The decision from the Northern District of Florida is available here. In brief:
1. The 26 states lose on the argument that the mandate for drastically increased state spending under Medicaid is unconstitutional. State participation in Medicaid always has been voluntary, and remains so. The states did not argue that the revisions to the Medicaid grant program violate the 4-factor test in S.D. v. Dole as to when conditional federal grants to states are permissible.
2. The plaintiffs win on the individual mandate. The individuals plaintiffs, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses have standing to challenge the mandate. So do Utah and Idaho, at the least, because of state statutes forbidding health insurance mandates. According to original meaning, “commerce” was trade. Citation to Randy Barnett. Even the modern precedents require “activity” as a predicate for commerce clause regulation. Discussion of the pre-Revolution boycott of tea, in protest against the Stamp Act; surely the new Constitution did not empower Congress to mandate the consumption of tea. The decision not to purchase health insurance is not an “activity.” Congress cannot use the commerce power to mandate the purchase of broccoli or General Moters automobiles. (Contra Chemerinsky’s cited argument that Congress can mandate automobile purchases.) The health insurance mark does not possess unique characteristics to justify a mandate. Characterizing the refusal to purchase health insurance as a regulatable economic activity would violate “the non-infinity principle” (a Kopel/Reynolds term, not the court’s) that the commerce clause does not give Congress the power over almost everything.
If it has the power to compelan otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actualtransaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affectsinterstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest thatCongress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nationwhich began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate givingthe East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold inAmerica would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failingto engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would havebeen in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended. See id. at 592 (quoting Hamilton at the New York Convention that there would be just cause to reject the Constitution if it would allow the federal government to “penetrate therecesses of domestic life, and control, in all respects, the private conduct ofindividuals”) (Thomas, J., concurring).
3. Necessary & proper does not save the mandate. The mandate fails at least 2 of the 5 factors from Comstock. Necessary and proper is not an independent source of power, but rather an authorization of additional means for ends which are themselves among the enumerated powers.
Here, the “essential attributes” of the Commerce Clause limitations on the federalgovernment’s power would definitely be compromised by this assertion of federalpower via the Necessary and Proper Clause. If Congress is allowed to define the scope of its power merely by arguing that a provision is “necessary” to avoid thenegative consequences that will potentially flow from its own statutory enactments, the Necessary and Proper Clause runs the risk of ceasing to be the“perfectly harmless” part of the Constitution that Hamilton assured us it was, andmoves that much closer to becoming the “hideous monster [with] devouring jaws”that he assured us it was not.
4. The mandate is not severable from the health control act. Defendants themselves have argued forcefully that the mandate is absolutely essential to the entire regulatory scheme. There is no severability clause. The mandate is tightly integrated into the entire act.
5. No injunction. Declaratory relief is sufficient, especially since there is a presumption that the federal government will comply with judicial decisions.
6. The entire act is declared void. According to Cato’s Ilya Shapiro, this means that the federal government (presuming that it will obey the law) must immediately stop enforcing the entire health control law. Of course the 11th Circuit might grant a stay, and Judge Vinson might also do so, but as of right now, there is no stay.
wfjag says:
IBD is reporting the story as Florida Judge Vinson: ObamaCare ‘Must Be Declared Void’http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/2386-florida-judge-vinson-obamacare-must-be-declared-void
Prof Kopel: The link you provide to the opinion is the same one provided in the IBD story. However, there appears trouble downloading it from that link (or, at least I’m having trouble with it, so it could be my server). Does someone have a another (better?) link? Thanks.
January 31, 2011, 4:03 pmunhhyphenatedconservative says:
I’ve been confused in the coverage. Was there a severability clause or not in the legislation? If not does that then mean the whole kit and kaboodle is gone?
January 31, 2011, 4:04 pmZathras says:
The opinion says “the defendants have conceded that the Act’s health insurance reforms cannot survive without the individual mandate.” (Slip op. at 68). Is this true? I thought the Feds just conceded this with respect to preexisting conditions.
January 31, 2011, 4:05 pmDilan Esper says:
Sigh. Another 200 post thread, coming up. As well as posts from Jonathan, Ilya, and Randy (sans comments) about why the decision was right, and a post from Orin asking several questions that he has about the Court’s analysis.
I guess I’m in favor of the Supreme Court resolving this just so we don’t have to read about it anymore. Maybe that’s the real mandate.
January 31, 2011, 4:06 pmPJ says:
This link worked fine for me
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/31/florida-district-court-rules-against-health-care-reform.aspx
and may I say that, to my uneducated eye, it looks like the judge did a FINE job of the Constitutional analysis, and I betcha SCOTUS will also hold that the ENTIRE ACT is, unseverably, unConstitutional ;-)
January 31, 2011, 4:06 pmsteve says:
Given that the judge struck down the entire law, why did he not also stay its implementation?
January 31, 2011, 4:06 pmU.Va. Grad says:
There was no severability clause. However, under certain conditions, an offending provision can be severed even without a clause. The Florida and Virginia cases, though each found the mandate unconstitutional, differ on severability.
January 31, 2011, 4:07 pmBart DePalma says:
Round one goes to Article I.
Next stop, 11th Cir.
In the end, this will be Kennedy’s decision.
January 31, 2011, 4:09 pmU.Va. Grad says:
From page 75 of the decision, the entire discussion on not enjoining implementation (apologies for formatting, copy/paste from a PDF is always tricky):
January 31, 2011, 4:12 pmPJ says:
Steve – as he explained in the decision, the Declaratory relief, as held against the Federal Government who is ‘assumed to follow the law’ ( and the ex-health care-law is no longer the law today ), thus no further directive or enforcecment by injunction was / is needed.
IOW -the judge says he DID stay the implementation, de facto.
January 31, 2011, 4:13 pmOrin Kerr says:
Bart,
Based on Comstock, isn’t the 5th vote Roberts, not Kennedy?
January 31, 2011, 4:14 pmAnon21 says:
Keep dreaming.
And Mr. Kopel, no better way to demonstrate your objectivity and good faith than choosing a neutral descriptor like “health control.”
January 31, 2011, 4:18 pmRepeal 16-17 says:
De facto Chief Justice Kennedy will resolve this issue, with the other 8 Justices splitting 4-4. Until then, the mandate is in a superposition of states.
January 31, 2011, 4:20 pmwfjag says:
But which declaration of the law is the federal government supposed to follow? The decision declaring the entire law constitutional; the decision declaring the individual mandate only unconstitutional; or this decision declaring the entire law unconstitutional?
January 31, 2011, 4:20 pmAnon21 says:
As with most civil litigation, the status quo (law is valid) continues until appeals are exhausted.
January 31, 2011, 4:24 pmAnother judge says ObamaCare is unconstitutional (Updated) | Kyle Wingfield says:
[...] at 4:25 p.m.: Via the blog Volokh Conspiracy, here’s the text of the [...]
January 31, 2011, 4:25 pmBart DePalma says:
Good point. However, I have a sick feeling in my gut that Kennedy will quail at the thought of reversing a major piece of legislation, especially in its entirety.
January 31, 2011, 4:28 pmnewrouter says:
does kagan recuse herself when this goes to the scotus?
January 31, 2011, 4:30 pmJustin says:
Orin,
Because there is, as far as I can tell, no such thing as a “Comstock test,” I don’t think Comstock can accurately predict the outcome of the vote, though there is an increasing chance that there will in fact be some cert granted.
January 31, 2011, 4:33 pmAnon321 says:
I’m intrigued by the combination of two conclusions: (1) the individual mandate is not necessary (within the meaning of Article I) to the implementation of the Act as a whole, and (2) the individual mandate is not severable because it is an essential lynchpin of the Act as a whole.
Is the second conclusion simply based on estoppel — i.e., the government claims that the mandate is essential to the whole act, and while the court rejects that argument for Necessary and Proper Clause purposes, it believes that the government must be held to it for severability purposes?
(I know, I really should read the opinion before commenting, but this struck me as an interesting outcome.)
January 31, 2011, 4:35 pmStrict says:
Justin says there’s no such thing as a Comstock test.
DK says “The mandate fails at least 2 of the 5 factors from Comstock.”
hmm…
January 31, 2011, 4:36 pmMahan Atma says:
Oh dear… where will the Ayn Rand’s of the world get their health care now?
January 31, 2011, 4:36 pmJames Gibson says:
I wonder if this time, Barrack will chew-out the Supreme Court in front of the Congress before SCOTUS gives its ruling on this matter.
January 31, 2011, 4:39 pmAngus says:
Republican judge, and this outcome was considered a given from the day he was assigned to hear the case. This is going to the Supremes before the final word is heard.
I enjoyed the judge’s editorializing at the beginning of the decision. Reads like a Tea Party political manifesto.
January 31, 2011, 4:42 pmBrock says:
How does this ruling effect the out-of-state plaintiffs in the case? If, for example, Judge Vinson had granted the injunction against implementation, would it have had force in Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc. (i.e., would the District’s personal jurisdiction over the joined plaintiffs have been enough to halt implementation within those states outside of the territorial grasp of the District and/or 11th Circuit)?
January 31, 2011, 4:43 pmAllan Leedy says:
A heaven-sent rescue from a crisis situation in which millions were going to be able get health insurance coverage.
January 31, 2011, 4:44 pmSeaDrive says:
How’s your health insurance situation?
January 31, 2011, 4:44 pmJustin says:
Strict,
To be fair, even the district court questions whether there is a Comstock test. The district court’s decision, which reads like a brief rather than an opinion (even “acknowledging” facts against it, despite it being the purported finder of fact), has a lot of weird logical tricks to it. One trick was stating that because an uninsured person has zero impact on the economy when it isn’t actually purchasing health care, the uninsured have no economic impact. Another is that the fact that the insurance requirements are necessary to avoid an adverse selection problem just goes to show that the health care law is really bad.
Even if the Supreme Court ultimately does find the law unconstitutional, its final decision will look nothing like this.
January 31, 2011, 4:45 pmMurgatroyd says:
Evidently some people on your side really don’t like to read, do they? If more of our fine congressmen and congresswomen had read the bill before voting on it, you probably wouldn’t be reading about it now.
January 31, 2011, 4:45 pmJustin says:
“If more of our fine congressmen and congresswomen had read the bill before voting on it, you probably wouldn’t be reading about it now.”
Name one Congressman who you believe would have voted against the bill if he had only read that bill.
January 31, 2011, 4:48 pmProf. S. says:
My sense is that the judge really wrote that opinion for popular consumption. It reads far more like a non-legal explanation than any case I can recall.
If my non-lawyer friends and family ask me about the opinion, I’ll sum it up with this excerpt:
January 31, 2011, 4:50 pmgs says:
Does the Supreme Court still read election returns?
January 31, 2011, 4:50 pmRedman says:
Since this is certainly going to the Supremes, why the hoopla about another district court decision?
January 31, 2011, 4:51 pmef says:
I think (1) was saying that “necessary” does not stand on it’s own as a justification for the law. It’s an additional test, once the law has already passed a first hurdle.
January 31, 2011, 4:51 pmwfjag says:
That isn’t true as to the current DADT litigation, although the constitutionality of the statute had been upheld several times in the past. So, why should it be true of this law (other than for partisan reasons)?
January 31, 2011, 4:52 pmShelbyC says:
Does this decision have anything to do with medicare or social security?
January 31, 2011, 4:54 pmterraformer says:
What’s scaring a person like me who lives in MA is that none of these decisions ruling against the law have ruled in a manner that would preclude the states from implementing this on their own… It’s been a purely federalism exercise.
So that means we are possibly still screwed here in MA as the sick and the infirm move here to free ride. We already have a lot of that as it is with welfare and other services so amply funded.
January 31, 2011, 4:55 pmNo Theory of Jurisprudence says:
Political decisions are too important to be left to non-lawyers. Without my legal education, Congress was incapable of deciding whether not-purchasing health insurance is an activity or not.
January 31, 2011, 4:56 pmAnon21 says:
You’ll need to point to the specific case you’re talking about, but at least in the Witt case in California, the government didn’t move to stay implementation of the order pending appeal. Parties’ rights have to be asserted to be effectuated, but the fact that a party fails to assert its rights in one case has no bearing on whether it can assert its rights in a later, unrelated case.
