A federal judge on Monday struck down the entire Obamacare legislation as unconstitutional. While the individual mandate portion of the law was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in December, this is the first time the entire law was struck down. Further, this ruling will significantly delay implantation of the law in 26 states and could set the stage for a Supreme Court case testing the validity of the Affordable Care Act, also called Obamacare.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson handed down the ruling in a suit brought by 26 states. As part of his ruling the judge declared that the individual mandate, the requirement that all citizens purchase health insurance or be penalized and fined, cannot be separated from the rest of the law. Therefore, as the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the entire law must be struck down. Though Judge Vinson stopped short of issuing the injunction that plaintiffs were seeking; the 26 states which brought the suit now have clear legal guidance to resist Obamacare.
The Justice department has already announced the ruling will be appealed and it is widely expected that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately decide Obamacare’s legitimacy. The ruling comes as many health insurance companies are raising rates in anticipation of the coming rules and strictures of Obamacare and the administration itself is granting Obamacare waivers to corporate and union allies. Meanwhile in the Senate, two resolutions have been presented repealing all or part of the Affordable Care Act.
The administration pushed the Affordable Care Act through Congress despite massive public opposition and multiple question from members of their own party regarding the law’s sustainability. The expectation from President Obama was that once the law was passed, the American people would eventually change their opinions. The administration was hoping that, like Medicare and Social Security, a new “beneficiary class” would be created making any structural changes or reforms to the law politically untenable.
Instead the law has had the opposite effect. The strength of the Tea Party movement and the devastating 2010 midterm elections are in many ways a massive manifestation of the public’s resistance to the kind of top down central control President Obama favors and Obamacare represents. As much as the administration is attempting to change the narrative and resist talking about Obamacare, this battle is far from over.
Comments
This is poorly written.
I agree, the government can't force people to purchase insurance, and that is an easy fix, - they can take it out - but when you have a judge that threw away the whole thing is suspicious to me since the House Majority GOP just voted the same way. We need to check out this Judge to see if he is being paid by the GOP to further advance their stance on the health care issue. Something smells fishy here
This judge threw the baby out with the bath water.
Obamacare, legislation so "good" it had to be corruptly shoved down the people's throats by backroom deals, hidden mandates and sweethart deals for Obama's political Gestapo! !
Why can it be mandatory to carry Auto Insurance and not Healtcare Insurance? Insurance is insurance.
I am sorry you feel that way. Can you please provide an example?
austerity is where it is at
The gov't cannot compel you to buy health insurance, but they can compel you to pay for an uprovoked war, unfunded Medicare Part D that I probably won't even get to use, and other spending measures I don't agree with. If I don't pay, they penalize me. What about that Mr. Activist Judge?
What part of 'WE DON"T WANT IT!" do you not understand, Mr President?
What's this "we" stuff?
I just can't believe that people are in such an uproar about this. The law has made insurence companies finally have to pay 100% for preventative care, which is a great thing. So you know the amount of money that your insurance increased is nothing compared to if this gets overturned. So go ahead beat your chests like big apes and push this to happen cause the only thing you are doing is killing your own bottom line. Oh and another FYI, the Healthcare act has created 100's of thousands of jobs, so for those saying this is job killing and not good for the country, go back to school.
and what if i can't afford this health care that i must have? then i get penalized? if i can't afford the health care, how can i afford the penalty?
The question is can you not afford healthcare? cause I can tell you this, from the reaserch I've done if you can afford it barely now, if this does disappear then you won't be able to, and quite frankly it's set-up so you can get into medicare if needed. I would also like you to look at VA hospitals, government run, cheaper than regular healthcare, and better outcomes to patients. 37th in the world for healthcare, I know I'm ashamed, so should you.
I agree with the fact that the law is unconstitutional and the individual mandate must be removed by Congress. The rest of this story is a bunch of "The People Have Spoken!" crap.
Judge Vinson does not want to be put on the Supreme Court by this administration apparently. Good ruling.
Factually inaccurate. Only 1 in 4 people favor repeal. The stat that half the country wants to change Obamacare actually includes the 1 in 4 that want to expand Obamacare further in with the 1 in 4 for repeal. Half the country wants to leave it be, another 25% want more of it.
"Massive public opposition" as Moore says, is just not real.
Also - more federal judges upheld it versus struck it down. The only accurate part of the article is that it is likely that the US Supreme Court will eventually decide.
For a guy with a Masters in Poli Sci, this guy is a moron.
Everyone wants free things. If some other Country like Canada wants to buy us free healthcare thats great! I refuse to pay a fine myself. Idiot.
