Constitutional Law

Federal Judge: Individual Mandate Unconstitutional, Health Care Overhaul "must be declared void"

|

This afternoon, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, the entire law "must be declared void." However, the judge did not order the federal government to cease implementation of the law. The key passage, from the conclusion: 

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications.

Read the complete ruling here

Update: I haven't finished reading the ruling, but the best part so far comes on page 47, when Judge Vinson cites Reason.TV's video on the individual mandate and the Commerce Clause, "Wheat, Weed, and ObamaCare."

For example, in the course of defending the Constitutionality of the individual mandate, and responding to the same concerns identified above, often-cited law professor and dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law Erwin Chemerinsky has opined that although "what people choose to eat well might be regarded as a personal liberty" (and thus unregulable), "Congress could use its commerce power to require people to buy cars." See ReasonTV, Wheat, Weed, and Obamacare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful, August 25, 2010, available at: http://reason.tv/video/show/wheat-weed-and-obamacare-how-t

Here's the video:

Advertisement

NEXT: GOP Race 2012: Huckabee vs. Egyptian People

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Stoned Soldier: Do you care if it falls?
    Stoned Soldier: What?
    Stoned Soldier: The Roman Empire?
    Stoned Soldier: [laughs] Fuck it!

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082517/quotes

    1. Dole Office Clerk: Occupation?
      Gladiator – The Roman Empire: Gladiator.
      Dole Office Clerk: Did you kill last week?
      Gladiator – The Roman Empire: No.
      Dole Office Clerk: Did you try to kill last week?
      Gladiator – The Roman Empire: Yeah.
      Dole Office Clerk: Now, listen, this is your last week of unemployment insurance. Either you kill somebody next week or we’re going to have to change your status, got it?

      1. I miss “Maude.” BTW, how many of you won “The Golden Girls” pool?

  2. Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority

    There’s a first for everything.

    1. Other articles indicate that it may be two years before SCOTUS gets to this.

      So spring 2013 after the 2012 election.

      So two obvious questions. What will SCOTUS look like in two years? And will Obama be president?

  3. Didn’t someone idiot say “we have to pass it to see what is in it?” Well apparently what was not in it was a severability clause. Fucking idiots.

    1. But I guess Congress’ utter incompetence was a godsend in this instance.

    2. That is a key provision. It cannot be severed from the bill, because otherwise healthy people would bail from their coverage and only sign up when they got sick.

      1. Isn’t this what they want? to wreck the entire private portion of the health care industry?

    3. As I recall, it was a skull — complete with fossiled rictus — gripping an oversized novelty gavel.

      1. Sis always did have an over-compensation complex.

        1. “Behold the gaseous stench of Skeletor’s breakfast burrito!”

          Or, in this case, ‘Obamacare.’

  4. This will make things a little more interesting in the short term, at the very least.

    1. And in the second term, if there is one.

      1. Maybe this will make a second term more likely?

        oy

        1. No, it just makes Obama look even more incompetent. It’s not the same as a bipartisan compromise ‘fix’.

  5. What implications? The law was unworkable and likely intentionally so.

    1. Yeah but now their ability to collect the “tax that’s not considered a tax” is really fucked!

  6. Excellent news for sure, but this battle is a long way away from being over. Anthony Kennedy is still going to be the person who has the final say on this issue.

    1. Somehow, this is not comforting.

    2. Not if Kagan does the ethical thing and recuses herself from the case. Then, even a statist Kennedy vote to overturn the ruling won’t matter.

      1. Kagan will not recuse herself. This is precisely why she was nominated to SCOTUS. Broccoli anyone?

      2. ” if Kagan does the ethical thing ”

        Hardy har.

        1. ” if Kagan does the ethical thing “

          * glances upward to see if winged porcines have attained altitude *

  7. Peter Suderman,

    Are you still at less then 50% or has your estimate gone up because of this?

  8. Oh Yeah! Back onto the adverse-selection death spiral … Single Payer or Bust.

    2012, ready or not, here I come.

    Top of the world! I love you, ma!!!

    1. Re: Danny,

      Oh Yeah! Back onto the adverse-selection death spiral … Single Payer or Bust.

      “We likes them our false dichotomies, preciouss, and we likes them big!”

      “That mandate was our last hope!”
      “No. There is another!”
      “You mean there’s another mandate, Master Yoda?”
      “No, I meant there’s another idiot who believes in single-payer anything!”

  9. Its a beautiful day all of a sudden. I can buy Sudafed on my HSA card without a prescription. Fuck you, slavers! I’m buyin’ me some REAL sudafed without yer goddam guild tithe.

    1. Many pluses for that.

      And I dont even have an HSA. Damn that provision pissed me off.

      1. Sorry for blowing your line. I meant to use “Fuck off, slavers!”

  10. I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market.

    You can beat your sister to death with a beer bottle, but just not this particular beer bottle.

    1. I’m not sure whether to be impressed or simply concerned over your analogy.

      1. A little of both would be in order, I imagine.

      2. I’m not sure whether to be impressed or simply concerned over your analogy.

        Dude, the guy is handicapped. He also has a deficient pancreas. Probably just a mild sugar overdose, several times a day. I wouldn’t worry about it. But don’t leave him alone with your dog, either.

    2. “The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market.”

      Really? Other than issues that cross state bounderies, where does the U.S. Constitution grant either Congress or the President such authority?

      1. The Magical Mystery Clause. On the back of the page with Article I.

        1. The Magical Mystery Clause is coming to take you away.

          1. Hey, you’ve read it!

          2. It’s all in the Constitution, if you read it backwards.

        2. The Magical Mystery Clause was the one penned by our Founding Fathers, Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope.

          It is not to be confused with “The Santa Clause” which delegates to Congress the authority to choose a new Kris Kringle should the present one die.

          1. Hey, yoou can’t fool me. There’s no Sanity Clause.

    3. What if the beer bottle were no wider than my thumb?

      1. You and the Boondock Saints could fight that huge Irish broad, that’s what.

    4. While phrases like that make him a less than perfect judge in my book, they are also a refreshing change from what I am used to. This seems to be a judge who actually rules based on what he thinks the law says rather than coming up with convoluted justifications for what he already believes. Not perfect, but a nice change of pace.

    5. Maybe he’s concern trolling. Or trying to minimize the amount of flak he’ll personally take.

      1. Or trying to play both sides in hopes of getting promoted to a higher judgeship.

    6. Aaaaand it’s SF for the threadwinner!

  11. “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.”

    Congress cannot make us wear hats!

    There’s sanity in them thar hills!

  12. No! no! NNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOO

    1. you know you could have just written “chony” and saved yourself some embarassment.

      1. I saw an add today, I swear to science, for the “Singing Chony’s”! Puked for 30 minutes straight.

  13. Unconstitutionality is a given, and merely a speed bump for the clowns in DC. Reference to non-severability is the part that’s gonna have them peeing their pants and losing sleep at night.

    I like it!

  14. That was unexpected.

    For Sale: One Can of Worms, Opened.

  15. This law is constitutionally suspect for more reasons than the mandate, and it’s only remaining failing isn’t the lack of a severability clause.

    1. Maybe some other judges will piie on?

      1. It’s not going to happen, but I’d like the courts to maybe take a new look at the Commerce Clause and hit the reset button.

