The decision on the individual mandate handed down today by U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in the Eastern District of Virginia makes it clear that Obamacare is on extremely shaky legal ground. That’s fitting, because it’s been on shaky political ground for well over a year now. Today’s decision — possibly joined by others in the weeks ahead — is going to strengthen the already strong perception that this law was ill-advised from the get-go and needs to be repealed to make way for a more sensible, consensus-driven program.
Specifically, the judge’s ruling today found that the new law’s requirement that all Americans must purchase government-approved health insurance or face a fine was not a permissible use of the lawmaking authority granted to Congress under the Constitution. In other words, Congress doesn’t have unlimited authority to do anything it wants. Its powers are carefully enumerated. And among them is not the power to force Americans to buy something they would otherwise forgo.
Without the individual mandate, the whole Obamacare edifice crumbles. The judge did not rule that the entire law must be invalidated. But if the individual mandate goes, the insurance regulations — and most especially the requirement that insurers must take all comers without regard to their health status — will never work. Patients could simply wait to enroll in health coverage until they needed some kind of expensive treatment or procedure, and thus pocket the premiums they would have paid when they were not in need of much medical attention.
Still, it’s been clear for some time that repeal advocates should never bank on courts bailing the country out of Obamacare. This issue is far too important to leave to such an unpredictable process. Moreover, even if the mandate and related provisions are gutted by the courts, that would still leave many horribly damaging aspects of Obamacare in place, such as the massive entitlement expansions and the heavy reliance on government-imposed price controls.
Today was a good day. But it’s really just a small skirmish in a much wider war. By all means, every legal remedy should be pursued. But Congress has a responsibility to undo this mess as well, regardless of how the court cases turn out.
It doesn't matter what the judgement was, the country can not afford this and will be broke (ie cops not showing up when you call them, roads unusable and general infastructure failures) before it is fully implemented.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse.....put an end to socialism before it puts an end to our freedom.......
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The care therefore of every mans soul belongs unto himself,and is to be left unto himself.But what if he neglects the care of his soul? I answer,What if he neglects the care of his health,or of his estate,which things are nearlier related to the Government of the Magistrate than the other? Will the magistrate provide by an express law ,that such an one shall not become poor or sick? Laws provide as much as is possible,that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others,they do not guard them from the negligence or ill husbrandry of the possessors themselves.".............John Locke 1632-1704
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the court strikes down the individual mandate doesn't the whole law go too because the Dems failed to include a severability clause in the bill?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJames, you write that “Patients could simply wait to enroll in health coverage until they needed some kind of expensive treatment or procedure, and thus pocket the premiums they would have paid when they were not in need of much medical attention.”
I think this is the case, with or without the so-called “mandate.” I put that word in quotes for the following two reasons:
1- The penalty for noncompliance is only $695 or 2.5% of annual income, whichever is greater. Given the fact that the average annual cost of insurance for individuals is currently about $2500, and for families, $8000, the penalties have a bite only for individuals and families annually making more than $100,000 and $320,000 respectively. Such individuals and families obviously fall far short of what it would take to achieve universal participation.
2- The foregoing assumes that even these weak penalties are enforced. But, in fact, the legislation explicitly forbids even that. Specifically, at page 336, it forbids that any noncompliant citizens be “be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty" or that "any lien or levy against the property of such citizen to be imposed." With such provisions, it makes no economic or legal sense for anyone at any level of income to comply.
In short, the individual “mandate,” is simply a ploy for making of the business of private medical insurance untenable, at which point the government will step in. By retaining its decree that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, Obama can still do this, even if the court does reject the so-called “mandate.” As far as I can see, all that would be lost would be the fig leaf.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse