Mandating health Insurance - Obamacare

[Ryan Ruck]

[American Patriot]

ROTFLMAO.

Hey, I'm trying to work here on the bench. lol you're making me snort my orange soda inside of drink it. lol

[American Patriot]

Another Victory on the Road to Repeal
"It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America 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 failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be ‘difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power’ and we would have a Constitution in name only."

So wrote Judge Roger Vinson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida yesterday while becoming the second federal judge to strike down Obamacare’s individual mandate. Like Judge Henry Hudson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Vinson also found that Section 1501 of the act, which forces all Americans to buy government-approved health insurance policies, "falls outside the boundary of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority and cannot be reconciled with a limited government of enumerated powers." But then Judge Vinson went even further, concluding that "the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit." Accordingly, Vinson concluded: "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."

In reaching the decision to strike down the entirety of Obamacare, Judge Vinson used the Obama Administration’s own words against them, noting that their own filings with the court claimed that the law’s other provisions “cannot be severed from the [individual mandate].” In addition, Judge Vinson notes that Congress could have easily included a severability clause in the legislation if they wanted to, that an earlier version of Obamacare did indeed have such a clause, but Congress intentionally removed the severability clause in the final bill. Judge Vinson wrote that the Obama Administration has “asserted again and again that the individual mandate is absolutely ‘necessary’ and ‘essential’ for the Act to operate as it was intended by Congress. I accept that it is.”

Judge Vinson’s decision is a body blow to Obamacare that the law will never recover from. The New York Times claims the decision “even[s] the score at 2 to 2,” and The Washington Post “reports”: “Four suits have now been decided on their merits—two rulings upholding the law and, with Monday’s decision, two finding all or part of it unconstitutional.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Only two Obamacare cases have moved passed preliminary motions and reached the merits of the case: Judge Hudson’s Virginia decision and Judge Vinson’s decision yesterday. More importantly, the parties involved in yesterday’s case make it unique. A majority of all states in the union (26) have joined forces with the National Federation of Independent Businesses to challenge this intolerable act. Heritage Foundation legal scholar Robert Alt comments: “If not completely unprecedented, the very fact that more than half the states marched into federal court on behalf of themselves and their citizens to challenge an unconstitutional federal program falls into the category of ‘beyond any recent memory.’”

Even more troubling for the Obama Administration, by granting declaratory relief to the parties involved (which as mentioned above includes 26 states), Judge Vinson has in effect stopped implementation of Obamacare dead in its tracks. Because the entire act was struck down, the future requirements to expand Medicaid programs will be suspended—at least as to these 26 states—and these states will be relieved of their obligation to make plans for such expansion in the immediate future.

At a time when many states face insolvency, the removal of this burden is welcome news. But America’s friends of liberty and opponents of Obamacare cannot rest here. It was not a coincidence that within an hour of Judge Vinson’s ruling, Senator Jim DeMint (R–SC) announced he had secured signatures from all 47 Republican Senators on a bill to repeal Obamacare in the Senate. The House already repealed Obamacare earlier this January.

The United States economy, and the American people, cannot wait for the Supreme Court to render a final decision. Obamacare is not just a judicial question. It is a fundamental question about what kind of country we want to live in. Do we want an America of limited government and vibrant economic growth? Or do we want to move toward an unlimited European-style welfare state?

[Kosciuszko]

White House is celebrating after yesterday's vote in the Senate, which split along the party line failing to overthrow his PP&ACA. Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) still stands as the law and it seems very unlikely that any force on Earth can dislodge it. There are of course multiple challenges to the law in courts, including a recent scholarly 78 page opinion by judge Hudson, ruling in Virginia’s case on Dec. 13 that held the insurance mandate unconstitutional (he voided the mandatory-coverage component). But when it comes to BHO, he cares nothing about the Constitution or adverse judicial opinions. He will be appealing decision by conservative judges all the way to the Supreme Court. Does it not mean that he is a dictator already?


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...tate-suit.html

White House to Pursue Health-Care Appeal After Florida Ruling

By Andrew M. Harris - Feb 1, 2011 12:01 AM ET

The Obama administration said it will appeal a Florida judge’s ruling that last year’s health-care overhaul overstepped limits on congressional power by compelling people to buy insurance.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola said yesterday that a provision of the law requiring Americans over 18 to obtain insurance coverage exceeded the power of Congress to regulate commerce under the U.S Constitution. Because the insurance mandate is central to the legislation, the entire law must be voided, he said. The U.S. said it may seek to block the decision while it appeals.
Florida sued on behalf of 13 states on March 23, the day Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, legislation intended to provide the U.S. with almost universal health-care coverage. Twenty-five states had joined Florida’s suit by yesterday’s decision. Virginia sued separately on March 23 and Oklahoma filed its own suit on Jan. 21.
“We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any -- including seeking a stay -- are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Justice Department, said in a statement yesterday.
The 955-page law also bars insurers from denying coverage to people who are sick and from imposing lifetime limits on costs. It includes pilot projects to test ideas like incentives for better results and bundled payments to medical teams for patient care.
‘Absolutely Right’
Stephen Presser, a professor of legal history at Northwestern University in Chicago, called Vinson’s decision “powerful” because it was the first finding that the mandate to purchase insurance can’t be separated from the rest of the law and saying it must be thrown out in its entirety. He called the judge’s analysis “absolutely right.”
Still, he said, “its utterly unclear at this point what long-range effect it will have,” because the ruling is enforceable only in the territory governed by the federal courts of Florida’s northern district, encompassing Pensacola, Gainesville and the state’s capital, Tallahassee.
Presser, who has testified before Congress about constitutional law, said the administration would probably ask the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta to halt the enforcement of Vinson’s decision pending an appeal.
Three other courts have weighed in on the law, two of them upholding it. In the third case, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, voided the mandatory-coverage component, while allowing the rest of the law to stand. An appeal of that ruling and of a decision upholding the law are slated to go before a Richmond federal appeals court in May.
U.S. Enforcement
While appeals are pending, nothing stops the U.S. from enforcing the health-care legislation outside of those districts where part or all of it has been invalidated, Presser said.
“Politically, it may have much more staying power,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. “It does reinforce the opponents of the legislation in the political sphere.”
The ruling by Vinson, who was named to the federal bench in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, would go before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta. The U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately be asked to consider the issue.
“The judge has confirmed what many of us knew from the start: Obamacare is an unprecedented and unconstitutional infringement on the liberty of the American people,” Florida Governor Rick Scott, a Republican, said in a statement.
Individual Mandate
The individual mandate combined with expansion of Medicaid and employer-based coverage would extend health coverage to 32 million more people by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Mandatory coverage, which the U.S. has called the linchpin of the plan, would start in 2014.
“All insurers will continue on the path they are on, complying with the health law and the mandates until the Supreme Court rules,” said Ana Gupte, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. in New York, noting that the law “is still the law.”
Tyler Mason, a spokesman for Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group Inc., the biggest U.S. insurer by sales, declined to comment on yesterday’s ruling. Kristin E. Binns, a spokeswoman for Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., the biggest U.S. insurer by enrollment, also declined to comment.
Virginia Case
Hudson, ruling in Virginia’s case on Dec. 13, also held the mandate unconstitutional. The government lacks the authority to “compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market,” wrote Hudson, who was named to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush. The judge said the rest of the act could stand.
Two federal judges have upheld the measure. U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit, found in the administration’s favor in a lawsuit brought by the Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center. U.S. District Judge Norman Moon in Lynchburg, Virginia, issued a similar decision in a case filed by Liberty University. Steeh andMoon were both appointed by Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
The case is State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 10-cv-00091, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

[Kosciuszko]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2011020307735

Virginia to seek expedited Supreme Court review of suit over health-care law

A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care overhaul unconstitutional Monday, siding with 26 states that sued to block it, saying that people can't be required to buy health insurance. (Jan. 31)



By Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 3, 2011; 6:07 PM

RICHMOND - Virginia will ask that the U.S. Supreme Court immediately review the state's constitutional challenge to the federal health-care overhaul, a rare legal request to bypass appeals and ask for early intervention from the nation's highest court, Attorney General Ken T. Cuccinelli II said Thursday.