Wonderful article! Thanks for the summation. I support healthy foods to health care, more like "sick" care, but that is another discussion, eh?
just the facts please, the public could do without the hyperbolic interjections at the end of this article, or else, clearly label this piece as Op-Ed. Oh - and massive is not a quantitative figure, please site a source of some kind. Is this journalism in America? Sad.
this article is subjective and im shocked google actually linked it. I dont want your opinions....just the facts please.
agreed
Agreed
Actually, preventative care is a HUGE additional outlay for insurance companies. Think about it. $200 dollar tests every year for 100 people, in ten years only one of them tests positive for whatever is being tested for. If they need treatment, it will cost half as much as if it were caught later. The savings is probably way less than the $200,000 that has been spent testing everyone for it.
The important thing here is that A. you save money and the insurance companies pay a little bit more money not enough to make them lose money. B. To think that something like catching cancer or heart disease in it's early stages is going to not save these companies money in the long run is ridiculous, caught early enough the treatment of these cost a lot less than in the later stages. C. yes I do agree that the mandate part is a tad harsh, but there is nothing to suggest that this causes the whole law to be void.
corr. - cite
No slant in this article at all.
This is no sueprise, over half of WDC's laws of the last Century are clearly unconstitutional but have been propped up by the CORRUPT MANDATED Progressive/Anti Personal Freedom movement.
Maybe there is still some hope for personal freedom in the USA?
wow. You really make a point of making no point at all. You must be an enemy of cogent thought.
Medical care should be a right, not something that you purchase like a car or a house. If the insurance companies weren't involved, the system would work fine.
But we must enrich those few at the top of the insurance pyramid, so we keep the insurance companies involved. Nobody reading this blog is anywhere near the top of that pyramid of wealth. So, why do you care if we don't enrich those corporate CEOs?
Medical care is a right. That is part of the issue. If you show up at the emergency room for any reason they have to check you out whether you have the money to pay or not. Lots of people abuse this by going to the emergency room for things they should be going to a doctors office for. Hospitals absorb the cost and pass it on the the patients and insurance companies. It's one part of why healthcare and insurance are so expensive.
The idea that we should have a mandate for health insurance is similar to the idea that we should have a mandate for car insurance. When an uninsured motorist totals your vehicle and sticks you with the cost of repair that is unfair and we should be protected. When an uninsured person goes to the ER for a cold then we should not pay for it. When an uninsured person goes to the doctor and finds out they have an chronic or terminal illness which will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat why should the cost be shouldered by paying customers and taxpayers?
That being said. How can the GOP be in favor of removing a law that would move the burden form taxpayers and place it on the consumer? This is why I will never vote GOP, they can't keep their own convictions in harmony. There are no fundamental principals that truly govern their actions. Just a collection of a few rallying points and idiomatic expressions that fit the agenda at any given moment.
First paragraph..."implantation".... Mr. Moore I believe the correct term is "implementation".... are you really get paid to write?
"are you really get paid to write?"
talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
You need to learn to write too...
"are you really getting paid to write?"
Ok I don't agree with the whole article but I like calling out dumb people. Please look up words before you correct someone else. The writer's sentence was just fine. He is simply talking about embedding the law into the 26 states existing laws.
"Implantation"
state or process of implanting - the state of being fixed or embedded in something, or the process of becoming fixed or embedded in something
I cannot believe the editors at Examiner.com let this ignorant article be published. If you bothered to read anything at all, you would know it's not called "Obamacare" - only Fox News calls it that, so you are not being an objective reporter, but a shill for the wingnuts on the right. I don't believe you have a masters degree in anything besides being a parrot. (Oh, and I also write for Examiner.com)
Thank you.
agreed.
Then why are we required to get car insurance ???
Agreed
Because you made the choice to want to drive or buy a car! No one should be made to buy some product or service for not doing anything.
If this is unconstitutional, then so is social security and Medicare, this is a joke of a mandate by conservative congressman and judges in attempt to continue support for insurance companies and big pharmaceutical companies. While the bundle of laws may be imperfect at best, you need to look no further then the same conservative effort that forced such muddled compromise in the first place. As a nation if we don't raise the standard for all Americans, we will all come down. We need not look much farther then http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/111986/10-industries-..., yet see the wealthiest of Americans get richer and a near complete erosion of the middle class and poverty levels rising higher every year.
Wow, gee I wonder what side of the issue this author is on?
Just because someone feels strongly about an issue doesn't mean that a majority feels that way...
Oh no, please don't make my health insurance more affordable, please stop...
I don't want my health to become a humane matter, I want it to be a financial matter.
Please don't take care of me if I become ill and eventually broke, one day, that would be horrible.
Think about it, it can happen to you, too.
This really isn't a news story. It is an opinion piece. And everybody who has an a** hole has an opinion. This guy's opinion is well...coming from his a**hole.
Really, this 'Mitt Romney Care' bill is based on the Mass. healthcare legislation passed by Republicans no-less in that fine State.
As for the unconstitutionality of 'forcing people' to have insurance. If you drive a car, you are required to have insurance. If you own a house, you are required to have insurance.
If you own a human body, and are going to get sick (and that's a 100 percent guarantee) you are going to have to have insurance since otherwise, people who do have insurance have to pick-up your costs.
So...fine....promise not to get sick...ever.