In the more recent Log Cabin Republicans case, you’re just wrong as a matter of reality: the district judge refused to stay, the government appealed, and the 9th Circuit did stay the ruling pending appeal. Again, very standard in civil litigation, and it will happen here because it’s the normal way cases are handled in this country. No “partisan” mischief about it.
January 31, 2011, 4:59 pmAndrew says:
Anon321, while the individual mandate may be necessary to the rest of the legislation as written, it is not necessarily necessary to legislation that could be devised to address the same subject matter.
January 31, 2011, 4:59 pmAnon321 says:
Right, but aren’t the other provisions in the Act — for example, the prohibitions on rescission and denial for pre-existing conditions — valid exercises of the commerce power? I could see the validity of conclusion (1) if the individual mandate were passed as a naked, stand-alone law. But isn’t the argument that Congress was engaging in a fairly straightforward regulation of interstate commerce and added the individual mandate as a necessary incident to the implementation of those regulations?
January 31, 2011, 5:02 pmalkali says:
Many people do not realize that the colonists’ objection to the tax on tea was not that the tax was imposed on colonists without representation in Parliament: rather, the colonists thought no government of any kind could ever legitimately tax tea. That is why George Washington was impeached and executed for putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. Learn your history, people.
January 31, 2011, 5:04 pmPJens says:
It is amazing that ObamaCare is the best health care legislation the democrats could come up with. The arguments on it’s constitutionality started immediately after the bill was revealed. Ironic how many former supporters of the law are now getting waivers from it. ObamaCare is not in the best interest to the majority of people. Judge Vinson recognized that and I predict the next courts will as well.
January 31, 2011, 5:07 pma poster says:
A few observations after a very quick read:
1. There is a serious disconnect in Judge Vinson’s discussion of the current state of Supreme Court precedent on the proposed activity/inactivity distinction. On page 41, he suggests that “there is a simple and obvious reason why the Supreme Court has never distinguished between activity and inactivity: it has not been called upon to consider the issue because, until now, Congress has never attempted to exercise its Commerce Clause power in such a way before.” Yet just two pages later he asserts that “‘activity’ is an indispensible part the [sic] Commerce Clause analysis (at least as currently understood, defined, and applied in Supreme Court case law).” Op. at 43-44. Those two statements are irreconcilable with one another. And it’s a real problem for his opinion, because the claim that the activity/inactivity distinction is set in stone in Supreme Court precedent is the lynchpin of his broader argument.
2. Judge Vinson’s discussion of the Necessary & Proper Clause is better than Judge Hudson’s in the Virginia case, but it too is incoherent. I want to highlight one serious flaw.
Judge Vinson argues that Congress cannot be permitted to “define the scope of its power merely by arguing that a provision is ‘necessary’ to avoid the negative consequences that will potentially flow from its own statutory enactments.” Op. at 62-63. That’s actually a pretty neat argument. But there’s no way to square it was Comstock. In that case, programs enacted under Congress’s enumerated powers – namely, the federal criminal law and the federal prison system – caused “negative consequences”: uprooting sexually dangerous offenders from their home states, moving them across the country, and then releasing them at the end of their sentences into communities that were unequipped or unwilling to deal with the dangers they posed. The Court held that a federal civil commitment law was a Necessary and Proper means of effectuating the enumerated powers pursuant to which the underlying criminal laws were passed – even though the problems the commitment regime addressed were caused by those laws. Indeed, Justice Alito’s concurring opinion was pretty explicit about the point:
3. There an awful lot of hand waving in the place of serious legal analysis. Judge Vinson asserts that the government’s examples of prior Congressional regulation of inactivity are all “obviously distinguishable,” Op. at 39, without explaining how. He finds it “difficult to imagine,” Op. at 42, how the Framers could have meant to give Congress the power to force people to buy tea, but his judgment reflects pure intuition. There are other examples. (Pages 59 and 60 come to mind.)
4. I suspect that Judge Vinson overstates the scope of the government’s concession regarding the indispensability of the mandate to the Act’s insurance reforms.
January 31, 2011, 5:09 pmDilan Esper says:
That’s quite wrong
January 31, 2011, 5:21 pmThorley Winston says:
Not really when you realize that (a) about 17 million of those eligible for coverage under the bill were people that already had health insurance but were expected to lose it because of the legislation and (b) another 8-10 million were people who were already effectively covered by Medicaid but don’t actually formally sign up until they go to the hospital.
January 31, 2011, 5:24 pmBrian Garst says:
There is no enumerated power for providing health care or insurance.
January 31, 2011, 5:24 pmMike says:
PJens – The really funny thing is that the individual mandate — heck most of the objectionable elements of the HCR act — were mostly from the republican playbook, not the democrat.
Also, I think that your analysis of the “majority” is wrong. The minority are those with access to some kind of healthcare that effectively opt-out. They also happen to be the young and healthy. Introducing them into the healthcare market, or so the argument goes, means that premiums for the rest of us will go down.
January 31, 2011, 5:25 pmSeaDrive says:
If you recall the silly season 2009-2010, they made it up as they went along. I suspect that behind the scenes, the healthcare experts where busy trying to explain why the politically acceptable wouldn’t work and to push solutions that would work but which were seen as politically unacceptable, all with an eye to the opinions of one or two republican senators that they needed. It’s pretty much a certainly that some sort of serious mistake would be made, and it just happened to be a constitutional issue.
The trouble is that most of our laws are made this way.
January 31, 2011, 5:27 pmrpt says:
Is this the only trial court decision on the issue? I think “round one” is 2-2 at this point.
January 31, 2011, 5:28 pmAllan Leedy says:
Our long national nightmare of improved health care is over.
January 31, 2011, 5:30 pmHm. says:
Erm. So how exactly does this affect the health insurance of say, a 21-year-old college student? The Ohio State University either requires students to be on their parent’s insurance or to purchase comprehensive health insurance (at the costs of somewhere around $750/qtr. last I checked, which is more than I pay for my food) from the university.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the insurance company drops the student when they turn 21. It’s half-way through the quarter. Is the health insurance company allowed to drop the student, who would either have to enroll into the comprehensive student plan or be dis-enrolled from the school altogether?
*Note, I am not 21.
January 31, 2011, 5:31 pmrpt says:
Victory for freedom from health care! The Kochs are cheering in Palm Springs.
January 31, 2011, 5:31 pmMark Buehner says:
Our health care has improved? Funny I didn’t notice. Makes sense though, my insurance went up more than usual.
January 31, 2011, 5:38 pmJudge Vinson Piles On : Conservative Compendium says:
[...] Volokh Conspiracy: Judge Vinson rules federal health control unconstitutional [...]
January 31, 2011, 5:39 pmDjDiverDan says:
Yeah, kind of like Obama, et al. keep regailing us with the “neutral descriptor” of “health care reform.” Calling a statute “reform”, even if you do so ad nauseam, doesn’t make it so.
January 31, 2011, 5:46 pmgeokstr says:
Perhaps not, but if they had had to actually read it themselves, the ensuing weeks it took for them to finish might have been enough time for more of the electorate to actually read it too, and the ensuing political firestorm could have forestalled its narrow partisan passage by legislative sleight of hand. That way at least we wouldn’t have had to pass it first before we could read it and find out how wonderful it really was.
Wow, 47 comments and not one copy/paste job from Media Matters yet attacking the judge’s ethics, or his wife, or his video rentals, or anything, like the last one. I’m impressed – must be something to this new “civility” thingy.
(Yes, yes, I know, my name will now be taken off the Cloward-Piven status memo mailing list. See if I care.)
January 31, 2011, 5:46 pmJimAK says:
Bart Stupak might have changed his mind …
January 31, 2011, 5:48 pmrpt says:
Perhaps not, but if they had had to actually read it themselves, the ensuing weeks it took for them to finish might have been enough time for more of the electorate to actually read it too, and the ensuing political firestorm could have forestalled its narrow partisan passage by legislative sleight of hand. That way at least we wouldn’t have had to pass it first before we could read it and find out how wonderful it really was.
Wow, 47 comments and not one copy/paste job from Media Matters yet attacking the judge’s ethics, or his wife, or his video rentals, or anything, like the last one. I’m impressed — must be something to this new “civility” thingy.
(Yes, yes, I know, my name will now be taken off the Cloward-Piven status memo mailing list. See if I care.)
We’re waiting for Rep. Kingston’s comment.
January 31, 2011, 5:49 pmMark Buehner says:
Haven’t they changed it to ‘Health Care Investment’ yet?
January 31, 2011, 5:50 pmwfjag says:
Cases in which DADT upheld as constitutional in face of EP challenges:
Able v. United States, 155 F.3d 628 (2d Cir. 1998) (The National Defense Authorization Act section mandating termination of a service member for engaging in homosexual conduct did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, even under rational basis scrutiny; Government’s concerns of promoting unit cohesion, enhancing privacy, and reducing sexual tension distinguished the military from civilian life and went directly to the military’s need to foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps);
Richenberg v. Perry, 97 F.3d 256 (8th Cir. 1996) (DoD’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy toward homosexuals did not violate equal protection component of Fifth Amendment to extent it excluded from military those with propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, as such classification bore rational relationship to legitimate purpose of reducing sexual tensions that would jeopardize unit cohesion), reh. & reh., en banc, den., cert. den., 522 U.S. 807 (1997)
Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996) (statutory scheme governing homosexuality in the military, colloquially known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” was constitutional, under rational basis equal protection review, as it reflected legitimate legislative choice; it was legitimate for Congress to proscribe homosexual acts based on its conclusions that a military force should be as free as possible of sexual attachments and pressures, and it was also legitimate for Congress to try to prevent the commission of such acts), cert. den., 519 U.S. 948 (1996); and,
Watson v. Perry, 918 F.Supp. 1403 (W.D. Wash. 1996) (statute defining policy concerning homosexuality in armed forces, as interpreted by DoD directive which defines words “homosexual” and “bisexual” to mean homosexual conduct or propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, as distinct from “homosexual orientation,” denoting abstract sexual preference, can be reasonably construed as making actionable only statements, language or acts which demonstrate intent or propensity to engage in prohibited homosexual conduct and is thus facially valid on equal protection grounds, as creating rational presumption that servicemember who states that he or she is homosexual or bisexual is demonstrating intent or propensity to engage in prohibited conduct), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grds, 124 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 1997), reh. & reh., en banc, den. 155 F.3d 1049 (Apr. 6, 1998), cert. den., 525 U.S. 1067 (1999).
So, in 4 prior appellate decisions, including one involving the US 9th Circuit, DADT was upheld as constitutional in the face of EP challenges (there are other cases upholding its constitutionality that don’t involve EP challenges), but, yet in a later proceeding within the 9th Cir., one USDC Judge can hold that the law is unconstitutional nationwide and stay its enforcement, nationwide.
So, again, a return to the question — which declaration of the law is the federal government obliged to follow — the prior decision upholding the constitutionality of ObamaCare; the decision holding the individual mandate, only, unconstitutional; or the most recent decision which holds the entire law void as the individual mandate is unconstitutional? That is a problem arising from empowering one USDC Judge to hold that a law is unenforcable nationwide, despite prior decisions, including appellate decisions (possibly even in the Circuit in which the USDC Judge sits) to the contrary. Accordingly, why should this law enforced anywhere in the US from today on?
January 31, 2011, 5:51 pmgeokstr says:
Along with the hundreds of unions that were granted waivers (so far) so they didn’t have to comply with the law they spent millions supporting.
January 31, 2011, 5:52 pmPalooza says:
Of course, the individual mandate was actually a GOP supported idea previously, but continue to pretend otherwise.
January 31, 2011, 5:53 pmJustin says:
“Perhaps not, but if they had had to actually read it themselves, the ensuing weeks it took for them to finish might have been enough time for more of the electorate to actually read it too, and the ensuing political firestorm could have forestalled its narrow partisan passage by legislative sleight of hand.”
Okay, so what percentage of the people in America do you think have read the bill, now that these months have occurred?