Cuccinelli (R) said that conflicting court decisions about the law's constitutionality have created sufficient uncertainty about implementation of the sweeping law to justify speeding Supreme Court review.
The Justice Department will oppose the motion, saying that the case should be fully heard by lower courts before the Supreme Court takes action.
The high court has granted such requests infrequently, and many experts said they think Cuccinelli's filing is a longshot. Supporters of the law said that the provision at the heart of the legal dispute - a requirement that individuals buy health insurance - will not go into effect until 2014.
A U.S. District Court judge in Virginia ruled in December that it is unconstitutional to require people to buy health insurance, as envisioned in the law. The federal government appealed, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear the case in May.
A federal judge in Florida ruled this week in a suit filed jointly by Florida and 25 other states that the law is unconstitutional. In other cases, two other federal judges have said the law is constitutional.
According to court rules, petitions to bypass appellate review are granted only in cases that are of "such imperative public importance" that they require changing normal procedures.
Cuccinelli will argue that conflicting opinions over a law that will reshape one of the largest sectors of the economy justify the speedy review.
"Regardless of whether you believe the law is constitutional or not, we should all agree that a prompt resolution of this issue is in everyone's best interest," he said in a statement.
But a spokeswoman for the Justice Department said that the expedited review would not significantly change the case's timeline, since it is to be heard in May, likely allowing the Supreme Court to take up the case during its next term.
"The Department continues to believe this case should follow the ordinary course of allowing the court of appeals to hear it first so the issues and arguments concerning the Affordable Care Act can be fully developed before the Supreme Court decides whether to consider it," spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said in a statement. "Virginia's suit is based on a state statute that is not applicable nationwide."
Cuccinelli had indicated that he was considering filing a petition for certiorari with the court. He originally requested that the Justice Department join the motion. He said Thursday that he would proceed with the request, even without agreement from his federal opponents.

Legal experts have said they think the court is unlikely to grant Virginia's action, because the justices generally appreciate the opportunity to review lower-court opinions.


Additionally, Cuccinelli's action might be viewed as an attempt to achieve a tactical advantage by denying the appeals court the opportunity to overturn his December win. His action could also be perceived as an effort to maintain the head start that Virginia's case has had over the separate case filed jointly by other states in Florida and ensure that his is the case the Supreme Court will use to decide the constitutionality of the sweeping health-care law.
"This is exceptionally rare," said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University's law school. "It goes against a number of operating principles of the court."
He said justices might be wary of allowing the Cuccinelli suit to leapfrog over lower courts in part out of fear of opening a floodgate of similar requests. But he said the national import of the case means that their action is not out of the question.
"A credible case can be made for expedition, but it's going to be a long row to hoe for Attorney General Cuccinelli," Turley said.
Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) praised Cuccinelli's action, calling it a "proper and necessary step" to achieve a legal resolution to the more than two dozen challenges to the law.
"All other court decisions and reviews prior to that moment will serve simply to exacerbate the uncertainty and continue the delay," McDonnell said.

[vector7]

White House Says It Will Implement ObamaCare Despite Judge's Declaration that His Ruling Against It Is 'Equivalent of Injunction'

Monday, February 07, 2011
By Fred Lucas


White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs answers questions at a daily press briefing. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Washington (CNSNews.com) – White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com today that the administration will "rightly" continue to implement the Obamacare law even though the federal judge who sided with 26 states in declaring it unconstitutional said that his ruling was “the functional equivalent of an injunction” against the law.

In his ruling last week, Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida wrote that in his opinion an injunction is an extraordinary measure, particularly when a ruling is against the federal government.

The ruling said an injunction would be an extraordinary measure. “It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption ‘that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction,’” it said.

However, Gibbs said that other court rulings were in the administration’s favor.

“There are many courts that have heard many cases on this. More than 12 have dismissed the case,” he told CNSNews.com. “Two have ruled in our favor as to its constitutionality. Two have ruled against us. Implementation of the health care bill rightly continues to move forward as the law of the land.”

A total of 27 states – a majority of the 50 states – have sued to have the law declared unconstitutional. Virginia brought its own case against the federal law, while 26 states led by Florida brought a separate case.

In both cases involving states, courts declared the law unconstitutional, with a primary focus on the individual mandate.

Last year a federal judge in Michigan found that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional, and later, a federal judge in Virginia dismissed a separate lawsuit brought by Liberty University that challenged its constitutionality, the White House has noted. In other cases, the courts dismissed cases or determined that plaintiffs lacked standing.

Gibbs referenced two states that are moving forward with implementing the law despite the litigation.

“Despite the attorney general’s participation in the lawsuit, the state of Wisconsin announced that implementation moves forward,” Gibbs said.

“I would point out that one of the state houses in the commonwealth of Virginia passed by a vote of 95-3 to begin setting up health care exchanges,” he added.

[Ryan Ruck]

Hmm...

Contempt of court -> impeachment?