        1. I held out a teeny-tiny glimmer of pious hope that they might do something about the P&I clause in MacDonald, but Scalia made it pretty clear in oral arguments that was a non-starter. Thomas was the only one with the cajones to come right out and say the case should have been decided on that basis – and of course, the left derides him as a nut bag.

          I’m not holding out too much hope of any reset of the Commerce Clause at this point.

          1. There’s no hope. Not yet.

            1. Be careful what you wish for – this bunch of dumbasses will probably go with it, then opt for the Russian version that means ‘overcharge’

  16. Hooooooooooooooo
    F’ing
    RAY!

  17. Well, at least now conservatives and libertarians can be happy that we have the old system back.

    Long Live the Free Market. It will solve the healthcare problem for sure.

    1. Re: Alice Bowie,

      Well, at least now conservatives and libertarians can be happy that we have the old system back.

      Yes, because this ‘new’ system sucked worse!!

      Long Live the Free Market. It will solve the healthcare problem for sure.
      Yes… whenever there’s one. Not now.

    2. You can always move to Canada and stand in line.

    3. What free market?

      All I see is a pile of regulations many miles high that grow by tens of thousands of pages a year.

      Oh! You mean that year when only 40,000 new pages were written instead of the usual 80,000?

      Wasn’t that the same year your union complained of a 5% pay cut when your paycheck increased by 3% instead of the requested 8%?

    4. Say, that’s a thought. Let’s try the free market!

      1. How could we convince people at least to give the free market a try for a while? I think it is obvious that the current system is pretty fucked up and stupid. Any “reform” proposed now is not likely to change that situation. We need to somehow convince people to give free market a try for 10 years or something. If everything still sucks then, try single payer for a while or something. These arguments about hypotheticals get tiresome and aren’t convincing many people.

        1. Problem is, they’ll label a heavily regulated industry as the “free market”, regardless of how much government intervenes, then blame the same “free market” for failing.

        2. That was, originally, part of the rationale for having states be responsible for some of the governing rather than everything flowing downhill from Washington. States could do their own thing that made their own citizens happy, and you’d have a number of different data points to examine.

          When Obamacare was being proposed, I asked some lefties why not just enact it in a state like California, Wisconsin, Illinois, or New York first? Or they could even conglomerate their plants through some interstate cooperation. They all claimed that the “single payer” wouldn’t be big enough for the savings to work…

          1. Isn’t that what Romneycare was for?

            1. No, Romneycare = Republican = corporations = free market.

              Don’t you get it?

        3. The problem there is that Insurance companies and businesses–much like is the case now–will not act as if it were a truly free market because they won’t know what changes will come from Congress in the future. Certainly a massive deregulation would benefit all parties in the healthcare debacle, but I don’t see a 100% free market simply because Congress can’t help but meddle, and businesses are aware of that.

    5. The old system? How can you point to the free market when nearly half of all health care dollars are spent by government? Doesn’t sound even close to a free market to me.

  18. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system.

    “Problems” and “inequities” is rather broad, don’t you think Judge Vinson?

    The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market.

    Actually there is a doubt, which is why this case is in your courtroom. How MUCH power does Congress have to address said “inequities”, or do they have the power to force things to have “equal outcomes”? Even a broad reading of the Commerce Clause does not seem to support an equal “outcome”.

    That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

    No, Judge Vinson, that is EXACTLY what has been disputed in this case. Does Congress have the power to force you to buy insurance to “guarantee equal outcome” in the healthcare market?

    This decision and the rambling inconsistency of the Judge’s statement does not give me confidence.

    1. You have heard of passing the buck, no? This decision of Vinson’s is precisely to sent it so SCOTUS. He knows damn well it will end up there. It would be nice if they just fast-tracked this issue to SCOTUS now and be done with it.

      And make sure both Kennedy and Roberts get lots of Hookers and Blow(tm) before they decide. Remember, this court has most of the members that decided Kelo. And I doubt seriously the androgynous twins are going find this unconstitutional.

      1. Yeah, I have zero faith that the current court will strike down the mandate. I’d like to think that Thomas has been raging loudly in the halls about the out-of-control power capabilities of the ICC and how it threatens to upset the balance of power between the three branches, but one just has to look at Kelo or Gonzales v Raich for further disappointment as to the inevitable outcome.

        FUCK the ICC should be our new slogan.

    2. I don’t see this as passing the buck – it’s a general principle not to go beyond what is necessary to resolve the case and answer the question presented. The question presented was whether the individual mandate was within Congress’s power under the Constitution. Answer: no. This does not logically mean Congress is completely without power to regulate the health care market in some other way – and that question was not presented, in any case.

      It was not necessary for him to get into some speculative rambling about what Congress could or might do as far as regulating the health care market for him to resolve this litigation.

      1. This does not logically mean Congress is completely without power to regulate the health care market in some other way – and that question was not presented, in any case.

        True, the question was; does Congress have the power to do regulate the health care industry in this way, and no they don’t. But the fact that the judge thinks Congress has the right to address “inequities” within the market is troubling, to say the least.

      2. I think it was smart of the judge to agree that the government has a role, but that this law was unconstitutional. If the man were wearing libertarian war-paint, howling of limited government, and running at it like a piker from Braveheart, he and his complaint would be much easier to dismiss.

        1. Excuse me, apparently they preferred to be called “pikemen”.

    3. LIke BSR said, it’s standard judicial practice since at least Brandeis (to my knowledge) to decide the case on the narrowest grounds possible. Check the Formulation of the Avoidance doctrine from the link if interested.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A….._Authority

  19. “Ms. Pelosi, do you have any comment on the Judge’s ruling”

    “#$^&)^*^!”

    1. Are you serious? Are you serious?

    2. “Ms. Pelosi, do you have any comment on the Judge’s ruling”

      It’s astroturfing!

      1. I couldn’t help noticing both the judge and the bailiff were wearing swastikas.

    3. It’s just another example of hateful right-wing conservative judicial activism.

  20. The good thing about ‘free-market’ healthcare is that if an insurance company desides that it’s not profitible to conver my health expenses I can always take them to court.

    1. Where does one find the origina of a fundamental right to have one’s “health expenses” paid for by an insurance company, or anyone else, for that matter?

      I want someone to pay for my food. I eat a lot, dammit, and it’s really getting expensive!

      1. Quoth the Chony:

        “SOCIAL CONTRACT”

      2. You are absolutely right. While we are at it, we can fire the police and fire department and make people pay for their own damn security and fires.

        1. Re: Alice Bowie,

          While we are at it, we can fire the police and fire department and make people pay for their own damn security and fires.

          And ROADS!!!

        2. Whoa, whoa, whoa!! You’re gonna run out of space if you keep piling all these straw men up around here. Not to mention creating a fire hazard.

        3. …and shoot their own dogs.

        4. blow me, bitch.

        5. While we are at it, we can fire the police and fire department and make people pay for their own damn security and fires.

          It works in Somalia.

          Post Note: can i drink yet?

          1. Real commentators don’t ask.

      3. I’m still waiting for them to recognize my universal human right to booze and hookers.

    2. Aww, poor baby got his blankie taken away.

      Quit your fucking whining, you massive pussy.

    3. Re: Alice Bowie,

      The good thing about ‘free-market’ healthcare is that if an insurance company desides that it’s not profitible to conver my health expenses I can always take them to court.

      You mean instead of the much, much cheaper alternative of changing providers?

