Wednesday, February 23, 2011

3 - 2: Another Federal Judge rules in favor of ObamaCare mandates

Another liberal judge (appointed by Clinton) has ruled in favor of ObamaCare mandates.  U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler, of the District of Columbia, rules that opting out of health insurance cost others money, therefore government is within its right to use the Commerce Clause.
Ben Smith Politico: The perfect partisan streak in health care rulings continues, with D.C. federal district judge Gladys Kessler, a Clinton appointee, ruling the Affordable Care Act constitutional. She's the third Democratic judge to do so; two Republicans have found it unconstitutional.Kessler writes in one key passage on the mandate:
First, this Court agrees with the two other district courts which have ruled that the individuals subject to § 1501’s mandate provision are either present or future participants in the national health care market. See Liberty Univ., 2010 WL 4860299, at *15 (“Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care.”); Thomas More Law Ctr., 720 F.Supp.2d at 894 (“The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. . . . The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings . . . they cannot opt out of this market.”). Thus, the vast majority of individuals, if not all individuals, will require some medical care in their lifetime.
But people can still opt out by paying the fee, so is anything really solved?  I also fail to see where the Constitutional authority comes from for the government to save.  If such a thing exists, why the heck hasn't been enforced across the board?  Our $14 trillion deficit would seem to speak to the contrary.

The Supreme Court really needs to fast track this.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: The Note
Via: Ben Smith Politico


Anonymous said...

"...they cannot opt out of this market."

So, basically, since people need medical care sooner or later, that means they HAVE to be in the medical system?

Can she prove that anyone needing medical care in the future will be cheating and not paying for the medical care, therefore a burden to other tax payer under Obamacare? Isn't that saying everyone's guilty unless they pay?

That's basically claiming Obamacare IS THE SAME as the private medical industry. Who died and made Obamacare the same as a private market?

That is the most vile underlying assumption behind this judgment.

This is Wickard v. Filburn all over again with a modern and evil twist.

But guess what, this ain't 1942, and we don't bend over with our pants down.

2nd Anony.

Heather said...

The individual mandate as such really needs to be reconsidered since nobody can force us to buy health insurance. But on the other hand, the provision which concerns the pre-existing conditions should not be repealed because it could cause a lot of problems to people who suffer from cancer and similar medical conditions.

LL said...

We all have to wait for the final Supreme Court ruling on the issue -- however I think irrespective of that, the States themselves will decide whether or not to participate and nullification becomes a possibility that the Feds won't want to tackle.

Anonymous said...

Health care is not Health Insurance. some people can afford their health care without insurance and simply pay for it. It is cheaper to pay cash for health care. However this judge has conflated Insurance with Care. It is against the constitution to force people to buy things. Next they will force you to buy Gm cars.

Patricia said...

I can no longer trust the Supreme Court after the decision against the parents of children who after vaccination developed autism.

Ruling on the side of big pharma is an indication of things to come.

Related Posts with Thumbnails