[American Patriot]

Not sure we've ever had any incidents where the President refused to listen to a Federal Court. However... this has to go to the Supreme Court before they HAVE to mind the rules I guess.

Three EQUAL Branches of Government, remember?

[American Patriot]

Judge Vincent - the guy who ruled the Obama Care unconstitutional has just given the Obama administration orders that they have seven days to "appeal" his ruling.

He is basically ordering this thing onto the Fast Track so that the Supreme Court MUST look at it ASAP.

He's forcing their hand on this.

The DOJ is attempting to refuse to do this!!!!!!!

Constitutional Crisis Coming our way.

[American Patriot]

Heritage Files Brief Opposing Obamacare's Individual Mandate


Yesterday, The Heritage Foundation filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, reiterating Heritage's opposition to the individual mandate that is a key piece of the Obamacare statute. This is the first time we have ever filed such a brief—as far anyone around here can remember. But we had no other choice. In its merits brief before the appeals court, the U.S. government quoted a 21-year-old statement by a Heritage Foundation policy expert supporting an individual mandate for health insurance, when Heritage's view today is to the contrary.

It all goes back to late January, when federal judge Robert Vinson ruled in a 26-state challenge to Obamacare that the law's individual mandate forcing Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance is unconstitutional.

Over 21 years ago, Heritage analysts initially (and mistakenly) considered the idea of a limited individual mandate coupled with appropriate tax incentives as a favorable answer to the "free rider" problem—i.e., citizens who do not buy personal health insurance knowing that, in the event of illness or injury, the government will ensure they get the necessary medical care. Of course, even that limited and qualified position did not demonstrate support for an unqualified individual mandate as structured in the Obamacare statute.

The government's reliance on this dated policy lecture is like arguing that a medical researcher who expressed qualified support for one therapy 21 years ago should naturally favor a broader application of that therapy today, even if his own and other research has disproved the assumptions that supported the original approach.

The federal government used our aged position and ignored later Heritage research that showed: 1) health insurance individual mandates will fail and are bad public policy; and 2) the federal government's attempt to force private citizens to purchase health insurance in the Obamacare statute is unconstitutional.

We have no alternative but to file a brief in response in order to make clear the Heritage view that the individual mandate is both bad policy and unconstitutional.

As we note in our brief: "Heritage policy experts have been involved in the debate over mandates for many years, but its own research contributed to the growing consensus among market-based economists and health policy experts that such a mandate is not necessary to achieve a high level of coverage and will never produce the mythical 'universal' coverage that its advocates desire."

For a research organization such as ours to be intellectually honest, we cannot rigidly accept an idea presented decades ago, and ignore empirical evidence presented since. That is why we changed our position on individual mandates long before President Obama ever spoke of one.

As we note in our brief: "If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed."

Obamacare's mandate will increase costs, not achieve universal coverage, and not solve the "free rider" problem. But more importantly, it violates the U.S. Constitution, because the Commerce Clause does not transform a national government of limited and enumerated powers into one of limitless authority.

Obamacare is an abomination that must be repealed. While the courts judge its constitutionality, we will continue to fight toward that end legislatively. We will continue to advocate for smarter solutions as outlined in our plan to fix America’s debt, Saving the America Dream, which we released this week. America deserves real health reform that offers personal freedom, state innovation, lower costs, higher quality care and greater participation. Obamacare does not accomplish this—and our plan does, without mandates.

[Backstop]

Here's how I see this playing out.

If a state refuses to implement Obamacare, the Fed will withhold funding to that state.

That's when it will get interesting.

[vector7]

