Appeals Court Strikes Health Insurance Requirement

Appeals court strikes health insurance requirement

August 12, 2011
ATLANTA (AP) — A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.

The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn't go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.

The states and other critics argued the law violates people's rights, while the Justice Department countered that the legislative branch was exercising a "quintessential" power.

The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that "the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power." (emphasis mine)

"What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die," the opinion said.

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-strikes-health-insurance-requirement-173543503.html

 

"What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die," the opinion said.

This may be the libs loophole. We all know their ultimate goal is to do away with "private insurance" and subject us to a single payor system.

 

I was going to search down where moen predicted the next court to rule would be the supreme court and post this there.

 

Yes, that would be a good place to post it. Also, I'll be glad when we're able to search the previous PRWE forum...

 

Wow, that would have been just devastating. I don't actually remember what I "predicted" but I would get your panties in a bunch over this ruling. The courts seem to be legislating from the bench again. I do remember you guys being against that type thing when it doesn't go your way.

 

Convenient memory again. Here are the facts;

Followed by this (only the red is your comment)

 

You mean I actually guessed wrong? Oh whoa is me!!! Well grab your victories where ever you can find them eh?

 

They probably could have avoided all of this is they would have enacted a Tax Credit for having health insurance instead of a fine for not having health insurance. But that would have meant they would have had to raise taxes on everyone to get back to the same level of net revenue. And that would have been politically dicey. So they went with a fine instead which has shown a good possibility of being ruled unconstitutional in the end.

 

I think that the people with the least amount of access to health care probably either pay little or no taxes or simply do not file because their income it to low.

 

Since 50% of Americans pay no taxes, my guess is you are actually right this time.

 

Payroll taxes are taxes. That's why they call them taxes.

 

I assume by "Payroll taxes" you mean income tax plus FICA. Since the topic was "Tax Credit for having health insurance", are you now proposing to allow deductions for FICA? By the time you are done, there will be no one left to understand the tax code.

 

Paying little or no taxes does not mean they can't get a Tax Credit and it can be refundable. Credits are not the same thing as Deductions. Credits are how people get back more in a tax refund than what they paid in taxes.

 

Moen must be wrong. I say give the rich and ultra wealthy even more! Cut spending on the poor slobs everywhere and increase revenues for corporate CEO's! I wish Rome would catch on fire already.

 

How about if we cut spending where it makes sense to cut it & raise revenue in a manner it doesn't penalize success?

 

But that misses the objective of the left. Their sole end game is to "redistribute" everything - because "it is fair".

 

Yep, be he's have a whole other opinion if it was his wealth that was being redistibuted.

 

RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court in Virginia dismissed two lawsuits Thursday that had challenged the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in both lawsuits – one filed by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, the other by Liberty University – that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. The court did not delve into the constitutional issues.
The Richmond-based appeals court is the third appellate court to rule in lawsuits challenging the health care reform law, which requires individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. A federal appeals court in Cincinnati also upheld the law, but an appeals court in Atlanta struck down the insurance mandate.
Two of the judges on the Virginia panel were appointed by Obama, the other by Bill Clinton.
The attorney general and Liberty claimed the insurance mandate was unconstitutional. In his challenge, Cuccinelli claimed standing because the federal law conflicts with a state law that says no Virginian can be compelled to buy insurance. The appeals court rejected that claim.
More than 30 lawsuits have been filed over the law. The U.S. Supreme Court will have the final say.

 

"The court did not delve into the constitutional issues." I wonder what that means!

 

I think it means they handed down a ruling based on ideology rather than law.