Pages

Monday, August 15, 2011

The 11th Circuit vs. the Health Care Law: A Manifesto - Andrew Cohen - Politics - The Atlantic


Bye-bye Obama-care. So-called health care (in reality sick care) in this country is a bit of a joke. But this approach was nowhere close to an answer. Time to hit the delete key and start over on this one.


The 11th Circuit vs. the Health Care Law: A Manifesto - Andrew Cohen - Politics - The Atlantic:

"A bad week for the White House got worse Friday when a federal appeals court in Atlanta struck down the 'individual mandate' portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Whatever else it portends, the 2-1 decision by a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals guarantees that the United States Supreme Court will have to resolve this legal dispute on its merits, probably by next spring. Even if they want to, the justices in Washington won't be able to duck this one.

It took the 11th Circuit 304 pages to announce its findings and conclusions in Florida et al. v. Dept of Health and Human Services: The 'individual mandate' provision of the law, which requires the uninsured to buy health insurance, violates the Constitution because it is beyond Congress' power to regulate such activity. But other provisions of the new law, including its expansion of Medicaid coverage, which also were struck down by a Florida trial judge in January, are permissible. In other words, as bad as this ruling may be for supporters of the Affordable Care Act, it could have been much worse."

----


Atlanta Appeals Court Crushes Obamacare Argument in [Market-Ticker]:

"Who's left?  Healthy persons who forego purchasing insurance.  In other words, the government penalizes you for being of normal weight and taking care of yourself.  If you do so and by doing so decide you do not need to purchase this medical insurance, you are forced to either become sick or pay a penalty!

That's just a bit backward, don't you think?

The court also rejected the mandate on the principle of federalism.  This is an important finding, for it is one of the few decisions I've seen of late that recognize the inherent distinction between federal and state regulatory power.  In fact, this is exactly what our founders intended - 50 'laboratories' in which one could choose to live, and should one not like the outcome in one of those laboratories of government they could move and enjoy the experience of pleasure (or pain) in a different one!

Federalism is at the core of a limited federal government with most regulatory activity taking place in the States.  It has been lost over the decades, and as such it is vitally refreshing to see this argument raised 'front and center' in the Obamacare litigation chain - and defended by the 11th Circuit."

----
The Case Against President Obama's Health Care Reform: A Primer for Nonlawyers
by Robert A. Levy


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12972&utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=318a0dde46-Cato_Today&utm_medium=email

Multiple challenges to President Obama's health care reform are percolating through the federal courts. Soon the Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in on perhaps the most important question of the post–New Deal era: Are there any remaining limits on the breadth and scope of federal power?

Reinforced by decades of Court decisions that have gutted the Framers' original conception of limited government, the Obama administration has embraced an unprecedented expansion of centralized control. This paper addresses the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which includes a mandate that individuals either purchase a government-prescribed health insurance policy or pay a penalty.

The Department of Health and Human Services has asserted three constitutional provisions as sources of authority for the mandate — the Taxing Power, the Commerce Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Each of those purported sources is deficient.

First, the penalty for not buying health insurance is not a tax. Even if the penalty were a tax, it would fail the constitutional requirements for income, excise, or direct taxes. Second, the power to regulate interstate commerce extends only to economic activities; it does not permit Congress to compel such activities in order to regulate them. Third, the mandate is not necessary; indeed, it is merely a means to circumvent problems that would not exist if not for PPACA itself. Nor is the mandate proper; it cannot be reconciled with the Framers' original design for a limited federal government of enumerated powers.

An essential aspect of liberty is the freedom not to participate. PPACA's directive that Americans buy an unwanted product from a private company debases individual liberty. And it's unconstitutional.

A somewhat younger Herman Cain schools Bill Clinton specifically and liberals in general regarding Health care.

Hermain Cain Educates Clinton on Economics in 1994 HC Town Hall Forum
http://youtu.be/vy542UgSelQ


Liberal Confronts Herman Cain!
http://youtu.be/mOJxQ7umeVw


The Eleventh Circuit nullifies the essence of ObamaCare with these words:
“the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional"

No comments:

Post a Comment