Pelosi's District Gets 20 Percent Of ObamaCare Waivers

Written by R. Cort Kirkwood

Wednesday, 18 May 2011 16:55

During April, the Obama Administration approved 208 waivers for its socialist health-care mandates. Funny thing is, The Daily Caller reports, the administration gave 38 of them, or 20 percent, to businesses or other entities in the district of leftist Democrat Nancy Pelosi (left). As Speaker of the House, Pelosi was the loudest cheerleader of all for health-care mandates that her own constituents now flee — apparently with her approval. Indeed, the list of waivers of Obama-backing businesses and unions is long, and 38 in Pelosi's neck of the woods are just the latest to benefit from what presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, governor of Michigan, says is the utlimate of case of reciprocal back-scratching. Irony is, businesses who received the waivers used the very reason to apply for one that opponents of Obama's socialist mandates offered for opposing them in the first place. High-Toned Eateries The DC's report dug up some interesting recipients of the waivers. They are, The DC reports, "fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels." Indeed, the high-toned eatries serve food so expensive that the purported beneficiaries of ObamaCare, the hoi polloi, could never afford to eat at them. One of them The DC repored, is a restaurant called Boboquivari's. It's menu offers a cornucopia of food that goes a little beyond the menu at Five Guys. The steaks run anywhere from $39 for a filet mignon to $59 for a porterhouse. Crab and lobster appetizers are $14. Salads cost $9. Diners can start their meals with a basil martini that costs $12. It is "perfectly balanced and shaken till icy." And that's just one recipient in Pelosi's district. Another, The DC reports, is Café des Amis: Then, there’s Café des Amis, which describes its eating experience as “a timeless Parisian style brasserie” which is “located on one of San Francisco’s premier shopping and strolling boulevards, Union Street,” according to the restaurant’s Web site. “Bacchus Management Group, in partnership with Perry Butler, is bringing you that same warm, inviting feeling, with a distinctive San Francisco spin,” the Web site reads. Somehow, though, the San Francisco upper class eatery earned itself a waiver from Obamacare because it apparently cost them too much to meet the law’s first year requirements. The latest wave or waivers, The DC reports, included "27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers." Obama Friend And Union Waivers Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin has been tracking those who have received waivers as well. In her latest column, Malkin reported about REI, a company based in Seattle whose chief executive was yet another loud cheerleader for Obama's socialist mandates. But REI got a waiver for its nearly 2000 workers as well. Reports Malkin: The trendy Pacific Northwest outdoor equipment retailer’s progressive CEO and Democratic campaign donor, Sally Jewell, appeared with President Obama in 2009 to tout White House health care reform initiatives. Two years later, REI snagged a waiver to protect the health benefits of a whopping 1,180 workers from the very tentacles of the big government bureaucrats Jewell embraced at Obama’s roundtable. Beyond that, Malkin reports, millions of American workers have received waivers: To date, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has granted federal health care law exemptions to more than three million American workers covered by more than 1,300 unions, companies and insurers who had voluntarily offered low-cost health plans with annual benefits limits. Meddling Obamacare architects outlawed those private plans — nicknamed “mini med” plans — in the name of “patients’ rights.” But without special waivers, the escapees would have been forced to hike premiums or drop insurance coverage altogether for mostly low-wage, seasonal and part-time workers. Among the unions receiving waviers, Malkin reports, are locals for the Teamsters, Communications Workers of America and Service Employees International Union. Last year, Malkin divulged the break the Obama Administration gave to fast-food giant McDonald's and Jack in the Box. Crony Capitalism One recipient of the waiver in San Francisco, The Hill reports, is a Republican who says Pelosi played no role in getting the waiver. But that doesn't matter, says candidate Pawlenty. Pawlenty told Fox News talker Sean Hannity the waivers are "[a]nother example of really crony politics or crony capitalism, if you've got the right connections, the right lobbyists, the right interest group, you get your special deal, and the rest of us get our wallet out, and that's in the tax code, it's in earmarking, and now you see it in ObamaCare." And, he noted, the if ObamaCare requires as many waivers as the administration is giving out, then something must be wrong with the law. "I don't blame people for trying to get out from underneath it — that it is an awful law," Pawlenty said. "But when you have that many needs for exemptions, it tells you that the law — it is a warning sign that the law is broken and doesn't work." Pelosi responded to Waiver-Gate thusly: "It is pathetic that there are those who would be cheering for Americans to lose their minimum health coverage or see their premiums increase for political purposes," he spokesman said. Critics note that higher insurance premiums are among the reasons they opposed Obama's socialist health mandates.

[Ryan Ruck]

Proof Obama wants to destroy wealth through Obamacare.

Obama Solicitor General: If You Don't Like Mandate, Earn Less Money

June 2, 2011

President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center. (Listen to oral arguments here.) The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government's defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last month in Richmond. The Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself.

During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.

Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

“They’re in the business,” Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”

Kaytal responded by noting that there's a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.

“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”

Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”

The so-called “hardship exemption” in the health care law is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So earning less isn't necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold.

Throughout the oral arguments, Kaytal struggled to respond to the panel's concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something.

Sutton said it would it be “hard to see this limit” in Congressional power if the mandate is upheld, and he honed in on the word “regulate” in the Commerce clause, explaining that the word implies you're in a market. “You don’t put them in the market to regulate them,” he said.