January 31, 2011, 5:53 pmAnon21 says:
Again, the question is whether the government chooses to pursue a stay of the decision or not. A single judge’s awe-inspiring “power” is firmly circumscribed by the routine issuance of appellate stays by all the circuit courts of appeal, without regard to the partisan valence of the decision below.
January 31, 2011, 5:57 pmthe Flyers were goons says:
I bet the White House is breathing a huge sigh of relief right now.
If this sticks, this removes the biggest obstacle to their reelection.
Now, if Obama signs off on legitimate health care legislation, and the economy improves a bit, he’s good for 2012.
January 31, 2011, 6:01 pmObamaCare Struck Down! | A Conservative Wanderer says:
[...] David Kopel: 5. No injunction. Declaratory relief is sufficient, especially since there is a presumption that the federal government will comply with judicial decisions. [...]
January 31, 2011, 6:01 pmBart DePalma says:
Looks like Justice was just hung on its own petard.
By repeatedly insisting that Obamacare cannot function without an individual mandate, Justice went “all in” by hoping the court would shy away from striking down the unpopular individual mandate to avoid taking down the rest of the law with it
Well, Justice blundered into a judge willing to take its dare.
January 31, 2011, 6:08 pmAnderson says:
It is amazing that ObamaCare is the best health care legislation
the democratsMitt Romney could come up withFixed!
… Single payer would be much more sensible. But the GOP doesn’t like that either.
My boss was funny the other day. His solution: have the feds buy a Blue Cross policy for everyone who can’t afford it.
I explained that, allowing for the understandable reluctance to give one insurer an exclusive contract, this was pretty much the idea behind the PPACA.
The idea that he had inadvertently agreed with, nay reinvented, OBAMACARE was discomfiting to him.
January 31, 2011, 6:12 pmzuch says:
It’s not. They had to try to get through whatever the Republicans and Blue Dogs would let through the Senate. I think you have to blame the Republicans for that (and FWIW, the mandate was originally supported by Republicans).
Cheers,
January 31, 2011, 6:13 pmMichael Gersh says:
It seems to me that Elena Kagan might have to recuse herself. If she does, and the case goes 4-4, what happens? We have 4 cases under appeal, 2 for and 2 against the health care law. How does this work?
January 31, 2011, 6:13 pmAnderson says:
Why would Kagan have to recuse?
January 31, 2011, 6:15 pmzuch says:
What makes you think that?
Cheers,
January 31, 2011, 6:18 pmWaste93 says:
Nope. By the time this gets to SCotUS it will be during election time. Or the decision will come out about then. So an unpopular piece of legislation that the President has claimed as a center piece of his legacy will be in the news. You’ll also have discussions if Kagan should recuse herself. It’s a lose lose for the administration. If it is overturned you have the Presidents signature peice of legislation declared to violate the Constitution he swore to defend and it alienates his base. If upheld he alienates the majority of the voters who oppose this and energizes the opposition.
January 31, 2011, 6:19 pmAnon says:
I don’t even really like the health care law, but this is not a great opinion. Half of it reads like a brief, and the other half reads like an op-ed piece, both especially out of place in a district-court opinion (they’re more understandable in, say, a Supreme Court dissent). And the legal analysis, while not all bad, is not great, either. The necessary-and-proper analysis doesn’t do a very good job squaring with Comstock, as probably the biggest flaw (as “a poster” points out).
I can imagine a 5-4 Supreme Court decision striking the law down, but I don’t think it would look like this opinion.
January 31, 2011, 6:19 pmRagebot says:
Given the political contortions required to produce Obamacare and given the results of the last election the only realistic legislation I see coming down the pike is repeal of Obamacare in the house, stale mate or repeal in the senate, and an Obama veto.
January 31, 2011, 6:25 pmleo marvin says:
If she has any respect for the Constitution she’ll recuse on every case until the Usurper who purported to nominate her is thrown out of the White House.
January 31, 2011, 6:25 pmJakeD says:
Anderson:
28 U.S. Code 455 says: “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: … (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”
Professor Ronald Rotunda, a legal ethics expert who teaches at the Chapman University School of Law, testified on the ramifications of this law during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings on Kagan. Rotunda told the committee Kagan would need to recuse herself from any case in which at any time during her tenure as solicitor general she had expressed an opinion on its merits.
Rotunda said it did not matter whether Kagan was ever formally a counsel in the case or whether she expressed her opinions in writing or only verbally.
“In short, Solicitor General Kagan should disqualify herself in all instances where participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy,’” Rotunda told the committee in his written testimony (emphasis in original). “Her disqualification does not limit itself to cases where she is counsel of record.”
“In all of these circumstances, it does not matter if her advice was oral or written, because the statute does not draw that distinction,” Rotunda told the committee.
In the written answers Kagan submitted in a questionnaire returned to the Judiciary Committee before Rotunda gave his testimony, Kagan said she would comply with the “letter and spirit” of 28 U.S.C. 455.
“If confirmed, I would recuse in all matters for which I was counsel of record,” she said. “I would also look to the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (although it is not formally binding on members of the Supreme Court of the United States), the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 28 U.S.C. 455, and any other relevant prescriptions.”
In written questions submitted to Kagan for the record, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, cited 28 U.S.C. 455 and tried to make Kagan specify in greater detail when she would recuse herself. In response to Sessions, Kagan listed 10 cases coming before the court in its next session on which she had been the “counsel of record” and would thus need to recuse herself. (These did not include the health care cases.) She also conceded she would recuse herself when she had given “advice” on a case.
“If I gave advice about the government’s litigating position or the content of a filing, then I would recuse myself from the case,” Kagan said in her written responses to Sessions. “In my view, this level of participation in a case would warrant recusal.”
January 31, 2011, 6:26 pmWaste93 says:
I think only three Republicans voted for it. And those three votes may have only been for closure in the Senate. The Senate bill passed because they Dems were insistant on passing something and did so without Republican help or assistance. The Senate bill that passed was never meant to be the final bill, it was suppose to go to conference. This is probably why there was no severability clause in it. It wasn’t a finished product but the election of Brown in Mass changed the political dynamics. If the Dems were going to pass a healthcare bill it had to be the already Denate bill or they had to start over.
January 31, 2011, 6:27 pmObamacare struck down as unconstitutional by Florida judge « Wintery Knight says:
[...] It’s the end of Obamacare (Volokh Conspiracy) [...]
January 31, 2011, 6:28 pmJakeD says:
Leo Marvin:
No, I’m just looking at 28 U.S. Code 455.
January 31, 2011, 6:28 pmJoe (not that one) says:
I’d be curious to compare Barnett’s brief with Vinson’s opinion. I can always tell that I have the judge in the bag when he simply regurgitates what I said in my brief (and vice versa, though that’s only happened once — and the decision was then reversed by the COA).
As an attorney, I’m a bit discouraged by this decision. The fact that the judge would find the entire act nonseverable smacks of outcome-oriented jurisprudence, and it casts doubt on the entire legal system.
January 31, 2011, 6:29 pmrpt says:
I’m still looking for that missing link….
January 31, 2011, 6:32 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
Allan Leedy: A heaven-sent rescue from a crisis situation in which millions were going to be able get health insurance coverage. … by forcing with penalty of law their neighbors to pay for it, the current system of minimal care availability for the uninsured not satisfactory to a minority of Americans, who seem to believe that everyone should get the same quality of care, and no-one should be allowed to use their wealth to get better care, unless they are Congress or belong to a union so can get waivers.
January 31, 2011, 6:33 pmJakeD says:
Waste93:
If the CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court upholds this decision before next year’s election, how does it alienate Obama’s base?! That would be the BEST of both worlds, politically, for him. It would instantly take the wind out of any opponent’s sails re: repealing ObamaCare. I could see Obama RALLYING his base if the CONSERVATIVE Justices uphold today’s (really, it would have to be the 11th Circuit’s) decision.
January 31, 2011, 6:33 pmJakeD says:
Joe (not that one):
I’m a retired attorney, who actually read every page of the ObamaCare law, and it did seem to me that it was inter-connected (even nationalizing student loans was related to PAYING for healthcare). As always YMMV.
rpt:
You want a “link” to the hundreds of unions that were granted waivers (so far) or only those spending millions supporting the passage of ObamaCare?
January 31, 2011, 6:38 pmCMH says:
JakeD, that lays out the standard, but you haven’t connected all the dots. How do we know that Kagan “gave advice about the government’s litigation position” in the health care cases, or has expressed an opinion on the merits of those cases?
Not being snarky, I genuinely don’t remember seeing anything of this sort.
January 31, 2011, 6:38 pmAnderson says:
Ok, and so Kagan was counsel of record on these appeals?
If that’s what she said, and she honors it, fine, but I think it’s a bit more than required when you’re just on the brief b/c you are the SG and you haven’t so much as looked at the case. But I may be wrong.
January 31, 2011, 6:39 pmthe Flyers were goons says:
Obama’s base doesn’t matter. It’s the swing voters who matter, and they can only be silenced on this if ObamaCare goes down and stays down.
January 31, 2011, 6:40 pmzuch says:
Where do you get that the PPACA is unpopular (I mean, outside of tea parties and such)?
Cheers,
January 31, 2011, 6:43 pmjrose says:
I did find one new line of reasoning in this decision:
The mandate is necessary for the regulations concerning pre-existing conditions, but is not proper because it gives the federal government the power to enact flawed-yet-permissible regulations in order sneak in the back door an N&P “fix” that would otherwise be unconstitutional.
I find it very odd that the regulations concerning preexisting conditions would be characterized as a pre-text to get the mandate through the back door.
January 31, 2011, 6:43 pmJoe (not that one) says:
If memory serves(and it might not), at Kagan’s confirmation hearing it basically came out that she was effectively firewalled from PPACA discussions. As someone who has been on the other side of this sort of issue (we knew in adavnce that the particular person was likely to be appointed to an appellate court, yet chose to discuss a contentious case with her anyway), I sure hope she was.
January 31, 2011, 6:44 pmJakeD says:
CMH and Anderson:
I don’t remember what she said either (if anything) about her specific involvement as to the ObamaCare case(s). If she has to recuse herself, however, that’s the most likely reason why.
I still like my theory that ObamaCare was legally subject to a pocket veto since Congress adjourned within ten days of passing it and Joe Biden did not sign it in his capacity as Acting President (assuming, of course, that no one ever finds Obama’s original LONG FORM birth certificate ; )
January 31, 2011, 6:45 pmrpt says:
Actually, that would be ok, because I’d like to see the nature of the waivers. You may not have seen Geo taking the leading oar on the recent Kingston bashing thread.
January 31, 2011, 6:47 pmrpt says:
Actually, that would be ok, because I’d like to see the nature of the waivers. You may not have seen Geo taking the leading oar on the recent Kingston bashing thread.
January 31, 2011, 6:47 pmJakeD says:
zuch:
Is Gallup part of the TEA Party now too?
January 31, 2011, 6:48 pmMurgatroyd says:
Joe Manchin, for one. Do I “believe” him? I don’t know … he’s a politician, why should I believe him? But that is what he said.
And after the legislation had been passed, and people began to realize what was in it, the New York Times wrote:
If they did read it, it’s a shame that this “oversight” swept right past them, wouldn’t you say?
What about the other “oversights,” such as the 1099 reporting requirement, that Democrats had tried to repeal after they had voted for them?
Or perhaps you believe that the congresscritters who voted for the bill are so corrupt, stupid, and/or apathetic that even if they had read and understood the bill they wouldn’t have tried to correct its flaws before passing it?
Well, damn. You sure do argue a convincing case.
January 31, 2011, 6:49 pmAnderson says:
The mandate is necessary for the regulations concerning pre-existing conditions, but is not proper because it gives the federal government the power to enact flawed-yet-permissible regulations in order sneak in the back door an N&P “fix” that would otherwise be unconstitutional.
Uh-huh. That proves a little too much, I think.
January 31, 2011, 6:50 pmStephen Lathrop says:
Any time you’re doing history that way you’re doing it wrong. Making it up, in fact. You can ask what the founding fathers would have intended as much as you want. But please keep in mind that whatever you come up with is all fantasy.