      Too complicated and too litigious. Maybe you happen to have a personal problem with money. I happen to love money, as to not part with it that easily and stupidly.

      1. Yea, try changing providers once you’ve been diagnosed with a disease.

        1. I thought HIPAA was supposed to change that. Remember, Bill Clinton?

          Why is incumbent upon an insurance provider to issue you a policy when the circumstances and diagnoses have changed?

          Admit it, you want welfare and payment assistance, not insurance.

          1. That’s the problem with most of the idiots I talk with who think insurance should be forced to cover them and their preexisting conditions.

            They think that health insurance = health care. They can’t comprehend that what they feel they are entitled to is not insurance, but welfare. I cannot even count the number of times I have tried, usually unsuccessfully, to show them the error in their mental functions.

        2. If you get sick, that’s not my problem. Grow. The Fuck. Up.

    4. Yeah, well, good luck trying to take the government to court.

      If you don’t think government health care bureaucracies don’t make treatment decisions based on cost, you’re even more of a fool than you’re letting on.

    5. Personally, I would prefer to have a medical savings account.

      1. Whoa, so like, if you die healthy you could pass that wealth on to your kids?! YOU’RE A MONOCLED MONSTER!

        1. That sounds like a great name for a Comics Supervillain!

          Superman vs. the Monocled Monster!

        2. Or Tojo Studios!

          Godzilla vs. the Monocled Monster.

          Actually, I am going with Tojo Studios. Sounds better in that genre

          1. They’re not Spanish damnit! Toho Studios.

        3. Whoa, so like, if you die healthy you could pass that wealth on to your kids?!

          Whoa whoa whoa, not so fast! I’m sure we can all agree that I’m rightfully entitled to 55% of that.

    6. Alice Bowie|1.31.11 @ 3:31PM|#
      “The good thing about ‘free-market’ healthcare is that if an insurance company desides that it’s not profitible to conver my health expenses I can always take them to court”
      So you admit you haven’t a clue about what a free market is? Not surprised.

    7. Or, you could consider paying for the shit that you want.

      The insurance company is a bunch of gamblers who have only one bet to make — that you won’t get sick with anything that’s too expensive to treat.

      If that isn’t a very good bet, you aren’t actually getting health insurance, you’re getting an involuntary handout from healthy people and pretending it’s insurance.

    8. If they have violated your contract, yes, you are right. In a free market businesses and consumers contract for services freely and either party violating the contract is cause for termination of services, lawsuit or some other means of arbitration mutually agreed upon.

      However, if your contract allows the insurance company to get out of paying for your illness and you signed it, tough beans for you. Don’t waste your time and money trying to sue. Instead, start learning to read your contracts in the future.

  21. Well thank goodness that’s over! Now I can finally be healthy AND safe by eating a government recommended amount of government subsidized food in my house with a government-backed mortgage and drive my government-manufactured car to my government job. All is right with the world 🙂

  22. Excuse me while I watch the stock market surge upward.

  23. At least Health Insurance Companies won’t have to worry about wasting profit money on sick children without coverage. As long as it’s not ‘our kids’ … who cares.

    1. Nice straw man you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it.

      1. Given the number of bankruptcy cases in this country due to health-care matters, I don’t think that this is truely a ‘straw man argument’. It’s just called a ‘straw man arguement’ because none of you libertarians/consevatives could care less of other peoples children…and why should you.

        1. See, the proper expression is “couldn’t care less,” not “could care less.” See, if you COULD care less, that would mean that you DO care some small amount. If you COULDN’T care less, it means you don’t care at all – see? You COULDN’T care any less.

          That’s one of my pet peeves – people say that all the time. That and “supposively” when they mean “supposedly.”

          1. I couldn’t care more….

            It really is not an issue of how much you care. It is an issue of how best to preserve a limited resource and insure it gets to the most poeple at maximum efficaincny.

            Alice may claim she cares but the simple fact is her system of health care distribution would only squander the resource and guarantee more children suffer then other wise.

            She is quite literally caring children to death.

            But her intentions are good so I guess we should forgive her for infanticide.

          2. What about “supposibly”?

          3. “Supposably” I hear all the time.

          4. Actually, BSR, she got it right in this case, because she said “none” of us “could care less.” Meaning that we all already care at the minimal possible level.

            Although, given her poorly functioning brain, I’m 87% sure she only got it right by accident.

        2. If we actually had a free market in healthcare and insurance, perhaps medical services would be, I dunno, affordable? Where do you think insanely inflated prices come from, anyway? TVs and computers come down in price. So do other things in a relatively free market.

          1. If you’d have an unregulated free market, the crooks would have a field day.

            I, myself would open up an insurance company and start robbing people.

            1. Alice Bowie|1.31.11 @ 3:57PM|#
              “If you’d have an unregulated free market, the crooks would have a field day.”

              If you had more than one brain-cell, you’d quit posting such drivel.

            2. If you’d have an unregulated free market, the crooks would have a field day.

              I, myself would open up an insurance company and start robbing people.

              You, and most of the American Public, conflate insurance with welfare.

              Insurance =/= Payment Assistance.

            3. “If you’d have an unregulated free market, the crooks would have a field day.”

              If we had a free market in health care the authorities would have more time to focus on ACTUAL fraud and abuse because they would not have to waste time on pointless regulations that merely give some government agency more power.

            4. If you’d have an unregulated free market, the crooks would have a field day.

              Just like the how the computer companies are robbing everyone blind in a relativly unregulated free market.

              It would be awful if every 18 months the cost of health care would drop in half and double the cure rate of disease.

              Those fucking free market PC making Crooks in their field….having a day!!!!

              1. Alright, this had me laughing. From now on when someone says “having a field day”, I’m gonna have to stifle.

            5. Alice Bowie|1.31.11 @ 3:57PM|#
              If you’d have an unregulated free market, the crooks would have a field day.

              I, myself would open up an insurance company and start robbing people.

              Translation: I have no personal moral objections to fraud or theft, and would readily perpetrate these crimes if I thought it would be easy.

              Is it any surprise that she has no problem with forcing an unwilling third party to pay for her expenses?

            6. Robbery isn’t part of a free market. Every instance of robbery makes a market less free.

          2. Because Pro Libertate, “Health Care” is DIFFERENT! It’s not a “commodity”…

            It’s a moral imperative and the last bastion of progressive equality. Yet the idea of THEFT nary enters the moral calculus here.

        3. “Given the number of bankruptcy cases in this country due to health care matters . . .”

          [citation needed]

            1. This is another reason why we should expand medical savings accounts as an alternative to insurance. The disadvantage of a third person payer is that price does not enter into the equation from the point of view of the customer.

            2. That study is bullshit and has been debunked all over the blogosphere. All they did was look at all bankruptcies, and if the person owed anything on any medical bills, they claimed it “caused” the bankruptcy. Nevermind the house, the cars, and the thousands of dollars in credit card debt.

              1. So much for offering a citation.

                The fact is that health mishaps is the leading cause ob bankruptcy in the USA.

                But let me know if we need a citation on the citation.

                1. That’s idiotic. The sole purpose of requiring a citation is to examine the source. In this case KPress found your source to be lacking.

          1. Maybe it’s just me, but the fact that you can end up in court to get your debt restructured after you’ve gotten life-saving surgery by the some of the best-trained physicians in the world seems pretty kickass.