In arguments before the Fourth Circuit last month, Kaytal also struggled with a judge's question about what to do with the word “regulate,” to the point where the judge asked him to sit down to come up with an answer. (More on that exchange here). Kaytal has fallen back on the Necessary and Proper clause, insisting that it gives broader leeway to Congress.

Judge James Graham, a Reagan district court appointee who is temporarily hearing cases on the appeals court, said, “I hear your arguments about the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and I’m having difficulty seeing how there is any limit to the power as you’re defining it.”

Kaytal responded by referencing United States v. Morrison, in which the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, and United States v. Lopez, which struck down gun free school zones. In those cases, Kaytal responded, the Supreme Court set the limit that the Commerce Clause had to regulate economic activities.

The health care market is unique, Kaytal insisted, because everybody will eventually participate. With the mandate, Kaytal said, “What Congress is regulating is not the failure to buy something. But failure to secure financing for something everyone is going to buy.”

Graham acknowledged Kaytal's arguments, yet reiterated that he was “having trouble seeing the limits.”

The problem with the “health care is unique” argument – and this is me talking – is that it just creates an opening for future Congresses to regulate all sorts of things by either a) arguing that a particular market is also special or b) finding a way to tie a given regulation to health care.

For instance, the example that's come up often is the idea of a law in which government forces individuals to eat broccoli.

During the Sixth Circuit argument, Kaytal said that such an example doesn't apply, because if you show up at a grocery store, nobody has to give you broccoli, whereas that is the case with health care and hospital emergency rooms.

Yet that argument assumes that Congress passes such a law as a regulation of the food market. What if the law was made as part of a regulation of the health care market? It isn't difficult to see where that argument can go.

The broccoli example is really a proxy for a broader argument about whether the government can compel individuals to engage in healthy behavior – it could just as well be eating salad, or exercising. There's no doubt that a huge driver of our nation's health care costs are illnesses linked to bad behavior. People who are overweight and out of shape cost more because they have increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and so on. Those increased costs get passed on to all of us, because government pays for nearly half of the nation's health care expenses, a number that's set to grow under the new health care law. Is it really unrealistic to believe that future Congresses, looking for ways to control health care costs, could compel healthy behavior in some way? More pertinently, is there any reason why that would be unconstiutional under the precedent that would be set if the individual mandate is upheld?

With most experts expecting the case to go before the Supreme Court, it seems the biggest obstacle for the Obama administration is figuring out where power would be limited if the mandate were upheld. Those challenging the law have made a clear and understandable limit by drawing a distinction between regulating activity and regulating inactivity (i.e. the decision not to purchase insurance). But simply saying the health care market is unique doesn't actually create a very clear or understandable limit to Congressional power.

The 11th Circuit hears the case next week brought by 26 states led by Florida.

[Ryan Ruck]

That's right Peterle. People will find a way around regulation such as those tax shelters you mention.

If Obamacare isn't repealed and this is the line the government wants to stick to (earn less/no money to avoid it), then I foresee a booming black market cash economy and greatly decreased tax revenues to the government causing it to go further bankrupt.

Then again, isn't bankrupting the system the goal of Cloward-Piven?

[American Patriot]

President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

Honest-to-God, why do we suffer these fools any more.

Fire him.

Call for his removal. Right fucking now.

[Phil Fiord]

A trend I am seeing and myself included, is many higher wage jobs have become so stressful, it is humbling, but needed to step down or find a lesser job. This economy has companies pushing for more and more out of people who are already pushing beyond normal limits. Those in management levels are insanely held accountable if work is not done by these overworked people. It is not hours worked so much as work to be done in a set number of hours. Reducing a workforce from 100 to 35 and expecting the work of 100 to get done is what I call insane. Holding a manager accountable for the work to get done is just cruel. But that is where we are at.

Every time I see a mishap such as industrial accident or preventable health crisis, such related to stress, I look into the work of the person or persons involved. Often times, it can be seen that the economy has created a situation where private companies have had to trim the most valuable but easily controlled part of expense, labor. A tipping point has been reached in many industries.

After a couple of real health scares I took a lower job, as I was one of these managers who was held accountable for getting the work of 6 done with 2, as a ratio. I was lucky and even though I do earn less, I am happy now. It is sad though, because I am seeing many people stepping back from the ideals of moving up. I will work up again, but am waiting on the sideline to see how it pans out.