January 31, 2011, 6:51 pmJakeD says:
rpt:
I didn’t see the prior thread. Here’s the “nature” of said waivers to (at least) 182 collectively-bargained plans, i.e. unions.
http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html
January 31, 2011, 6:53 pmThe Ghost of Spalding Smails' Booger says:
The government’s basis is that the individual mandate is a necessary part of a larger regulatory scheme that will make the larger scheme unworkable. It’s kind of hard to argue that and then turn right around and say that the mandate should be severed.
Also, the government has flatly stated in the public (and I believe to the courts) that severing the individual mandate would cause the whole thing to collapse.
* Apologies if already posted, I didn’t have time to read all the responses.
January 31, 2011, 6:55 pmJakeD says:
Thanks, Murgatroyd : )
I knew that someone had said that, but I couldn’t remember who. Certainly SOME of the other Congressmen and women turned out of office this last time around have had second (and third) thoughts about voting for ObamaCare …
January 31, 2011, 6:56 pmKazinski says:
The mandate itself has been described as necessary to protect the financial health of the insurance industry, and to protect consumers from out of control premium increases caused by people jumping in an out of the insurance market depending on whether they have upcoming health expenses.
Since the law itself didn’t state the mandate was severable, wouldn’t it have been irresponsible for the Judge not to strike down the whole law? Or would you rather have the Judge risk the financial health of the entire health insurance industry. Seems to me that once one of the pillars of the health insurance reform is struck down the only alternative is to return the entire bill to Congress to decide responsibly what parts still make sense without the mandate, from and economic and policy perspective. That is not a role the courts should take.
January 31, 2011, 6:57 pmStating The Obvious says:
Question: Why isn’t Regan’s mandate that hospitals must treat all people who show up at the ER unconstitutional? Aren’t you regulating inaction there?
January 31, 2011, 6:58 pmDilan Esper says:
The issue of reading legislation has been well covered in early VC posts. I suggest you use the search function.
January 31, 2011, 6:59 pmMurgatroyd says:
Why do you think that matters? There’s nothing the electorate can do about the bill now that it’s law, other than to watch the issues play out in the courts and to note how their representatives voted so they can be returned to or voted out of office in the next election … and we saw some of that last November. If The People had some sort of national initiative process available to them, they might care enough to study the issue in detail, but as of now it really doesn’t matter — their betters are in charge.
January 31, 2011, 7:09 pmzuch says:
Try this.
And this after all the
lyingdemagoguery that had some 41% of the people believing wrongly that there’s “death panels” in them thar bills and other such nonsense….Cheers,
January 31, 2011, 7:11 pmFederal Judge sides with 26 states - ObamaCare Unconstitutional - Politics & Current Affairs Forum says:
[...] [...]
January 31, 2011, 7:12 pmFlorida Judge Invalidates ObamaCare « Verus Politics: Truth and Reason says:
[...] More explanation here. [...]
January 31, 2011, 7:14 pmJoe (not that one) says:
Since the law itself didn’t state the mandate was severable, wouldn’t it have been irresponsible for the Judge not to strike down the whole law? Or would you rather have the Judge risk the financial health of the entire health insurance industry. Seems to me that once one of the pillars of the health insurance reform is struck down the only alternative is to return the entire bill to Congress to decide responsibly what parts still make sense without the mandate, from and economic and policy perspective. That is not a role the courts should take.
Except this isn’t the law. Courts are, in fact, supposed to conduct an inquiry to determine what parts of partially-invalidated legislation are no longer feasible, and which ones are. It’s entirely conceivable that in such situations the default rule is to kick the entire law back to the legislature to determine what part of the statute still survives. That’s not the way our judicial system evolved. This is all black letter law.
But Vinson knows all of this. He also knows that given the divided Congress, it’s virtually impossible for any sort of political fix to be remotely doable.
January 31, 2011, 7:14 pmAnon321 says:
I’m sure it’s true that another health care act could theoretically be passed that didn’t feature an individual mandate as a necessary incident to implementation. But courts since McCulloch have been quite clear that the test for Necessary and Proper is not whether the challenged provision would be absolutely indispensable to every possible law on the subject at hand. I can’t imagine that we want courts to engage in that sort of second guessing: “Yes, the challenged provision is necessary for implementing this law, but we think you should have passed another law entirely, so we’re going to strike this down.”
January 31, 2011, 7:16 pmepluribus says:
Bart DePalma says:
For your sake, I hope that isn’t a preexisting condition.
January 31, 2011, 7:21 pmJakeD says:
zuch:
That link doesn’t cite to any Gallup polling, so I will ask you one more time: “Is Gallup part of the TEA Party?”
January 31, 2011, 7:22 pmtarpon says:
Because of that little word VOID. He didn’t have to ….
January 31, 2011, 7:25 pmzuch says:
Ahhhhhh, Prof. Barnett is going to feel sorely unappreciated and unfairly slighted: Vinson cut’n'pasted his opinion from someone else’s amicus brief.
Cheers,
January 31, 2011, 7:27 pmKazinski says:
How can one judge do that with a 1017 page act with 450 separate pieces? If the armies of policy wonks and congressional staffers that crafted the bill claim it is an essential part of the act, how can the judge substitute his own opinion for those that have made many years study of the problem? Here in Vinson’s own words is the result of his “inquiry”:
January 31, 2011, 7:31 pmJakeD says:
WOO HOO Family Research Council!!!
January 31, 2011, 7:32 pmzuch says:
Neither does yours. Because you didn’t have a link.
Cheers,
January 31, 2011, 7:33 pmJoe says:
reference was made to Kagan and a 2-2 split … only district court rulings have been handed down thus far. There is no circuit split yet.
via Jack Balkin today:
The individual mandate cannot be severed. This conclusion is reached with full appreciation for the “normal rule” that reviewing courts should ordinarily refrain from invalidating more than the unconstitutional part of a statute, but non-severability is required based on the unique facts of this case and the particular aspects of the Act. This is not a situation that is likely to be repeated.
– Judge Vinson in Florida v. HHS
Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.
– Per Curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore.
January 31, 2011, 7:34 pmTTT says:
From Real Clear Politics.
January 31, 2011, 7:37 pmJakeD says:
Cheers, zuch. I will leave you alone to sulk about the death of ObamaCare now.
January 31, 2011, 7:38 pmohwilleke says:
If Vinson is willing to declare the entire law unconstitutional based on the individual mandate provision alone (which is a pretty small piece of the puzzle and easily severable from the rest of the law), I have to assume that his ruling will not be upheld on that point and that it will probably not be upheld on the individual mandate element either.
The discussion of the Revolutionary War tea laws also makes this look like a political opinion that won’t hold up, rather than a serious legal ruling.
January 31, 2011, 7:39 pmohwilleke says:
Not true. A trial court judgment is enforceable and binding pending appeal unless stayed, subject only to an automatic ten day waiting period per FRCP 62(a).
January 31, 2011, 7:43 pmJakeD says:
oh willeke:
Again, if the armies of policy wonks and congressional staffers that crafted the bill claim it is an essential part of the act, how can the judge substitute his own opinion for those that have made many years study of the problem? Here in Vinson’s own words is the result of his “inquiry”:
January 31, 2011, 7:43 pmzuch says:
Yep. It’s been halted dead in its tracks just like Sean Hannity stopped Hillary with his “Stop Hillary Express”, then stopped Obama with his “Stop Obama Express”, then stopped the PPACA with his “Stop Obamacare Express”, and then got rid of the nonexistent PPACA enacted by the non-President Obama with his “Repeal ObamaCare Express”. To paraphrase some wag, you can’t afford to win many more victories like that….
Cheers,
January 31, 2011, 7:44 pmMurgatroyd says:
Shorter Dilan Esper: “Is not!“
Tell it to Joe Manchin.
January 31, 2011, 7:49 pmKazinski says:
Lets not get ahead of ourselves, it isn’t dead yet. I would characterize its state of health as roughly the same as the liquid metal terminator from Terminater II after Arnold almost cuts it in half with an iron bar, it’s kind of got a quizzical look on its face after a momentary setback and needs a couple of seconds to reconstitute itself before resuming its mission and continuing forward.
Whether the Supreme court will eventually hit it with the grenade launcher and then finish it off by throwing into a vat of molten steel remains to be seen.
And then of course then we will have eventually deal with the re-engineered more technically advanced and superficially attractive model from Terminator III.
January 31, 2011, 7:50 pmThe End says:
Like others I would love to have the Supreme Court handle this issue and address the ultimate powers of the federal government. If indeed the enumerated powers don’t mean anything in the modern age, then just get up and say so. If the federal government can practice police powers that used to be reserved for the various States, I would finally just want to have that on the record. That way, we can just get on with it and fight the War to Restore the Constitution.
January 31, 2011, 7:51 pmJakeD says:
zuch:
I don’t listen to Hannity, so I will have to take your word for it. Don’t worry, I won’t be asking you any more questions.
January 31, 2011, 7:52 pmObamaCare Is Dead, for the Moment says:
[...] There’s a good summary of today’s ruling at Volokh’s site here. [...]
January 31, 2011, 7:55 pmMichael Ejercito says:
It should be noted that this was a Tenth Amendment challenge.
States like Massachusetts are free to enact policies identical to this one (by state constitutional amendment if necessary).
Would he be more likely to repeal only one provision of ObamaCare?
January 31, 2011, 7:55 pmJakeD says:
Kazinski (in my best A’nold accent):
Let’s hope that ObamaCare will not be bak!
January 31, 2011, 7:55 pmJoe (not that one) says:
How can one judge do that with a 1017 page act with 450 separate pieces? If the armies of policy wonks and congressional staffers that crafted the bill claim it is an essential part of the act, how can the judge substitute his own opinion for those that have made many years study of the problem? Here in Vinson’s own words is the result of his “inquiry”:
I think the easiest thing to say here, again, is that this isn’t the law. Courts are not permitted to cite the lengthy and complicated nature of a legislative act and then hold that because an “important” part of it is invalid, the legislature should be required to reenact the whole damn thing. This sort of legal rule would make sense — but it’s not the route that we’ve decided to go in this country. The burden is on the party asserting unconstitutionality to show precisely which parts of a legislative enactment are unconstitutional. When Vinson crafted an exception to this commonly-accepted principle, he showed his true colors.
The fact of the matter is that I am loathe to accuse jurists of bad faith. I’ve won and lost a number of high profile political lawsuits, and as far as I can recall, I’ve never done so in any case that I’ve been personally involved. Rereading this opinion, I’m finding it hard to restrain myself.
January 31, 2011, 7:58 pmJakeD says:
Fine, just come out and say that Vinson acted in bad faith! Why all of the anonymous comments from your ilk and the White House?
January 31, 2011, 8:02 pmPJens says:
ObamaCare is the best product the democrats could pass. LOL!!! Everybody seems to be arguing about who is responsible for the details, but the Congressional votes recorded show this is clearly a law overwhelmingly favored by democrats, forced upon the citizens by less than ordinary process. It is currently unpopular, ask your neighbor. Unpopular and unworkable so much so that waivers are being granted to former supporters of the law. Quick search shows over 700 waivers granted so far. The individual mandate has ruled unconstitutional by the first Judge. Somehow, the democrats who wrote the bill did not include separation language, so the individual mandate found to be unconstitutional voids the entire law. I again predict future courts will find likewise.
January 31, 2011, 8:03 pmMike says:
Is this a serious question? Come on, it’s easy enough to do the research. People can debate whether or not the health care bill is a good bill, but it’s pretty obvious the bill is unpopular:
A composite of polls for the month of January show 47% oppose, while 41% approve:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
January 31, 2011, 8:04 pmRagebot says:
How many more lessons like the gutting of lib dems in the house in the last election can you afford? Didn’t the house just repeal Obamacare?
To paraphrase some wag “elections matter”.
January 31, 2011, 8:05 pmJakeD says:
Mike:
I don’t think that “zuch” answers questions. Just let him / her sulk ; )
January 31, 2011, 8:06 pmAndrew says:
Of course that’s true as a general principle. On the other hand, while it might be a legitimate end to have all people be employed, that would not justify Congress in killing all unemployed people as an exercise of the N&P Clause. It just wouldn’t be kosher (and wouldn’t comport with the five Comstock factors).