        4. Alice Bowie|1.31.11 @ 3:43PM|#
          “Given the number of bankruptcy cases in this country due to health-care matters,…”

          Now, bankruptcy is designed to protect the claimant in the event of really bad things happening.
          Care to tell us, bozo, what causes of bankruptcy would be more appropriate than serious health problems?

          1. Well, I ,”bozo”, agree.

            That’s why its best that we got rid of the mandate. This way, I can go to the ER, run up a bill, and not pay it.

            And, if you try to come after me, I can declare bankruptcy.

            1. Bankruptcy is theft.

              1. No, it is a corrective action.

              2. Bankruptcy is bankruptcy. The money was given consensually and with the awareness that bankruptcy was a possibility.

            2. And, if you try to come after me, I can declare bankruptcy.

              Sure you can. Hopefully you’re cured after your declaration.

        5. Given the number of bankruptcy cases in this country due to health-care matters

          Citation needed.

          The proper exercise of federal power would have been to destroy the intrastate monopolies of insurance companies, the AMA, and big pharma. Allow catastrophic insurance. Disallow state mandates.

          That would fix most of the problems.

          The problem with socialist ‘solutions’ like we’ve been steadily pursuing, is they raise costs. Obamacare just accelerates that process of raising costs.

          We need to lower costs and that only happens when there’s competition.

    2. Correct. Worry about your kids first, like a responsible parent should. Otherwise, pony up until you are at subsistence means.

      1. Let’s hope that won’t be true for your kids.

        1. Let’s hope it is for yours.

          1. I actually want health-care for all. I wouldn’t want a parent to suffer a hardship over the ‘free-market’ ideology.

            1. Differentiate providing health care for all from providing food or shelter for all. And then from providing transportation for all. And clothing.

              Ooh, and cell phones. Internet access.

            2. No, Alice, you want “free” health-care for all. We already have health-care for all, as it’s against the law for a hospital to deny services to someone in need of immediate medical attention.

              You want it to be “free”. Admit it.

              1. There is no such thing as Free.

                One opinion is that everyone should pay for themselves and the hell with those who can’t. In my opinion, I don’t think that this is a good idea. However, free-market conservatives/libertarians feel that this is best.

                I’m for taxing everyone (instead of paying premiums to an insurance company) and provide health services for those in need. But don’t worry guys, I’m of a dying breed, and you will get your way. Healthcare for NONE!!!

                1. I’m for taxing everyone (instead of paying premiums to an insurance company) and provide health services for those in need.

                  And who gets to decide who “those in need” are? And on what basis do they make that decision? How do they decide who “needs” it?

                2. “There is no such thing as Free.”

                  Stupid much?

                3. Re: Alice Bowie,

                  One opinion is that everyone should pay for themselves and the hell with those who can’t.

                  Agree!!!

                  It’s not like there are such things as charity hospitals and such! Naaaah – not for the Statist fuck!

                  In my opinion, I don’t think that this is a good idea.

                  Good to know what your opinion is! Not that it matters at all – Thank God!

                  However, free-market conservatives/libertarians feel that this is best.

                  It’s not a question of ‘feelings’, Alice.

                  I’m for taxing PLUNDERING everyone (instead of paying premiums to an insurance company) and provide health services for those in need.

                  Despite the fact that government takes something like 80% of the loot to handsomly reward their unionized “unconditionals”… That’s efficient!!!

                4. Sadly, you are in the majority and the vast majority of ignorant voters possess your level of understanding. Which is none.

                  Good god. We are doomed.

                5. I’m for taxing everyone (instead of paying premiums to an insurance company) and provide health services for those in need.

                  Except this drives up costs and less people will actually get health care. The truth is you would kill more people with your solution. And we see the examples in places like the UK and Canada. Why would we repeat them?

                6. But don’t worry guys, I’m of a dying breed

                  Faster, please.

                7. One opinion is that everyone should pay for themselves and the hell with those who can’t. In my opinion, I don’t think that this is a good idea. However, free-market conservatives/libertarians feel that this is best.

                  Actually no, that isn’t what free-market conservatives/libertarians feel is best. It’s what the facts available show as the best way to provide the highest quality of services to the largest amount of people. I think that most free-market conservatives/libertarians believe in the idea of a safety net, which is why the EMTALA covers those who are in need of services but cannot afford them. But we aren’t talking about the “safety net”. We are talking about health insurance, and whether or not we should let the government or the free market run the health insurance industry.

                  Either you’re purposefully ignoring the difference between the two (devious, but stupid) or you truly don’t understand the difference (REALLY stupid), either way you need to get past this.

                  I’m for taxing everyone (instead of paying premiums to an insurance company) and provide health services for those in need.

                  We already do that. I pay for Medicare and Medicaid that I don’t use so that poor people can have not only health care, but helath insurance. What you want is for everyone to be on Medicare.

                  I’m not sure you realize that this is really what you are arguing for.

            3. There IS health care for all you DOLT! Ever heard of EMTALA? Or are you one of those pie in the sky, steal from others under the guise that they should pay for your hellspawn??????

              DID YOU LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE THIEVES NOT LEARN FROM THE EMTALA FUCK UP????

              I see your argument is “Well, EMTALA is inefficient. EVERYONE deserves gold plated care just because they have a pulse!”

              Fuck you with a red hot iron poker, thief.

            4. Re: Alice Bowie,

              I actually want health-care for all.

              And I want world peace!

              Wee! This wishful thinking shit is easy!

              I wouldn’t want a parent to suffer a hardship over the ‘free-market’ ideology.

              Not that parents actually FACE that choice…

              It is just that those evil, rapacious and unkind doctors want to get paid for the the knowledge they invested so much in obtaining! How can they live with themselves???

              1. It is just that those evil, rapacious and unkind doctors want to get paid for the the knowledge they invested so much in obtaining! How can they live with themselves???

                Exactly, just because they spend 10-12 years and $200,000 on their education, doesn’t mean they should be able to charge enough to cover their $90,000 annual malpractice insurance premium, and still have something left to live above poverty.

            5. Alice Bowie|1.31.11 @ 3:44PM|#
              “I actually want health-care for all.”

              And I’d like unicorns. You’re an ignoramus.

        2. I don’t have children. I am much more responsible than you by not contributing to the problem of increasing the dole pool. So, you parasite, you and your liberal spawn can pony up for yourselves and everyone else and live by your ethos.

          I’ll pay for my own care like I have been doing TYVM. Leech.

    3. Profit money is my favorite kind of money!

      1. (twiddles fingers) Eeexxxcellent!

    4. Yes, we’ll now have to go back to the days of thousands of sick children dying in the streets because no doctor would help them without insurance. I still remember that god awlful stench of decaying bodies.

    5. Your chagrin is fucking delicious. Suck it up, bitch.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    6. Re: Alice Bowie,

      At least Health Insurance Companies won’t have to worry about wasting profit money on sick children without coverage. As long as it’s not ‘our kids’ … who cares.

      Awwwwww, how quaint and sweet – an argument for the children.

    7. Troll better. You’re just making me feel like Greg Marmalard’s girlfriend.

    8. As soon as the Obamacare was passed, many companies stopped offering policies for children.

      This is our point. There are so many laws (including tax laws) and regulations on Healthcare since the 1930’s on that the costs have been driven way up and it is nowhere close to a free market. All the things you don’t like about the industry now have been driven by stupid govt. policies over the years.

