left to the states to impose it, and therefore under the color of the 10th by virtue of States Rights, the states can impose mandatory auto insurance...FedGov cannot.
The healthcare fiasco is FedGov overstepping its Constitutional limitations. They cannot compel a citizen to enter into a contractual agreement to buy a service or commodity. Todays decision was correct, and is setting the stage for a SCOTUS appeal, probably as soon as the next sessions docket is compiled.
Aside from the Constitutional issues, just about everything is wrong with this law. Co-pays are supposed to be an incentive to use the most efficient and least expensive options possible. That's why an office visit costs less than an ER visit. That's why some plans have lower co-pays for generic drugs than name brands.
That's why Medicaid should have similar co-pays to encourage people to go to primary care facilities for routine care, not very expensive to maintain and run ERs. Only the "advocates" won't hear of it because that will "chill" (on of their favorited scare words) the poor from seeking care. No sh** Sherlock. Co-pays are supposed to be a reality check to make people think carefully before just traipsing (often via expensive ambulances, because cabbies expect cash) to the ER for a prescription for Tylenol. Which Medicaid will pay for if it's a prescrition, but won't if it's bought over the counter.
And yeah, I've seen that about 10,000 times over the years.
If we want to cut health care costs, especially "free" healthcare which is paid for by you and me, then the people on Medicaid have to have incentives not to abuse the system. Nothing says don't abuse the system like co-pays deducted right from their SSI, AFDC, or other "entitlement" program.
Here is my health care reform program in a nutshell. 1) Tort Reform 2) Allow interstate competition for health care insurance 3) Co-pays for Medicaid patients. 4) Reduce the role of the states and feds in "overseeing" health care delivery. Not eliminate, but reduce.
Sorry for the post length comment, but you've struck a nerve.
Post a Comment