January 31, 2011, 8:07 pmDave Kopel « Sister Toldjah says:
[...] Judge Vinson rules federal health control unconstitutional [...]
January 31, 2011, 8:12 pmJoe (not that one) says:
Fine, just come out and say that Vinson acted in bad faith! Why all of the anonymous comments from your ilk and the White House?
Point of fact: I have not had any communication or other interaction with Barack Obama since at least April of 2004. And any conversation that lasted more than 3 minutes would probably take us back to 2000.
(In all honestly, I’m probably much closer to Orin than Dilan in my views. That should say a lot.)
January 31, 2011, 8:16 pmzuch says:
In the interest of full disclosure, if the PPACA is deemed unconstitutional and invalidated as a whole and its provisions can’t be enforced, my family is directly affected. Our daughter would no longer be eligible for our family policy, and would have to try and find her own. She might be able to get COBRA briefly for higher costs, but even that would expire, and she’d be faced with trying to get insurance with a pre-existing condition. She would likely be unable to do so (in fact, it would probably be impossible), and even if she did, it would be horribly expensive.
This is not “insurance”. If, due to changes that are totally foreseen and totally unavoidable (her reaching the age of 21), she gets kicked out into the world of unregulated private for-profit insurance, and is dropped or is “uncoverable” because of a condition that arose when she was insurable and insured, it means that insurance companies can dump the folks that they “lose” the bet on. That’s precisely why people buy insurance though. Any rational insurance policy would not allow this kind of thing to happen (any more than they’d want people to be able to avoid insurance until after they get sick, and only then apply for the benefits of coverage). And this is what the PPACA addresses, with prohibitions on dropping insurance (rescission), on lifetime caps, and on denials based on pre-existing conditions.
Cheers,
January 31, 2011, 8:17 pmzuch says:
“[L]ib dems” did all right for the most part. It was the “blue dogs” and conservatives that mostly lost their seats.
More than anything, it was the persistence of economic woes that really hurt Dem chances. And that will continue to be the case. Which makes one ask, “how many more Republican electoral victories can this nation afford?”
Cheers,
January 31, 2011, 8:20 pmzuch says:
Not at all. Polls are mixed. And some don’t take into account the fact that some people want the PPACA to go further, rather than saying it goes too far (which is what this lawsuit is about, isn’t it?). Repeal of the PPACA garners far less than 50%.
Cheers,
January 31, 2011, 8:27 pmzuch says:
Depends on how they bled them. ;-)
Cheers,
January 31, 2011, 8:32 pmMike says:
Polls are mixed? There is exactly one poll out of 10 in that link that shows a plurality of support for the health care bill, and that poll oversampled democrats to republicans by 7%.
I can’t tell if you are trying to trick others, or if you’re only deluding yourself. The statement that “polls are mixed” when it’s 9-1 against is pretty weak, to be nice.
January 31, 2011, 8:45 pmgeokstr says:
Oh, did you mean this missing link:
January 31, 2011, 8:46 pmForbes: Waivers for Favors
From the article (which contains a link to the official government site that lists all the waivers by waivee):
omar bradley says:
I don’t know why this is such a big deal. I mean, isn’t it obvious that Kennedy will vote with the liberals to uphold it in the end? Kagan won’t recuse even if she should. Obama put her on the court for this very scenario.
Does anyone believe Kennedy will side with the conservatives? For that matter, are we even sure all the conservatives would be on board? Thomas and Alito definitely. I’m not sure about Scalia after Raich, and Roberts worries me as well.
True, Kennedy did vote with the conservatives in both gun cases, in the Partial-Birth Abortion, affirmative action and both Lopez/Morrison(VAWA), and the 11th amendment Seminole Tribe cases, but I still don’t trust him and I don’t think anyone else does, either.
I don’t think you can count on him. He seems especially vulnerable to media pressure, to how his buddies in Salzburg view him. You can bet that all of academia, the media, the intl law set, will spend the next two years buttering him up, pressuring hi, putting the screws on. I can’t see him resisting. And the media and the dems will just love it when the can say “See, even a Republican judge appointed by Ronald Reagan says it’s constitutional”.
That said, he did stick to his federalist guns in Lopez and Morrison and there was pressure in those cases. So who knows? If I were in GOP circles I’d get in touch with the lawyers in those cases, study the transcripts and his opinions in those cases, talk with his clerks from those terms, and figure out how to really make the best case to him, to really focus like a laser on him.
Maybe Kennedy won’t end up deciding this. Maybe it goes on for a while before it gets to SCOTUS and by that time Ginsburg has been forced to retire for whatever reason. The GOP filibusters her replacement and holds up the nominee. The libs are stuck with only 3 votes+Kennedy and don’t have the 5 to overturn Vinson. His ruling stands. The GOP just continues to filibuster the nominee until Obama is out of office and a GOP President takes over. Obama could do a recess appt but I don’t think any case decided that way would be seen as valid.
If Kagan does recuse then the 4 conservatives alone would be enough to uphold Vinson as the liberals would need 5 to overturn.
Vinson’s ruling was right. I still haven’t seen or heard any supporter of law in print or elsewhere answer one simple question. What would be an unconstutional exercise of Congress’ commerce power? If the PPACA isn’t, what would be? What would even liberals say would be going too far? Or is there no limit?
Has anyone read Madison’s veto of the public works bill in 1817? If even Madison who knew more about the meaning of the constitution and what is or isn’t ok than all of us here combined and then some said that the feds merely building some roads was unconstitutional and went too far against limited powers, can anyone say that forcing everyone to spend hundreds/thousands on health insurance is within the scope?
Read what Madison said about the bank, read some of his letters in the 1820s/1830s about the meaning of the necessary and proper clause. It’s pretty clear what the meaning was back then.
But again, what would a supporter of the PPACA say would be going too far? Is there any law they’d say was unconstitutional as too much federal power under the commerce clause? Anything? Bueller?
January 31, 2011, 8:51 pmJakeD says:
Like I said, Mike: Just let him / her sulk ; )
January 31, 2011, 9:02 pmSteve2 says:
Because EMTALA, while immoral and a horrible policy that should be repealed, technically isn’t a mandate at all. It’s a condition of participating in Medicare (and I presume Medicaid). Hospitals are free to opt out of Medicare, and therefore not have to treat all people who show up at the ER. I believe a small handful of hospitals have in fact opted out of Medicare, and thus are able to turn people away from the ER (assuming there’s no state laws in place).
January 31, 2011, 9:03 pmgeokstr says:
Uh, RP, I think you must have been on a different boat than I was on.
I specifically said that I did not watch the video of Kingston so I could not make a judgment of him. Only if he clearly said he was a Young Earth Creationist would I find him unqualified to be a scientist (in some fields) and only if he was also trying to push creationism into the public schools would I question his being a legislator. (Private schools can teach anything they want.)
I also specifically said that Old Earth Creationists pretty much accept science but with occasional divine tweaks, and that they can still make both fine scientists and legislators.
Please don’t twist a very specific critique of Young Earth Creationist “science” and its political agenda into some kind of support for leftists trying to pillory Kingston.
(My apologies for the OT comment but I couldn’t let that statement stand.)
January 31, 2011, 9:04 pmricky says:
“due to changes that are totally foreseen and totally unavoidable (her reaching the age of 21), she gets kicked out into the world of unregulated private for-profit insurance”
LOL! Boo hoo hoo, your 21 year old daughter will no longer be treated as a child. You should be looking at this as a blessing in disguise.
And hey, if she’s looking for a job this ruling might inspire some employers to start hiring with benefits again!
January 31, 2011, 9:04 pmPJens says:
Zuch, I am truly sorry to learn your daughter has ongoing health problems. I do not, nor need to, know the extent or seriousness of the specifics. I believe you in the brief description of the situation. I also do not know what state your daughter lives in. What do know is that a safety net already exists to treat people with serious illness. No one, I repeat, no one, is proposing that people in the US, citizens or not, go without medical treatment. The discussion is over how to pay for such treatment.
You stated previously that ObamaCare is not the best product the democrats could produce. Well then, why didn’t they do better?
The core issue of Judge Vinson’s ruling is if the federal government can force all citizens (except those waivered) to buy a product not every person wants or needs.
January 31, 2011, 9:04 pmMichael Ejercito says:
If the condition arose while she was insured, then the insurance company is on the hook for that condition until the claim is fully paid.
January 31, 2011, 9:06 pmRoger Zimmerman says:
A little bit of research will turn up the fact that Rand argued explicitly in support of accepting aid from the government, provided that this aid was not _contingent_ upon compromising one’s ideological integrity (she was answering a question specifically about receiving federal grant money for research), on the grounds that you were receiving back some of your stolen property. You may disagree with her characterization, but you cannot argue hypocricy, at least not if you want to engage in an honest argument.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled topic.
January 31, 2011, 9:09 pmMichael Ejercito says:
Maybe states should limit on how much doctors can charge for therapeutic health care.
The entire reason we need insurance is because health care is too expensive. Price controls can take care of that.
January 31, 2011, 9:10 pmricky says:
Whoa, speak for yourself on that one buddy.
January 31, 2011, 9:10 pmomar bradley says:
BTW, for those interested in polls, in the 2010 exit poll which is the most recent accurate reflection of what actual voters think, not just people who the NYT or NBC or any other member of the Obama-loving media can find, the breakdown was 48% for repeal, 31% expand, 16% as is, with independents around 50% for repeal. A clear lead for repeal.
Among key states FL was 45 for repeal, 29 and 19 for the other two. OH was 50 for repeal, 31 and 14 for the other two. PA was 45, 35 and 17. NV was 48, 29, 17. CO was 51, 30, 14. MO was 53 for repeal, 27 expand, 16 leave as is.
I think that gives us a good idea of where things stand. Regardless of what the NYT or other media types try and tell us.
Those are the #s among people who actually voted.
January 31, 2011, 9:14 pmricky says:
“The entire reason we need insurance is because health care is too expensive. Price controls can take care of that.”
Okay, now you’re just trolling.
January 31, 2011, 9:14 pmJustin says:
So 48 percent repeal and 47 don’t repeal is a clear lead for repeal in an exit poll, which is not a representative sample, during the dems low point in an off year election. Compelling.
January 31, 2011, 9:28 pmMichael Ejercito says:
I understand that there are side effects to price controls.
But it will not be as bad as price controls on food or gas. On balance, I think price controls will be beneficial.
January 31, 2011, 9:29 pmomar bradley says:
Justin,
In a 3 way race it is pretty compelling. Go back to any 3 way race in a primary or general. If Candidate A wins with 48 to B’s 31 and C’s 16, everyone would say A won a huge victory.
And of course it’s inflated by support for repeal in deep blue states like CA, NY, IL, etc… In the swing states it was even more for repeal.
Certainly just as compelling as any poll the NYT or NBC or ABC or CBS or CNN or AP comes out with. It was actual voters.
The point is that actual voters weren’t too fond of it. And saying it was because of the dems’ low point? That’s like me saying well Obama only won because 2008 was the GOP’s low point so his victory didn’t really count. It was the dems’ low point largely because of the health care bill(and the economy).
We’ll see what happens. As I said, I can’t see Kennedy striking it down. That will be his legacy for the rest of his life. In every obituary or story about him the first sentence will read “Supreme Court Justice Anthony M Kennedy, who provided the crucial 5th vote to strike down as unconstitutional President Barack Obama’s health care reform law…” I don’t think he wants that to happen.
Since you replied, I’d ask you the same question I’ve never seen one supporter of the PPACA answer. If this is not unconstitutional, what would be? What would be an example of a federal law that you’d say violates the commerce clause? Or is there no example you can think of. Is there any instance where you’d say the fed gvot went too far and exercised too much power, or can you think of no limts? What limits are on the fed govt in your view? Any?
January 31, 2011, 9:39 pmJoe (not that one) says:
What would be an unconstutional exercise of Congress’ commerce power?
People keep repeating this as if it some sort of clever arguing point. It’s not.