  24. Alright, there’s now a good chance that ultimately we can stop the left’s attempt to ease us into a defacto single-payer system. Within the year, hopefully this mission will be accomplished.

    Once this is dead and buried, we need to turn our attention to the right’s love of crony capitalism in the insurance industry with subsidies, artificial barriers to competition, etc. 10 more years, and hell, we might have a free market health care solution.

  25. Reasontv is cited in the opinion.

    1. “See ReasonTV, Wheat, Weed, and Obamacare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful, August 25, 2010, available at: http://reason.tv/video/show/wh…..are-how-t. When I mentioned this to the defendants’ attorney at oral argument, he allowed for the possibility that “maybe Dean Chemerinsky is right.” See Tr. at 69. Therefore, the potential for this assertion of power has received at least some theoretical consideration and has not been ruled out as Constitutionally implausible.”

      1. I’d say you’re entitled to crow a bit.
        Nice job!

        1. Who is dmoynihan and why is he entitled to crow a bit??

    2. Vinson must have attended a KOCHTOPUS-sponsored event!

  26. I sense a great disturbance in the Farce.

    1. You must have a high silli-chlorian count.

  27. I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority

    “Now, I’d hate to pass judgment before all the facts are in, Mister President, but it’s beginning to look like General Ripper may have exceeded his authority.”

    1. +1!

    2. It certainly does. Far beyond the point I would have imagined possible.

  28. I don’t get it, why is the WHOLE law unconstitutional, not just the mandate?

    I mean I would imagine that it’s unconstitutional until they remove the mandate and change all the statutes that depend on it, but after they do that couldn’t they keep as much of the old law as they could?

    1. Because Congress forgot to include a severability clause.

      Typically, and pretty much as a boilerplate, standard practice, legislatures will include a clause that essentially says “if any portion of this legislation is ruled by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, the rest of the law remains in force.” Signaling the legislature’s intent that any clause is severable from the law.

      In this case, in their rush to pass it so they could find out what was in it, they forgot a severability clause. And because the whole damn system is dependent on everybody being forced to buy insurance, and it won’t work without it, if the individual mandate is invalid, then the whole law is.

      1. Severability was removed in the final stages of negotiation.

        Someone buried that land mine on purpose.

        1. Of course, it was the insurance companies that buried the severability clause. They would be even more screwed than they are now without the financing mechanism for Obamacare.

        2. Why am I thinking of the Boston construction worker who tried to bury a David Ortiz jersey in the foundation of the new Yankee Stadium?

        3. Let me guess . . . uhhh . . . Sarah Palin!

      2. HA! dumbasses

    2. The explanation starts at page 64 of the ruling, which this site linked to in the original blog post. It’s only a couple of pages, but it’s really too long to post a comment about.

      1. I didn’t see BSR’s comment while I was looking. Pretty much that, too.

    3. “Edwin|1.31.11 @ 4:04PM|#
      I don’t get it, why is the WHOLE law unconstitutional, not just the mandate?”

      Because you can’t read headlines.

  29. Chemerinsky believes Congress legitimately could require people to buy cars? Jesus wept.

    1. His line about the constitution not constraining government had me yelling at my computer monitor. What a fuck face.

  30. Excuse me while I watch the stock market surge upward.

    I’m not so sure about this; there are a lot of companies (GE? Pfizer? Insurors?) whose projected earnings depend materially on revenues generated by this legislation.

    1. Fair point. The question is whether the removal of the regulatory uncertainty allows businesses to expand with less caution.

    2. “there are a lot of companies (GE? Pfizer? Insurors?) whose projected earnings depend materially on revenues generated by this legislation.”

      There’s plenty of others who are (were?) going to get hammered, but I still think the ‘rumor’ is going to have to get by the Supremes before you see any real gains.
      If it does, it’s going to remove a *lot* of uncertainty.

    3. What about the companies who were planning to throw their retirees on the teat like Cat?

  31. All Trolling aside, the fact is that as long as someone else (the government, your mother, or an insurance company) is paying your medical bills, the costs will NEVER be under control.

    There are only a few real solutions including the following:

    1. Make everyone pay for their own and the hell with people who can’t pay.

    2. Tax everyone and have government clinics, doctors, and medical professionals that are EMPLOYED by the government. And, have premium services (private providers) for people that can afford it.

    I like #2. We can keep the precious Free Market for those with money. And, everyone else can go to government clinics.

    Now, you can make option two include middle-class people or just have it
    ‘mean-tested’ and only the poor can go to government clinics.

    But no matter what you do, if you keep insurance companies around, you’ll have the same problem…somebody else is paying.

    1. #2 sucks. Trust us.

      1. I’m saying replace medicaid and medicare with government run clinics for the poor and elderly and have everyone else pay for themselves.

        1. “We need to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid and then offer the same services under a different name!”

          Fuck off, dipshit.

        2. St. Jude’s and other religious non-profits are government run?

    2. Oh, this is just eating you up inside. Now you have to pay for your own care. Your dismay is like a fine wine. Delicious.

      1. Actually, if someone else pays, the costs go ‘out-of-control’.

        1. But not if the government pays, right? Because the government isn’t ‘somebody’, it’s God. It can make health care fucking perfect. Jesus you’re stupid.

    3. To a certain extent, I agree with your general notion here. More with 1 than 2.

      It used to be that nobody had “health” insurance. You might have “medical” insurance, that helped to pay for big things – like unexpected, catastrophic things. For example, you fell down and broke both your legs or something and suddenly rack up $50,000 in hospital bills.

      But these days, everybody wants a “health” plan that pays for every single little doctor visit, pill and band-aid. They don’t want to have to pay any more than the $15 co-pay. Because their premiums are taken out by automatic withdrawal from their pay check, they don’t really see how much it’s actually costing them.

      My employer provides several options – I went with the cheapest, highest-deductible one they offered, because we go to the doctor so rarely, I don’t need the high-premium plan that covers every single visit to the doctor. It’s cheaper for me to just pay for regular doctor visits myself and have the insurance in case somebody gets appendicitis or something.

      People have bought into the whole notion that you need to have some giant conglomerate paying for your “health” care. Take care of you own damn “health.”

      There’s no way I’d like to see all doctors working for the government.

      1. High-deductible plans are good, but not for females of age of giving birth.

        I know this one 1st hand.

        1. Alice Bowie|1.31.11 @ 4:17PM|#
          “High-deductible plans are good, but not for females of age of giving birth.”

          Care to explain why a choice of having children should be covered by “insurance”?

        2. Pregnancy is 100% preventable.

          1. not if you want its cause to feel good

            HAAAAYOOOOOOO!!!!!!

        3. Get a Hi-D plan that doesnt cover pregnancy then. And then dont get pregnant.

          Of course, the states made that illegal.

          1. “”then don’t get pregnant””

            If that advice meant anything, teens wouldn’t have kids.

            Why not just tell people not to get really sick or diseased, problem solved.

            1. Sovereign Immunity|1.31.11 @ 4:21PM|#
              Pregnancy is 100% preventable.

            2. TrickyVic|1.31.11 @ 5:40PM|#
              “”then don’t get pregnant””
              If that advice meant anything, teens wouldn’t have kids.”
              And the teens parents are more than welcome to pay for their lack of control over their children.