Apples and Oranges - you are not forced to drive a car. Driving a car is a privilege, and if you wish to drive a car you must be insured as required *by your state*.
Responsible adults carry as much insurance for themselves and their families as they feel necessary. Of course, the risk of not carrying insurance is bankruptcy. One would think such people would prioritize health care higher on their list of family expenditures. It's surprising that people complaining about the high cost of health care find the money for cell phone plans, high speed internet, flat screen tvs, automobiles, vacations, etc.
Nobody if forcing you to buy a car or a house. Those are choices that you make for yourself. You are advocating giving the government power that it should not have. Forget about healthcare for a minute and consider the power and authority that you want the government to have. If you’re not scared by that you should be.
Rich, please see my other comment about relying less on insurance. It's much cheaper to have a "DIY HSA" than to have insurance companies cover it... and takes minimal discipline!
Regarding 'forcing people to have home or car insurance'. The Federal government does not mandate homeowners insurance. However, the morgage company won't loan to you unless you have it. Imagine the scenario of a newly purchased home without insurance that burns down. The homeown has no incentive to continue to pay, and the mortgage company / bank has no incentive to reposess the property. The home insurance is mandated by morgage companies to protect their own investment. Once you've paid the house off, you can do whatever you want with your insurance.
Auto insurance is mandated by your State government. In case you forgot from your U.S. Gov't classes, State have all the power, with the exception of the "enumerated powers" of the Federal Gov't. Hell, a State could enact Communism, if it had the votes. That's why MA has socialized health care, AK has an almost geo-libertarian policy with oil revenues, which some might also see as socialist... and both initiatives were led by Republicans...
So if you haven't figured it out by now, party name is pretty irrelevant. ;)
-Clive
ANYTHING TO GET YOUR NAME IN THE PAPER!! THIS JUDGE is a CLOWN.
@OSUBradford
1) Nothing is free. The cost to cover pre-existing conditions and your "free" wellness visits will be paid for by premium increases for all customers. You are asking for more, and you will pay for more. Sadly, I am not asking for more, and I will still have to pay for more - just so you can think you are getting yours for free. Understand now?
2) You claim hundreds of thousands of jobs are created by Obamacare. Do you understand that these are mostly bureaucratic, paper-pushers and IRS agents? Do you think that adding hundreds of thousands to the public sector, union payroll at this time really benefits us financially? And why do you want to insert yet another layer between you and your doctor? There is no question that this plan will enforce rationing, and those faceless bureacrats you cheer will be dictating your care. Worse, if you have it your way, they will be dictating MY care - and I want no part of this.
Please remember that health care is a service, just like calling the plumber, or getting your car fixed. You don't expect your neighbor to pay for your leaky faucet, so why do you expect him to pay for your doctor visit?
Personal responsibility seems to have been dropped from the Democrat vocabulary.
My mom was an out of work nurse who recieved a job from an insurance company who was expanding to offer better care, yeah she's such an bureaucratic, paper-pushers and IRS agent. You need to come to realize this country is lacking, stop being another ape and step up to the 21st century, I pay for my own insurance, and I can tell you this at my age I have little to no need for it, but I'm not going to not have converage and then be unable to pay for my bills. If you have no cov. I'm going to pay for your care if you get sick currently if you do I'll have to as well what's the difference?, SO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW
Rationing? As in the HMO telling you that your insurance is cut-off cuz you got sick? Or because you have a pre-existing health-issue, so go take care of yerself?
Or maybe your kid got cancer? Give him a fresh-one for doin' that alrightee.
As it is, those without insurance do get treated. And hospitals write-off about $100 billion a year, which naturally gets passed along to those who do have insurance. So yup, your neighbor is paying for somebody else's 'leaky faucet' whether Republicans want to acknowledge that fact or not.
Really, this is not a Democrat/Republican dialogue. We are Americans and we are neighbors. Do we care about each other or not? If not, then what the hell are we except 'brute animals'?
We can improve our civilization or see it degenerate further as the Wall Street wealth rape continues unabated.
You have conveniently left out the fact that we DO pay for other people's (expensive) health care, like it or not. This is due to the fact that the medical profession deems it unethical to deny treatment. This being the case, even the medical industry has recognized this as a basic right (and probably less costly than litigation to deny at least minimal treatment).
I am liberal, and I DO agree that you should NOT mandate private products/services. So how do we bring down costs for medical services that we KNOW people use both responsibly and irresponsibly?
Oh, and personal responsibility in this matter does have a lot to do with affordance, which some people are born/inherit into and some people are born without. I know many people that are deemed responsible SOLELY for the fact that they have great unearned wealth. I rarely here the argument against unearned income entitlements from Conservatives, which represent old English values more than American values. That's some kind of patriotism.
I think a good idea is to tax (5%) fast food, soda, cigarettes (more), alcohol, and other highly processed foods. The more you use these unhealthy products, the more you contribute to your own health care that will be needed down the road. Any takers?
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!