Lopez and Morrison are clear that if the apparent motivation for a particular noneconomic and/or noncommercial, it will not be permissible under the Commerce Clause. So requiring people to eat broccoli in the interest of public health? Not justified under the Commerce Clause. Requiring farmers to grow and sell broccoli and not sugar cane because the former market needs more stabilization? Justified.
It’s really not rocket science. And I understand that it’s possible to construct economic justfications for laws that really, truly are not economic in intent. That’s where the Lopez “piling inference on inference” comes in. But that’s not what is happening here.
So, I guess, at the end of the dat, the anwer to the “WHERE WILL IT END” red herring is simple — where it appears that Congress is using the proffered rationale as a pretext for non-economic regulation. Short of that, you lose.
January 31, 2011, 9:40 pmJustin says:
This has to be trolling.
January 31, 2011, 9:42 pmByung Kyu Park says:
Um, in the Senate, the GOP opposition was unified through and through—the Senate bill (which, modified in House and passed Senate through reconciliation, eventually became PPACA) passed in the brief moment when Democrats had filibuster-proof 60 senators. Remember Sen. Brown signing “41″, in significance of the Republican belief that with 41 GOP senators, they could stop Obamacare?
In the House, I think as many as 3 Republicans may have voted for some version of Obamacare at some point, but in the larger scheme, they weren’t important. It was the Blue Dogs (and Lieberman) that Pelosi and Reid had to satisfy.
The whole complaint about Republicans not letting Democrats pass Obamacare is rather silly anyway, given their vast majorities in both houses in 2009 and 2010—Democrats wanted the “bipartisan” political cover; Republicans just didn’t let them have it.
January 31, 2011, 9:48 pmJakeD says:
Geokstr:
Thanks for the clarification.
January 31, 2011, 9:49 pmjbarntt says:
There was a lengthy thread earlier about evolution.
January 31, 2011, 10:00 pmomar bradley says:
Justin
Just because I pointed out that repeal won a large plurality in the 2010 exit poll, I’m trolling?
When Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole in 1996 49-40 the media termed it a decisive victory and a mandate for a 2nd term. Despite the fact that more people voted against Clinton than for him. They didn’t say “well, it was 49 for Clinton, 51 against him or 49 for Dole and Perot so Clinton didn’t really win”. This is the same situation. The largest # of people were for repeal. It’s a fact. You may not like it, but it’s true. And the #s get worse in certain key states Obama will need in 2012.
If we look at all the polls I think you’d agree that it’s not accurate to say that the PPACA has a good amount of public support. We can argue about the actual #s and different polls will show different outcomes, but it’s beyond doubt that there has been and is still substantial opposition to the law. Moreso than most signature pieces of legislation. That’s the bottom line. The law is still highly controversial and polarizing.
BTW, I notice in 2 replies you’ve yet to posit a federal law that would be unconstitutional exercise of the commerce power. Is it fair to say that in your view as long as Congress says it has to do with the economy then it’s ok?
Joe, above, pretty much said that any law that Congress claims has any connection to the economy is ok. Joe mentions the broccoli public health would be a no go. But presumably if they mandated broccoli to help the broccoli market it would be ok. SO as long they say “it’s for the economy” that’s the final answer and there’s no way to dispute it.
January 31, 2011, 10:06 pmjbarntt says:
Some speculation about such matters regarding historical figures is better than others. I’d guess that Elizabeth Hamilton disapproved of dueling, at least after the death of her son Philip and then her husband a few years later.
Aaron Burr may have come to disapprove of dueling after 1804, but that speculation is less likely.
January 31, 2011, 10:11 pmjbarntt says:
I also find people who disagree with me to be stupid.
January 31, 2011, 10:18 pmomar bradley says:
I’d just like to know if those who support this law truly believe in a govt of limited powers, believe in the principles of the framers, or if they don’t. If they don’t it’s ok. Maybe they feel that the framers were in the 1790s and a lot has changed since then. That the rules have changed. That The New Deal and Great Society changed things. Fine.
But at least admit it. I have respect for someone who says “Yes, the framers would think was unconstitutional, but who cares? It’s 2011 and society is totally different.”
What does limited govt mean to a supporter of this law? What do limited powers mean? How is the federal govt limited in your view? What can’t they do?
More Madison:
Madison in his 1817 veto:
But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it(that would well be the closing of vinson’s opinion)
More Madison:
The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.
and:
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. (Maybe Obama can lay his finger on it? I guess he knows more htan Madison. He went to HLS, right?)
and:
The real measure of the powers meant to be granted to Congress by the Constitution is to be sought in the specifications … not … with a latitude that, under the name or means for carrying into execution a limited Government, would transform it into a Government without limits.
and his friend Jefferson for good measure:
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ” all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.
and
For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.
and
It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.
I guess they’re just a couple of dead guys, they don’t matter anymore
January 31, 2011, 10:30 pmJoe (not that one) says:
But presumably if they mandated broccoli to help the broccoli market it would be ok. SO as long they say “it’s for the economy” that’s the final answer and there’s no way to dispute it.
This is the core holding of Wickard, at least when “wheat” is substituted for “broccoli.” And yes, it sucks if you are a libertarian. It’s a decision that completely rejects your worldview. So sorry. Argue that the decision should be overruled — and maybe it should! (I’m actually not being sarcastic here. Maybe it should.) But then sign on to the judicial impeachment complaint, because until Wickard is, in fact, overruled, what Vinson did is completely illegitimate. Again, as a lawyer — and one who represents the government and who has higher ethical duties than my colleagues — it’s embarrassing.
January 31, 2011, 10:39 pmJakeD says:
No, it’s not, Joe. The federal government cannot legally mandate private citizens to buy wheat either.
January 31, 2011, 10:56 pmricky says:
“What does limited govt mean to a supporter of this law? What do limited powers mean? How is the federal govt limited in your view? What can’t they do?”
Quite simple, really. They can’t pass laws that offend my sensibilities, but anything else is fair game.
January 31, 2011, 11:06 pmJoe (not that one) says:
No, it’s not, Joe. The federal government cannot legally mandate private citizens to buy wheat either.
Reread Wickard. It expressly says that the regulation of commerce includes the stimulation thereof. This isn’t me saying it — it’s Robert Jackson. Though in fairness, he never graduated from law school, so perhaps that’s his issue.
January 31, 2011, 11:09 pmJakeD says:
Wickard deals with a FARMER. Filburn was not allowed to grow his own wheat, but he still had the choice of not buying wheat at all. If you are a non-farmer, the federal government cannot force you to buy wheat regardless.
January 31, 2011, 11:25 pmMike says:
Filburn was a farmer growing more wheat than the government allowed. The government didn’t merely tell Filburn that he had to purchase wheat. The government was regulating an activity, that of growing wheat. He was already voluntarily engaged in the activity of producing wheat. If he did not want to be burdened by the wheat limits, he had an option to not grow wheat.
For someone to not be burdened by the mandate, he’d have to kill himself, as there is no other way around it.
January 31, 2011, 11:25 pmJakeD says:
Thank you, Mike. That says it much better than I did.
January 31, 2011, 11:31 pmLN says:
Could Congress raise taxes on everyone and then give a tax credit to people who bought health insurance? Or is that blatantly un-Constitutional?
Hmm…
February 1, 2011, 1:05 amjbarntt says:
There was a lengthy thread earlier about evolution.
Absolutely, just reduce all medical treatments to $1.00 each. Problem solved. I like the idea so much I recommend it for gas, cars, HD TV’s, everything.
It’s amazing no one has ever thought of this idea before.
February 1, 2011, 1:26 amjukeboxgrad says:
Mike:
For a substantial number of people, “the bill is unpopular” because it doesn’t go far enough. Most of the surveys (especially Fox and Rasmussen, oddly enough) don’t bother asking about that. But some do, like this one:
Leave it as is: 19%
Change it so that it does MORE to change the health care system: 43%
Change it so that it does LESS to change the health care system: 10%
Repeal it completely: 26%
http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-GfK%20Poll%20January%20Topline%20Full%20Final%20011111_HC.pdf
Yup, this definitely shows “the bill is unpopular:” only 19% say “leave it as is.” Trouble is, the “Change it so that it does MORE” group is four times bigger than the “Change it so that it does LESS” group.
This poll is on the RCP list as 40/41 (favor/oppose). Which is misleading when you don’t bother to understand what’s behind “oppose.”
And the other key thing to notice is that only 26% want to “repeal it completely.” So if the GOP does “repeal it completely” and replace it with nothing else, they will have pleased just those 26%. In other words, the tea party crowd. Everyone else will be getting an outcome they say they don’t want.
Here’s another survey that tried to measure the nature (and not just the size) of the opposition:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_01172011.html
Look at item 20. 50% oppose the bill, but that breaks down into 35% who oppose it because it goes too far, and 13% who oppose it because it doesn’t go far enough. Which means you end up with this:
Oppose because it goes too far: 35%
Oppose because it doesn’t go far enough: 13%
Support: 45%
When you simplify that into oppose/support (which is what most polls do, and what RCP is doing, and what you’re doing), you get 48/45 (or 50/45, depending on how you handle the ‘don’t know/no opinion’ results). But that’s a distortion, because the “oppose because it doesn’t go far enough” group (13%, in this poll) is being put on the wrong side of the scale.
A good analysis of this issue is here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/07/gallup-poll-may-exaggerat_n_806099.html
If the GOP wants to repeal it and replace it with something better, let’s see them do it. But if they repeal it and replace it with nothing, they’ll be pleasing only the tea party. Good luck with that.
February 1, 2011, 2:01 amTuesday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath says:
[...] The judge makes a ruling. [...]
February 1, 2011, 8:19 amJakeD says:
LN:
I would argue it is (especially if the Supreme Court first holds that the federal government exceeded its powers in this case by purporting to regulate inactivity). Could Congress raise taxes on everyone and then give a tax credit to people who vote straight Republican tickets? Or is that blatantly un-Constitutional?
February 1, 2011, 8:44 amMark Buehner says:
Lopez defines 3 categories of activity- channels of interstate commerce, instruments of interstate commerce, and substantial affects on interstate commerce. They further warned of how easy it is to pile ‘inference upon inference’ essentially destroying the enumerated powers of Government and replacing them with infinite powers (a police state). If not buying health insurance substantially affects the insurance market, surely not buying a Chevy Volt affects the automotive market. Surely not buying broccoli affects the agriculture market- healthcare completely aside. By inference its easy to argue that not eating that broccoli will have a substantial and aggregate affect on the healthcare industry. This is exactly the logic that concerned the majority in Lopez and in Morrison.
February 1, 2011, 9:27 amMark Buehner says:
That is blatantly constitutional, and a lot of people argued at the time that this is the way to execute the health care law without running afoul of the courts. The White House disagreed, and here we are.
February 1, 2011, 9:30 amMark Buehner says:
For a substantial number of people ‘not going far enough’ doesn’t mean they want single payer healthcare. For instance, tort reform would be an example of not going far enough. These polls dont indicate whether a majority prefers either this law or a more socialist law. On the other hand we had a big poll last November that indicated the nation was wildly unhappy with the people that passed that law… and its hard to argue that they instead elected a giant majority of republicans to get that single payer system the silent majority supposedly craves.
February 1, 2011, 9:35 amKazinski says:
Yes, its funny how confused the voters were in November. You’d have thought that single payer advocates would have won overwhelmingly.
But you did leave one thing out. When asked specifically about the mandate the voters were pretty clear. Not much confusion here:
So maybe there is a consensus that something needs to be done, but it is not clear on what, and it certainly isn’t the mandate.
Personally I think universal catastrophic coverage should be where health care reform begins and ends. That is the minimum everybody needs. Then it would be a viable option to go without health insurance and open the market to competition for 90% of health care needs.
That and end the employer deduction.
February 1, 2011, 11:04 amSarcastro says:
November was about health care, not jobs! In fact, I think Egypt is protesting the health care reform law too.
February 1, 2011, 11:16 amByung Kyu Park says:
Blatantly constitutional, because the political process is supposed to limit the Congress’s nominally unlimited power to tax, which I think is unlimited except for some uniformity requirement (Article I, Sec. 8, “but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”).