              “Why not just tell people not to get really sick or diseased, problem solved.”
              I see it takes a true brain-dead to conflate “disease” and “pregnancy”.

      2. BTW Barely Suppressed Rage, people think that they are only paying $15copay…they forget what they pay in premiums.

        1. Yes, I said that in my post.

      3. Not all Doctors, just those doctors that take care of people that ARE NOT PAYING FOR THEMSELVES. That is, the poor and the elderly.

        1. What, have they stopped making Soylent Green?

          1. Here’s my problem with Soylent Green. It’s really like a big ponzi scheme. There is no way that the supply of corpses will be large enough to feed the entire population.

            1. Well, it was after all only brought up as a solution to these annoying poor and old people who don’t have medical care. And if you think of it only as a supplement you don’t need to be concerned with how much there is. Notwithstanding that, you are, I believe, forgetting about the aging baby boom demographic bulge. Seventy million units goes a long way.

    4. “Tax everyone and have government clinics, doctors, and medical professionals that are EMPLOYED by the government.”

      You REALLY want the medical equivalent of the TSA to be in charge of the majority of the health care in the US???? The nudie screeners do not radiologists make.

      By the way, neither you nor the American Public own doctors. Slaver pig.

    5. how about vouchers?

      how about getting rid of the un-write-off-ability of personally purchased health insurance?

      how about fucking getting rid of all the fucking complex ass regulations?

      why does government subsidisation have to come with government control? Such systems clearly have not worked, from health care to public schools. The idea that the government should help pay for it for the poor doesn’t bother me so much, but why the hell can’t you compromise with vouchers?

      1. But then how will the government amass power and implement My Vision (TM)?

    6. You forgot options 3-10. As did every member of Congress.

    7. “All Trolling aside, the fact is that as long as someone else (the government, your mother, or an insurance company) is paying your medical bills, the costs will NEVER be under control.

      There are only a few real solutions including the following:

      1. Make everyone pay for their own and the hell with people who can’t pay.”

      Anybody can afford health care in a free market, because providers will offer varying quality at various price points. Just like everybody can afford a car. But thanks to licensing requirements, anti-screening regulations, FDA regulations, malpractice suits, etc, etc, etc, the health care market resembles an auto market where the only car you’re allowed to sell is a 7-series BMW. No wonder so many people can’t afford coverage.

    8. Re: Alice Bowie,

      [T]he fact is that as long as someone else (the government, your mother, or an insurance company) is paying your medical bills, the costs will NEVER be under control.

      Ain’t that the truth!

      There are only a few real solutions including the following:

      1. Make everyone pay for their own and the hell with people who can’t pay.

      Awwwww, I love that spin!

      “Make everybody pay for their own tomatoes and the hell with people who can’t pay!”
      “Make everybody pay for their own furniture and the hell with people who can’t pay!”

      It’s called an argumentum ad misericordiam – you know, a logical fallacy, the bread and butter of Statist FUCKS!

      1. You seem quite angry with statists

        you do realize the vast majority of people are statists? It’s like 30% self-described liberal 30% self-described conservative.

        It sounds like you have a problem with PEOPLE. You can’t possibly maintain the cognitive dissonance of referring to the government as your bogeyman, in the face of the typical framing of our national dialogue and basic political statistics.

        1. It sounds like you have a problem with PEOPLE.

          Well, if not trusting people enough to give them plenary power over the lives and affairs of others means I have a problem with people, then so be it.

          1. no no no, read what he wrote, he has a problem with people who have this ideology, which is basically everyone

            you can’t spin this kind of rhetoric

        2. Re: Edwin,

          You seem quite angry with statists

          Should I not?

          you do realize the vast majority of people are statists?

          “It’s a trap!”

          It sounds like you have a problem with PEOPLE.

          “Fallacy of composition,
          makes the world go round!”

          You can’t possibly maintain the cognitive dissonance of referring to the government as your bogeyman, in the face of the typical framing of our national dialogue and basic political statistics.

          You mean I cannot call a spade “a spade” just because people don’t like it?

          You’re an idiot. Does that jive typical framing of our national dialogue and basic political statistics?

          1. How is that wrong? The vast majority of people are statists. How is that a fallacy of composition?

            Or are you admitting that you’re so socially inept/damaged that you only hang out with other libertarian douchebag nerdos?

    9. While I disagree with you about the effectiveness and morality of option 2, I think you should be congratulated on at least getting why prices are so high.

      Your option 1 also misses the fact that people on the whole are actually quite generous and charitable. Most people don’t want to see others suffer and would voluntarily do something about it.

    10. I never understand why those who are worried about the poor being unable to buy something do not just advocate for giving the poor some money.

      Alice, why do you think giving them direct cash payments is somehow worse than creating a massive government-run system?

      1. We already give them money, and they spend it on flatscreens and rims. If we gave them more they would just send that on more stuff that I can’t afford instead of health care.

    11. Or, as long as we’re regulating things, you could force patients with insurance to pay out of pocket and then manually file a claim for reimbursement. And institute a minimum 5% copay.

      To the extent that handouts exist, they should not be based on present circumstances, but lifetime aggregate income — that is, if you should have been able to easily save $20k in an HSA, then the government should pretend that you had that $20k, whether you did or don’t. If you didn’t actually save your money, well, that wasn’t bad luck or the system, that was you being a jackass. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll die due to lack of treatment. It does mean that you’ll incur a lot of debt, and be force to live a too-poor lifestyle to average out the too-rich lifestyle you were living before you got sick.

    12. I think #2 would work nicely if it’s its own little microcosm: in other words, participation is entirely voluntary, and no one who isn’t part of that system will be charged one thin dime for its existence.

    13. 2. Tax everyone and have government clinics, doctors, and medical professionals that are EMPLOYED by the government. And, have premium services (private providers) for people that can afford it.

      I like #2. We can keep the precious Free Market for those with money. And, everyone else can go to government clinics.

      Seriously?
      Think about the incentives that will be created by this.
      If you’re a doctor, who would you prefer to serve? 1) The El Cheapo government patients? 2) The Wealthy private clients?

      Obviously, the best doctors, and for that matter any doctor who can hack it, is going to opt for #2.

      The government run service thus will be left with only the C students, the bottom of the barrel. And will be increasingly overcrowded due to doctor shortages.

      1. That’s why i kind of like her plan. Have one place for people who, one way or another, pay for their care. Have it be the genuinely free-market place where they accept insurance, cash, donations, training cases, whatever arrangements that are acceptable between the hospitals and the patients.

        Then, have another place–a place reminiscent in equal part of Orwell and Kafka with a generous splash of Lovecraft–where, after waiting hours in misery sleeping on unsanitary and senselessly knobby plastic chairs and watching Kathleen Sibelius on the Viewtron, clearly no more interested in being there than they are, tell them how important sodium control is, they get Government Quality Care. (for your safety and the safety of the other patients, we’ll be starting with colonoscopy, which will be conducted by Sargeant Humptig of Homeland Security.)

        They’ll get the care they need, but they’ll either get an HSA and insurance, or they’ll get a fund to help them. Anything to keep from going back to the government clinic.