[vector7]

Pelosi: Unemployment Checks Best Way to Create Jobs

By Doug Powers • July 1, 2010 04:08 PM

*Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers

Nancy Pelosi is around the bend even more than usual these days:

Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed Thursday.

Speaking to reporters, the House speaker was defending a jobless benefits extension against those who say it gives recipients little incentive to work. By her reasoning, those checks are helping give somebody a job.

“It injects demand into the economy,” Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. “It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.”

In the real world, demonstrating lunacy of this magnitude is known as a “cry for help” and an intervention involving large nets, straight-jackets and electric shock therapy is in order. But not in Washington, DC, where free-range crazies are allowed to pick pockets, loot futures, and all too often get re-elected.

I think I’m catching on to Pelosi’s line of reasoning though (which, frankly, frightens me): If unemployment is the best way to create jobs, then the economy won’t be fully functioning until nobody’s working, and that’s another goal Obama, Pelosi, Reid & company can now boast about helping us get closer to. (Sister Toldjah has the Pelosi video just in case reading it wasn’t alone enough to make you ill)

Meanwhile, in Racine, Wisconsin, President Obama reminded everybody that they should be happy that the unemployment rate isn’t even higher (Why? According to Stretchy McHugegavel we need the unemployment rate to go up in order to create those extra jobs).

This is like listening to the world’s worst football coach motivating a team that’s down by 30 points at halftime by reminding them that they’d be down by 50 if it weren’t for his superior team-prep, organizational and executive skills:

Next Obama will tell people in the Gulf that they should praise him for seeing to it that only 10w40 is washing up onshore instead of a much thicker viscosity.

**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers

[American Patriot]

I don't manage. I'm one of the guys that does the work. I have a philosophy on this though.

"Any work I do not accomplish will be there tomorrow to get done..."

When they say, "Yes, but more work will pile up...."

and I say, "Yes, it will. So add people to get it done? What? No money to hire? Then let it pile up...."

I'm finished busting my ass to almost never get a "Thanks, good job" - instead I get "You're falling behind, you can't do this...."

I simply say, "Fire me... pay me unemployment. And you will...."

They leave me alone.

[Ryan Ruck]

One In Three Employers May Drop Health Benefits, Report Says

June 7, 2011

The predictions about healthcare keep coming. The latest suggests that nearly a third of employers are likely to stop offering health insurance to employees in 2014 when major federal healthcare-reform provisions kick in. This comes from a new report by McKinsey Quarterly.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 7% of employees would be forced into subsidized-exchange policies, the report said, but the survey of more than 1,300 employers suggests otherwise. That research found that 30% said they would “definitely or probably” drop the insurance policies.

As Reuters notes in its article about the latest prediction: That number rises to more than 50% among employers with a high awareness of healthcare reform.

Still, American workers will likely have some sort of health coverage through their employers, if not through new health insurance exchanges, the McKinsey report says (registration to view the report is free):

“Most employers, however, will find value-creating options between the extremes of completely dropping employee health coverage and making no changes to the current offering.”

On the medical front, the blog KevinMD recently offered predictions related to healthcare reform as well. It begins: “While I’m not sure I’m ready to concede that Obamacare has already damaged health care in America, I will agree the law is certainly is changing health care, aligning health care corporate interests with political interests, with doctors feeling the squeeze between the two.”

And on the anniversary of the passage of the healthcare overhaul, the Kaiser Family Foundation asked a variety of “players and experts” what the new healthcare landscape would, or should, look like. Here are their responses.

As for that McKinsey report, it noted that companies will have to decide how to balance the need to attract talented workers with the penalties and tax advantages of different levels of coverage. Companies with more than 50 workers, for example, will have to offer health benefits to every full-timer or pay a penalty. And they won’t be able to offer better health benefits to highly paid executives than to hourly employees.

But about those talented workers. Most employees -- 85% -- wouldn’t quit their job if their employer dropped health insurance, though 60% would expect cash compensation, the report said.

Still, it’s hard to predict precisely how the healthcare changes will play out. The report concludes:

“Employers should recognize that as the ESI [employer-sponsored insurance] market changes after 2014, the system will react dynamically. If many companies drop health insurance coverage, the government could increase the employer penalty or raise taxes. Employers will need to be aware of actions by participants at any point along the health care value chain and prepare to adapt quickly.”

[American Patriot]

If everyone, all companies just told the government and Obama to pound sand, I'd say we'd have a "win".