Courts have deferred to the Congress when the Congress used its power to tax, having risked the wrath of the electorate which have never been tax friendly (even when it comes to raising tax on “the rich fatcats”, American public has been reluctant).
I mean, given the obvious Constitutional challenges, there’s a clear reason why Democrats didn’t even try to use general tax hike to fund PPACA (and replacing individual mandate with some sort of general subsidy to insurance companies for covering high-risk patients with pre-existing conditions), and why Obama characterized, in a TV interview arguing for the bill, that this is not a tax (and the host trying to use the dictionary definition of “tax” to argue that individual mandate fine is a tax is “stretching” his point).
February 1, 2011, 11:45 amSteverino says:
You have it exactly backwards. Health care isn’t as expensive as what your insurance forms might lead you to believe. Not if you pay as you go and avoid insurance, and thus avoid the “cost-shifting” the DoJ lawywers went on and on about. What they really meant by that was wealth transfer.
You’re paying high premiums because you’re paying for all those people who are enjoying all those “rights” to health care that the federal government has invented over the years. Health care providers have to recover those costs somehow, and they do it by sticking it to insurance companies. Not to cash customers. I don’t participate in the wealth transfer scheme, so I pay far less for my health care. You really should shop around, although I’ve observed that’s something that people with insurance don’t do.
Which is another reason health insurance costs so much. But, again, health insurance and health care are two entirely different things.
The reason the Democrats needed to include an individual mandate in their latest legislative abomination was they planned to do more “cost shifting,” or more correctly wealth transfer. So they need to rope more people into the system.
Here’s Democratic Sen. Max Baucus making this chrystal clear on the Senate Floor:
This isn’t a health care bill under discussion. It’s a health insurance bill. If anyone thinks insurance is remotely necessary to access health care, you are woefully misinformed.
And to head off the accusation that I’m being irresponsible, I am not. Congress and past administrations have been irresponsible, and I refuse to participate in their dysfunctional and immoral wealth transfer scheme. The only costs I am shifting to anyone are the costs of paying for the health care of third parties (not me) to those who seem to enjoy paying peoples’ tab. I’m one less person those costs can be spread out to, so in that sense, yeah, I suppose you have to pay slightly more for a bunch of other people’s health care costs than if I were roped into the system of “cost-shifting.”
I just don’t see what’s irresponsible about refusing to be scammed. Why should I voluntarily participate in a system that simply shifts other people’s “costs” to me via the wealth transfer mechanism amusingly called “health insurance?”
February 1, 2011, 12:41 pmzuch says:
That’s funny. I guess we’re having a hard time looking on it that way. Maybe you can help us understand how this is a blessing. We’d appreciate it. But FWIW, we don’t want to treat her as a child (and don’t). That’s your “straw man”. We acknowledge that she is a dependent, and likely to stay that way.
You also miss the part about insurance being there to take care of the catastrophic if and when it happens, and about how letting insurance companies skip out on their part of the bargain when they “lose” makes the concept of “insurance” a big joke.
Did it occur to you that she might be disabled?
February 1, 2011, 12:52 pmFred says:
@zuch
Without ObamaCare your daughter will be able to get insurance just as has been the case since 1997. Federal law requires that states make policies available for people who are uninsurable. Most states run high risk pools with heavily subsidized premiums.
February 1, 2011, 12:58 pmzuch says:
Do you know what the average monthly payment is for SSI? Do you know that, to get SSI, you have to first spend any assets you have so you’re essentially flat broke? Do you know that limitations on the medicines available under MediCal mean that not all prescriptions are covered (and worse yet, that “orphan drugs” which tend to be the most expensive, also tend to be the ones not covered)?
And you’re not answering why it is that private insurance companies should be allowed to drop people after they get sick (or prevent them from getting insurance or insurance at favourable rates once they have a “pre-existing condition”). Why are people insurable when they develop a disease, but people that already have the disease are uninsurable?
Cheers,
February 1, 2011, 1:00 pmzuch says:
Well, yes. Those in good health, knowing that pre-existing conditions can’t be denied, can opt out of paying for health insurance they don’t currently need … until such time as they get sick. Sounds like a great plan. What could possibly go wrong?
Cheers,
February 1, 2011, 1:04 pmzuch says:
We’ll be glad to pass that “information” on to Anthem. I’ll let you know when they’re done laughing….
Cheers,
February 1, 2011, 1:06 pmMark Buehner says:
Sounds surprisingly like the outcome that would be found under Obamacare. They are estimating over 10 million Americans will continue to forgo insurance and pay the (minimal) fine, until they get sick, at which point the insurance company will be forced to sell them insurance. So we continue to have that problem, but we pay out the rear end for it. If the idea was just to insure 40 million people we could have done so without the government taking over a sixth of the economy. But that’s not a bug its a feature of Obamacare.
February 1, 2011, 1:08 pmzuch says:
I count that as 48%-47% (well within the margin of error) repeal/no-repeal. How’s that a “clear lead”?
Cheers,
February 1, 2011, 1:10 pmzuch says:
No one said that. But what we’re talking about here is the popularity of “repeal”. You know, the complete elimination of the PPACA (which is what Vinson is doing here in a fit of “judicial activism”).
Cheers,
February 1, 2011, 1:20 pmMichael Ejercito says:
This principle applies to life, auto, and fire insurance.
Why would health insurance be any different?
How do other types of insurance companies (auto, life, fire) manage to deal with having to cover pre-existing conditions?
Why are houses insurable when they catch on fire, but houses that already have burned down or suffered fire damage are uninsurable?
February 1, 2011, 1:25 pmzuch says:
Heavily subsidized? You mean, like having to be flat broke on Medi-Cal? Do you think that Medi-Cal covers “orphan drugs” (or those not on some “approved” list?)
Cheers,
February 1, 2011, 1:26 pmjukeboxgrad says:
JakeD:
You were responding to this:
You are claiming that it would be “blatantly un-Constitutional” for congress to “raise taxes on everyone and then give a tax credit to people who bought health insurance.” What about if congress decides to “raise taxes on everyone and then give a tax credit to people who” get a mortgage and pay mortgage interest? What’s the difference?
The mortgage interest deduction is just one major example of congress using tax policy to influence economic behavior. There are many other such examples. So is all this now “blatantly un-Constitutional?”
===================
Mark:
The GOP is claiming that the law goes too far, and this amounts to socialism. In this context, when poll respondents say they want a law that goes even further, that does indeed indicate their preference for “a more socialist law.” At the very least, that assumption is more logical than the reverse assumption.
Consider this thought experiment. You are told that a political leader has made this statement: ‘I oppose the bill because it goes too far.’ You are told nothing else about him. You are not told if he is R or D. You are then required to choose one of the following:
A) What this person is trying to say is that the law is too socialist.
B) What this person is trying to say is that the law is not socialist enough.
You are essentially claiming that you would choose B. Really? Because your claim (“these polls dont indicate whether a majority prefers either this law or a more socialist law”) is tantamount to choosing B.
Yes, and polling since then shows that a significant portion of the group that’s unhappy with the bill is unhappy “because it doesn’t go far enough.” Which is a reason for them to be “unhappy with the people that passed that law.”
But feel free to help the GOP delude itself that its actual plan (repeal the bill and replace it with nothing) has support outside the tea party.
===================
omar:
Does that mean ‘repeal and replace with nothing?’ The GOP seems to be working on that assumption, even though the assumption is incorrect.
===================
Kazinski:
You are correct that the ‘mandate’ isn’t popular, especially when it’s called by that name. And you are correct that “there is a consensus that something needs to be done.” The underlying problem is that lots of people are too ignorant to understand how the parts fit together. That is, too ignorant to understand that it’s not possible to solve the problem without something resembling a ‘mandate.’
This is similar to our problem with basic arithmetic: we don’t like the deficit, but we also want low taxes and high government spending. Most Americans “favor balanced budgets in name only.” Consider this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/opinion/30rich.html
In other words, we’re acting like children. And here’s who’s going to pay for it: our children. (I realize I said this to you on another thread, a while back.)
A lot of people want a health reform solution that has nothing resembling a mandate, and that’s also an instance of acting like children.
A reasonable idea, in my opinion. But I don’t see how you make this work without some kind of a ‘mandate.’ Or without some kind of ‘socialism.’
===================
Byung Kyu Park:
There’s plenty of irony to go around, since conservatives used to make statements like this:
http://www.atr.org/obamacares-individual-mandatebr-penalty-tax-a4563
Heritage Foundation made essentially the same statement.
I think you are implying that there would be no constitutional complaint if the bill did “use general tax hike to fund PPACA.” Trouble is, that’s not the case. Conservatives are claiming that “even if the penalty for noncompliance is deemed to be a tax rather than a fine, it does not meet the constitutional requirements for income, excise, or direct taxes.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229577/taxing-power-obamacare/robert-levy
They are claiming that “the federal government [cannot] force people to buy a product.” Trouble is, they expect us to not think about this:
http://volokh.com/2010/12/15/constitutional-doctrine-and-the-constitutionality-of-health-care-reform/#comment-1094155
February 1, 2011, 1:28 pmzuch says:
Because some medical conditions are recurring/continuing and indefinite in extent.
Contrary to Ian Fleming, you only die once.
Cheers,
February 1, 2011, 1:28 pmzuch says:
As opposed to having no insurance right now. The fines/taxes go to offset costs, IIRC.
Agreed, it’s not optimal. But the Republicans argued for this and violently opposed single-payer.
Cheers,
February 1, 2011, 1:31 pmzuch says:
You know, perhaps it would have been better if the gummint had “tak[en] over a sixth of the economy”. Then the plaintive wailing of the RW might have sounded at least half justified, and we might have gotten a bit better of the deal to boot….
Cheers,
February 1, 2011, 1:34 pmMark Buehner says:
Which assumes single-payer is a solution as opposed to a bigger problem (which Canadians and Brits are currently being forced to walked back on). This comes back to the option of a small percentage of people being badly served by our healthcare system or the vast majority being badly served by a system demographically destined for bankruptcy.
February 1, 2011, 1:35 pmMark Buehner says:
By that logic why not have govment run the whole economy?
February 1, 2011, 1:36 pmzuch says:
Single-payer does solve the “free rider” problem.
What are the Canadians and Brits being forced to “walk[] back”?
What about other countries with national health care? There’s tons of them…. I’ve even used them.
Cheers,
February 1, 2011, 1:56 pmrpt says:
This is the Huckabee meme: diseased and disabled people are like wrecked cars or burned out houses, that is, defective. Michael: I hope you and your family live long, healthy and accident free lives. The rest of us will note your compassion.
February 1, 2011, 1:57 pmJakeD says:
jukeboxgrad:
As you are well aware, I no longer answer your questions to me because he refused to answer my questions to you on prior threads.
If LN (or anyone else) wants to discuss the hypothetical — as I said, especially if the Supreme Court first holds that the federal government exceeded its powers in this case by purporting to regulate inactivity, and then Congress tries such a BLATANT end-run around that decision — then he / she simply needs to answer my questions on that post:
1) Could Congress raise taxes on everyone and then give a tax credit to people who vote straight Republican tickets?
2) Or is that blatantly un-Constitutional?
February 1, 2011, 1:59 pmJakeD says:
rpt:
Did you ever see the “links” posted above to the hundreds of unions that were granted waivers (so far) and those spending millions supporting the passage of ObamaCare?
February 1, 2011, 2:01 pmjukeboxgrad says:
I have never refused to answer your questions. On the other hand, your chronic evasiveness is spectacular. Keep up the good work. Your evasiveness in this thread is in keeping with your track record:
http://volokh.com/2011/01/10/the-first-amendment-and-speech-that-allegedly-threatens-public-officials/comment-page-10/#comment-1114314
http://volokh.com/2010/11/29/say-it-aint-so-matt/#comment-1079069
February 1, 2011, 2:09 pmByung Kyu Park says:
Well, the individual mandate itself structured incorrectly to be a tax (which is pointed out in the NR article: “it does not meet the constitutional requirements for income, excise, or direct taxes”). You are right to note the ironies, but in the end, the most consequential action is that the Congress, in passing the law, clearly intended the individual mandate to be a fine, not a tax. Any subsequent analysis of the law has to start from that point (not that the bill’s critics contended that the mandate amounted to an effective tax increase).