        1. Why do you hate VA Hospitals?

      2. Your argument presupposes that there will ever be a shortage of “bottom of the barrel” medical students.

  32. hmmmmm….

    this positive turn of events doesn’t surprise me. It turns out that people know what they’re doing. Once you get out of the libertarian mindset it’s amazing how not-headed-toward-tyranny the world is.
    I’m betting the whole thing will be overturned in congress eventually

    1. I’m betting the whole thing will be overturned in congress eventually.

      I’m not.

      1. it just passed the house (the overturning)

        1. So do anti-flag-burning amendments, regularly.

    2. Re: Edwin,

      Once you get out of the libertarian mindset it’s amazing how not-headed-toward-tyranny the world is.

      Translation: “Whadya worry about, ah? It ain’t that fascist, ya crybaby! Ya know whadyam sayin’?”

      1. more like you realize that since most people don’t frame things in such a broad, stark right-to-control/no-right-to-control dichotomy, that we are NOT necessarily headed for less freedom, and something like licensing or banking regulations is NOT the same as Nazi’s killing Jews. That is, if people don’t think of it like that in the first placem, then they don’t always lean towards the “control” side – THEY DON’T EVEN FRAME THINGS IN THAT WAY.

        you’d get that if you understood people well. But then again, if you did, you wouldn’t be a libertarian.

        1. Fascism and Nazism are not the same thing.

        2. You could’ve used all that straw for a productive purpose, like choking yourself.

          1. It isn’t straw – it’s exactly how you guys can call every damned government policy “slavery” and say it will lead to tyranny. Remember I was once a Libertarian, too.
            When you see everything only in terms of the starkest, broadest contrast, of course everything will look like it’s completely one way or the other.
            If you only judged people by hair color, there’d only be like 5 kinds of people in your mind.

            1. “Remember I was once a Libertarian, too….”

              Riiiiight……………

              1. hey, Tony too

                why do you think we keep posting here? The bullshit that spews out gets pretty annoying – you bitches need a reality bitch slap now and again

            2. “Remember I was once a Libertarian, too….”

              No you weren’t. Not ever.

              1. *eyes rolling*

                1. also you guys are now proving my point that in other comment threads you try to shoot down, and that is that Libertarianism is highly dogmatic and extremist (not like violent extremist – I forget the word I want to use). Once once starts becoming reasonable and open, and understands that no philosophy is absolutely correct, then one is no longer a Libertarian.

                  1. Once once starts becoming reasonable and open, and understands that no philosophy is absolutely correct, then one is no longer becomes a Libertarian.

                  2. What the hell is that even supposed to mean? That we should start out with the assumption that we’re wrong? That abandoning reason for cognitive dissonance is good?

        3. Re: Edwin,

          [M]ore like you realize that since most people don’t frame things in such a broad, stark right-to-control/no-right-to-control dichotomy, that we are NOT necessarily headed for less freedom

          Reality is framed by opinion! Hold the presses!!!!

          By the way, some of those that opined they could fly… well, let’s say reality is NOT framed by opinion after all.

          […]and something like licensing or banking regulations is NOT the same as Nazi’s killing Jews.

          Certainly. Not that such was implied – did you take yout Thorazine yet, Edwin? You’re reading voices again…

          That is, if people don’t think of it like that in the first [place], then they don’t always lean towards the “control” side – THEY DON’T EVEN FRAME THINGS IN THAT WAY.

          Nice to know you’re privy to how people think. Not that it matters.

          How people frame things does not justify the taking of property, Edwin, and the idea of giving healthcare to everyone justify the taking of property. If YOU want to give healthcare to everyone, pay for that yourself.

          1. We might even chip in – but we’ll only be happy to do so if it’s our choice.

          2. you’re changing the subject

            I was addressing the almost constant claim by libertarians that this or that little law will lead to tyranny. And I addressed how it does not – people aren’t going to jump headfirst into tyranny just because YOU frame everything as either the government has the right to control people or they don’t. If people viewed public policy like that, then yeah, we’d be pretty fucked, but they don’t; they see nuances that you don’t. Whether or not those nuances actually exist is a matter of opinion, and would not affect whether or not we’re headed for tyranny just because this or that little law.

  33. Can someone pass me some salt?

  34. Perhaps Congress will try a Constitutional Amendment to get around this. Fortunately, it will have no chance of passing.

  35. My cousin in Canada says his cocker spaniel gets fantastic health care.

  36. WEIGEL ALERT! WEIGEL ALERT!

    Go read Weigel’s twitter feed, wherein the last tattered shreds of any pretense towards libertarianism he ever had rip away like Jeff Goldblum’s final transformation in The Fly.

    What a schmuck.

    1. Why would I read his twitter feed? I tried to avoid reading him when he wrote here.

  37. I’m saying replace medicaid and medicare with government run clinics for the poor and elderly

    This would at least be an honest way to approach the problem. I think it would devolve into a gargantuan clusterfuck and collapse (directly onto the Treasury) under its own weight in short order.

    The question, as always, is how to fund it. I object, as always, to forcing the people LEAST likely to use the service to pay for it. I’m mean, that way.

  38. My next plan is to require all health care services to be offered only on our upcoming high speed rail lines.

    1. Dr. Newt’s Cureall (100% ethanol) will heal the masses while riding high-speed rail to their new green jobs building unicorn ranches!

      1. the trains will run on ethanol and be made of bio-degradable plant-based plastics

  39. no severability clause? HA! dumbasses

  40. I still get my free pony, right?

  41. YEAH! A JUDGE ON OUR SIDE! NOW IF PEOPLE GET SICK THEY CAN DIE IN THE STREET LIKE THEY DESERVE, INSTEAD OF GETTING TREATMENT!

    HURR DURR DUUUUURRR HUUUUURRRR!!!!

    1. Is it open season on trolls, and if so what’s the bag limit?

      1. Hey, it’s a target-rich environment today!

    2. HA! Somebody’s peeved….

    3. Libertarianism aside, stepping outside the bounds of the constitution

      1. is not a joke

    4. have you ever heard of charity? i know it’s hard to think about since it’s voluntary unlike what you’re used to: government coercion, but it works.

      also, most serious sickness in this country is self-created by eating too much, drinking too much, and exercising too little. if people were actually responsible for their own health then i bet we’d see a much healthier population

      1. Eh,

        that shit’s overblown. People get sick, it happens. Damn Everybody eventually gets cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. It’s part of being alive. And in some cases, literally it is – one of the leading theories of cancer is that it’s caused by basic metabolic oxidation processes damagine DNA.

        1. Let’s find the most expensive way possible for everyone to keep people dying of it!

          1. I never said I’m for public payment of health care costs for people

        2. i’ll agree that pretty much everyone would eventually get cancer if they lived long enough, but for most that’s a pretty long-lived life already and you shouldn’t expect other people to pay for the most expensive cancer treatment just to postpone your death 1 month.

          but yes, thanks for the reminder, I forgot we humans are mortal.

          type II diabetes however is often preventable. heart disease because of high blood pressure less preventable but like cancer, due to old age, and actually quite treatable and cheaper than cancer to treat.

          just because we all get sick when we get older doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a free market in health care services and health care insurance.

          1. “”heart disease because of high blood pressure less preventable but like cancer, due to old age, and actually quite treatable and cheaper than cancer to treat.””

            Not sure. How much is a 30 year supply of Lipitor?

            1. high cholesterol does not equal high blood pressure.
              i don’t know how much that would be but there are other statins and soon there will be generics to compete.

              and in a free market system if you paid into a health savings account earlier in your life it’s quite possible you could pay for a long-time supply. and assuming you’d still be earning income at age 50.