I haven’t heard the last argument made in the NR article before (citing a precedent from 1922, before the New Deal precedents drastically altered the federal regulatory regime), so perhaps there still would have been a lawsuit even if Congress used its power to tax to fund/enforce Obamacare, but the opponents would have had far less chance of prevailing in the Supreme Court—and if Democrats had the testicular fortitude to tax like they had to (say, to provide a Medicare for all, which nobody contends is unconstitutional, at least with all the SCOTUS precedents understood), individual mandate wouldn’t have been necessary. But then, the bill would have been dead on arrival—or GOP would now control the Senate, as well as the House.
February 1, 2011, 2:26 pmMichael Ejercito says:
A house that burns down stays burned down; it does not rebuild itself.
And the purpose of health insurance is to insure against getting a disease or a disability within a future time period, just like the purpose of auto and fire insurance is to insure against a car wreck or a house fire in a future time period.
Now buy a wrecked car and try getting Allstate to insure against the wreck which happened in the past.
February 1, 2011, 2:26 pmMichael Ejercito says:
How so?
February 1, 2011, 2:28 pmJakeD says:
I am only “evasive” with jukeboxgrad (and now zuch, as set forth above) because he/she refused to answer MY questions first. Anyone else can ask me whatever they want.
February 1, 2011, 2:29 pmrpt says:
Yes, thank you, but I’m not sure I get Michelle Malkin’s point. Are waivers bad? Are they inappropriate for unions?
February 1, 2011, 2:37 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Unless they dare to ask you something that was already asked by me.
http://volokh.com/2011/01/10/the-first-amendment-and-speech-that-allegedly-threatens-public-officials/comment-page-10/#comment-1115210
You have an endless supply of excuses for ducking questions. I can hardly wait to see what you come up with next.
February 1, 2011, 2:37 pmrpt says:
Thanks. I understand car insurance. My comment was to the propaganda inherent in your metaphor. I would like to see injured people get care when they need it.
February 1, 2011, 2:40 pmMichael Ejercito says:
That can be done without changing the nature of insurance, e.g. establishing price caps on health care.
(Price caps on health care would actually reduce the cost of insuring health)
What about Hawaii?
It used to have universal child health care.
What happened to it?
February 1, 2011, 2:49 pmJakeD says:
rpt:
I don’t “know” Michelle Malkin’s point, but my issue is undue favoritism to the point of bribery and — bottom line — if ObamaCare is such a good deal for everyone, why not for unions?
February 1, 2011, 3:59 pmrpt says:
February 1, 2011, 4:20 pmJakeD says:
rpt:
By 2014, ObamaCare is supposed to end all “mini-med” plans. In the meantime, the law requires insurers to phase out the use of annual dollar limits on benefits. In 2011, most plans can impose an annual limit of no less than $750,000. Mini-med plans have lower limits than allowed under the Affordable Care Act. ObamaCare allows these plans to apply for “temporary” waivers from rules restricting the size of annual limits to some group health plans and health insurance issuers.
Waivers are only supposed to last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage. In addition, enrollees must be informed that their plan does not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.
So far, 2,283,106 enrollees have been exempted from ObamaCare:
http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html
February 1, 2011, 4:40 pmJakeD says:
If you are asking whether I can go into court this afternoon and prove bribery, no I can’t do that yet. Hopefully, Rep. Issa (R-CA) does one better ; )
February 1, 2011, 4:59 pmrpt says:
I don’t see anything wrong here. Are there waivers wrongly granted? Were other waivers wrongly denied? I know unions are deemed evil, but they are legal.
February 1, 2011, 5:34 pmzuch says:
And a person that dies, dies once. How many times do you think the insurance company pays to make the beneficiaries “whole”? Did you have some point here that I’m missing?
Cheers,
February 1, 2011, 5:35 pmrpt says:
Isn’t Issa the guy who sent out regulatory hit list requests to his campaign contributors and is now hiding the responses from the public and the rest of Congress? He is a more likely target of a bribery investigation than investigator.
February 1, 2011, 5:36 pmzuch says:
Ask Canada.
Cheers,
February 1, 2011, 5:38 pmzuch says:
Ummmm … what would be the point?
Cheers,
February 1, 2011, 5:40 pmJakeD says:
rpt:
I don’t know about any allegations pertaining to Issa himself, but he is now in charge of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform looking into ObamaCare waivers and other matters. As I said, I cannot prove bribery yet. But, you really don’t see anything wrong with almost 2.3 million enrollees being exempted from ObamaCare?! And, that number does not even include the Amish / Mennonites who are exempted for religious reasons. Why can’t the rest of us be exempted too?!
February 1, 2011, 6:34 pmJakeD says:
rpt:
These are NOT rhetorical questions. If you don’t want to answer, though, that’s fine with me : )
February 1, 2011, 7:28 pmJakeD says:
As to Rep. Issa, so far not a good start:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/01/president-obama-snubs-issa-on-first-major-document-deadline/
February 1, 2011, 7:44 pmrpt says:
What questions? I’m not an expert on this law and I don’t presume that because unions got waivers that someone was bribed or that something is improper here. Nor do I believe that the health care law is somehow tyrannical or oppressive. You need to provide some facts or context here.
February 1, 2011, 8:08 pmrpt says:
Were you around during the Bush years? Have you ever responded to a subpoena? Do you think the President reviews the subpoenas and tells people how to respond to them? You need to upgrade your sources beyond Michelle Malkin and Tucker Carlson and get some practical background on Congressional subpoenas.
February 1, 2011, 8:12 pmJakeD says:
rpt (last time I will ask you these questions, I promise, even if you complain on every thread hereafter that I never asked you any questions):
1) You really don’t see anything wrong with almost 2.3 million enrollees being exempted from ObamaCare?
2) Why can’t the rest of us be exempted too?
February 1, 2011, 8:25 pmMichael Ejercito says:
It depends. Sometimes it is a lump sum, sometimes it is paid in annual installments. There is also an interest-only option where the company pays the interest only to the beneficiary in perpetuity.
Perhaps health insurance should be regulated exactly like life insurance.
February 1, 2011, 9:43 pmMichael Ejercito says:
Just like oil changes are recurring and continuing.
I wonder what would happen if one were to file a claim to Allstate or Mercury for an oil change on the basis that the wear and tear leading to the oil change occurred when the policy was in force.
February 1, 2011, 10:19 pm» Dave Kopel & John Suthers on Judge Vinson’s ruling that strikes down ObamaCare | Independence Institute: Patient Power Now » says:
[...] Kopel’s whole post: Judge Vinson rules federal health control unconstitutional. [...]
February 2, 2011, 7:38 amzuch says:
You have warranties for major components (and can buy extended ones). If your car needs oil changes, that’s one thing. If it needs “recurring/continuing engine changes”, and your warranty company decides to drop you because of that, you might get a little upset.
Cheers,
February 2, 2011, 10:52 amzuch says:
And you can take your payment and put it in a bank. Or you can take it to Las Vegas and blow the whole thing immediately.
The fact remains that there’s a significant difference between total expenses for acute and chronic conditions. Insurance companies hate chronic conditions and try to avoid paying for them. But they may well be the most financially debilitating for the insured, and thus the ones most in need of insurance….
Cheers,
February 2, 2011, 10:55 amMichael Ejercito says:
Cars do need recurring/continuing engine changes due to the normal wear and tear of the car.
How many warranties are perpetual?
But what you are effectively describing is a warranty, not insurance.
The purpose of a warranty is to provide repairs for a product due to normal wear and tear for a set period of time. For example, in a powertrain warranty “[w]hen a mechanical problem occurs with a covered part of a powertrain, the manufacturer or auto dealership will pay to have it repaired. What exactly is covered, and to what extent varies enormously.” Link Likewise, an oil change warranty would cover oil changes for a set period of time.
Insurance, by contrast, covers acute conditions, whether it be a car collision or the Black Death. Just as one does not rely on a warranty to cover collision damage, even though the collision damage occurred during the warranty period, one does not rely on insurance to cover oil changes, even though the wear and tear making the oil change necessary occurred during the insurance period.
What you seem to be arguing is that warranties should be available for the human body. But warranties and insurance are two totally different things.
February 2, 2011, 1:03 pmByung Kyu Park says:
Usually at that point, the company gives you a whole new car, if the warranty is still valid (i.e. you haven’t tried to mess with the engine yourself, etc., invalidating the warranty). Unfortunately, that isn’t the option with people.
These car analogies go only so far. The companies have far more responsibilities for their products because they made them in the first place. No matter what your opinion on insurance companies’ responsibilities might be, the fact is, the health insurance company did not create you—how can they be responsible for conditions they didn’t create in the first place (unlike, e.g., car or other product warranties)?
February 2, 2011, 1:17 pmCourt Orders are orders: Is Obama Administration already in contempt? « Sago says:
[...] “Order Granting Summary Judgment” to those seeking to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional, became the law of the land upon its filing with the Clerk of Court for the Pensacola Division of the United State District [...]
February 2, 2011, 2:18 pmzuch says:
OIC. By that ‘reasoning’, I guess they don’t need to pay out any benefits/reimbursements at all, seeing as they didn’t create any of the conditions requiring treatment. That works well … for some of the parties.
Cheers,
February 2, 2011, 3:57 pmzuch says:
I think you might want to re-evaluate your brand loyalties, Michael…. Just sayin’….
Cheers,
February 2, 2011, 3:59 pmzuch says:
… and those who develop chronic conditions can just hurry up and die. How … ummm, Republican … of you.
I understand that insurance companies would like to only cover acute conditions. In fact, I said so. But they don’t … and shouldn’t.
Cheers,
February 2, 2011, 4:02 pmByung Kyu Park says:
No, they wouldn’t need to—except for the fact that they entered into the contract with you to reimburse you for certain medical costs. You know, the so-called “health insurance” (more like a prepaid health plan than an actual insurance, the way it usually works). But unlike the car manufacturers who have some moral obligation to provide a warranty, the insurance company shouldn’t have any moral obligation to enter into this contract with you.
This isn’t to say that some insurance companies won’t try to weasel out of the terms of the contract that they are bound by, but that isn’t the usual basis for criticism of spending caps (although there is room for argument on denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, i.e. what was pre-existing and what wasn’t).
February 2, 2011, 4:04 pmzuch says:
You don’t think there’s any relation?
FWIW, I can well understand why insurance companies would like lifetime caps (just as oil companies are — surprise! — in favour of liability caps for their drilling spills). Pretending that this is not related to their trying as best they can to limit their “expenses” (read “benefits” if you happen to be the patient), including dropping “expensive” people or refusing those with prior conditions, is rather disingenuous. To be sure, I really don’t care much for the financial bottom line of private insurers, and think that we can do just fine with single-payer government health insurance (see “Medicare”), thank you….
I have an idea: Let’s say, “WTF cares” … so the insurance companies won’t be trying to weasel out of their obligations by ‘arguing’ that there were undisclosed ‘prior conditions’/
February 2, 2011, 4:53 pmMichael Ejercito says:
Do not all insurance companies use lifetime caps?
But covering chronic conditions would make it a warranty.
Why are not auto insurance companies on the hook for chronic conditions?
That is exactly the problem. Health insurance is treated as a warranty.
If a pre-existing defect in a car needs to be repaired, a warranty claim is filed, not an insurance claim. Warranties cover pre-existing conditions, as well as conditions that arise during the life of the warranty.
Why is it different when auto insurance companies do it? After all, it does seem a bit unfair that auto insurance companies would drop someone just for having a history of drunk driving conditions.
Of course. They should be like auto insurance companies, which will pay to restore a car that was wrecked in a pre-existing collision, and fire insurance companies, which will pay to restore a house that burned down in a pre-existing fire.
February 2, 2011, 10:43 pmAnother One Bites Obamacare | Rightlinks Blog – Greece: Setting the standard for Democrats everywhere says:
[...] at 4:25 p.m.: Via the blog Volokh Conspiracy, here’s the text of the [...]
February 3, 2011, 1:41 pm