        3. Yes, everybody will get cancer if they live long enough, but lifestyle choices can increase the risk.

          The most common cardiovascular disease (i.e. CAD, hypertension), dyslipidemia, and metabolic disorders (Type II diabetes) can be prevented, and in many cases cured with good diet and exercise.

          I’m an exercise physiologist, and the journals that I read every month are filled with studies verifying these findings.

          1. yes, exactly

    5. Butthurt alert.

    6. Think of all the jobs for body pickup and disposal. You’d think a troll like you would be all for that.

  42. Do Egyptians have *free* healthcare? Why are they complaining?

    1. Well they already have everything else that really matters in life, so why wouldn’t you complain about the lousy (nosuchthingas)free health care.

  43. The lack of a severability clause was no accident. Pelosi et cie gambled that no federal judge would have the stones to throw out the whole thing.

    And, who knows? They may have been correct that there aren’t 5 SCOTUS Justices with the requisite equipment.

      1. THERE ARE SIX

        SIIIIIIIIIXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        1. … but not all on the same court …

  44. Ya know, until this reaches the Supremes, the only real effect is to drive traffic to either nelsonhaha.com or khaaan.com

    They’re likely already practicing pithy remarks for the oral argument phase. Except for Thomas, who saves his zingers exclusively for the written record.

  45. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market.

    The X market is more than Y% of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market.

    “We’ve already established *that*, Madam. Now we’re merely haggling over the price.”

    1. ^THIS.

  46. Once you mix Substantially Affects with the Aggregation Doctrine, I don’t see how you don’t have an unlimited government. Every choice affects interstate commerce on some level, and if small choices count as “substantially affects” because they could add up to have big effects, then there is no limit to the power of the Congress. The ruling protests that it’s not what the Founders meant to do, and I agree, but I think it’s the inevitable result of the Supreme Court’s decisions. Either Aggregation or Substiantially Affects has to go to make any sense of the Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

    [insert standard No Treason reference here]

    1. “I don’t see how you don’t have an unlimited government”

      We don’t have unlimited government – I think the arguement is what to call it.

  47. From: J sub D
    To: Nick Gillespie, Editor in Chief, Reason.com and Reason.tv
    Subj: Third party spam filters.

    Yours sucks.

    R/
    J sub D

    1. Didn’t do me any good with my gripe about “hopefully”, but I wish you luck.

  48. Hold. The. Phone.

    This is all for nothing.

    According to eminent Constitutional Chuck E. Schumer, as quoted in today’s Best of the Web, the judiciary isn’t a branch of government, and presumably has no power to overturn anything:

    You know, we have three branches of government. We have a House. We have a Senate. We have a president.”–Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), Jan. 30

    1. “Hold. The. Phone.”

      So did they catch him before he tipped a couple, or was it after?

    2. You know, we have three branches of government. We have a left testicle. We have a right testicle. We have a penis.

      1. Uhh Chuck, I hate to be the bearer of bad news…but the tests are conclusive…you have a mangina.

    3. “”You know, we have three branches of government. We have a House. We have a Senate. We have a president.”–Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), Jan. 30″”

      That is comic gold, Jerry. Comic gold.

  49. Constitution?!?!?!?!

  50. The footnote where he throws obama’s words back in his face about the mandate in the Mass. law is priceless.

  51. HEY LOOK! THE JUDGE LOOKED AT ONE OF OUR REALLY COOL, TOTALLY NOT BORING VIDEOS AND BASED HIS DECISION ON THAT!

    CITIZENS UNITED IS ALREADY PAYING OFF!!!

    HURR HURR HURR DURR DURR!!!!

    1. ^
      “EZ-hit” target, if anyone’s interested.

      1. I might be interested if he had an actual argument of some sort. This is simply max-style insulting at its worst. I am not intersted in flinging insults at people.

      2. I’ve got nothing. How can I argue against Herr Hurr and Dr. Durr?

    2. Dude, ur caps lok iz on.

    3. I would say it’s stupid too, but I read it again and actually chuckled a little when I read the part about “totally not boring videos”

    4. HURR HURR HURR DURR DURR!!!!

      [::stands up, respectfully::] “Mr. Vice-President!”

  52. There was no precedent set in this case regardless of how many states were involved.

    A district court judge sharing his opinion [decision] does not change the law or it’s application. No applicable precedent is established in this case.

    1. District court decisions have precedential value. Lawyers writing briefs and judges writing opinions cite to them constantly. In fact, Vinson’s opinion contains numerous citations to other courts.

  53. When and where do the celebrations take place?

    Or should we hold our champagne glasses until the Supreme Court rules?

    I’ve read through Vinson’s ruling, and it is pretty tightly argued, to this untrained eye. I particularly liked his tear down of the arguments for the Necessary and Proper Clause.

    I’m thinking that the Supreme Court will find it persuasive.

    1. Hazel Meade|1.31.11 @ 7:10PM|#
      “When and where do the celebrations take place?”

      I’m sorry, it seems Ms. Pelosi canceled her reservations for this evening.

  54. story correction needed ==

    The judge did not provide injunctive relief BUT NOTED that his ruling carries “declarative relief.” Essentially, if a judge rules the entire law unconstitutional, it cannot be enforced by federal workers. So, Obamacare comes to a halt unless the Justice Dept can get the appellate court to provide a stay during appeal. And that will mean a hearing and arguments from both sides. Not going to happen in a day.

  55. If Erwin Chemerinsky didn’t already exist [insert malevolent powers here] would have had to invent him.

  56. No matter what we do, we (the people) will pay for those who don’t.

    1. Alice Bowie|1.31.11 @ 9:43PM|#
      “No matter what we do, we (the people) will pay for those who don’t.”

      As regarding ‘letting people die on the streets’, yes we will. And there are far cheaper ways to provide that.
      And do mean “cheaper”; the extremes of possible medical care are not due to those who can’t afford them and for good reason.

  57. Perhaps we will pay for those without coverage when they

    – go to the emergency room
    – default on payments to medical providers
    – declare bankruptcy
    – commit fraud in order to procure medical care for themselves and their families

    either way, we will pay.

    1. Alice Bowie|1.31.11 @ 9:44PM|#
      Perhaps we will pay for those without coverage when they
      – go to the emergency room
      – default on payments to medical providers
      – declare bankruptcy
      – commit fraud in order to procure medical care for themselves and their families
      either way, we will pay.”

      All sounds cheaper than what that hag and Obama shoved down out throats.
      Got any evidence otherwise?

  58. It appears that the voice of the people that were WRONG-ed by the current health insurance system has been silenced. They are far too small of a minority. It’s the kinda thing that one doesn’t know until it happens to you.

    People are calling for a free market healthcare system with no government regulation. That is, providers and insurance companies are free to provide (or not provide). What do you think would happen.

    Healthcare in America started with the free market. What do you think came first? The Free Market or the Regulations? The regulations were a result of the abuses that occurred in the free market.

    What I’m totally against is having to address my recourses with providers/insurance companies that don’t make good on their contract in court.

    1. “The regulations were a result of the abuses that occurred in the free market….”

      Bull…………….
      Shit.
      Pretty much a history ignoramus, aren’t you? Prove it.

      1. I guess I’m wrong. The regulations came out of nowhere

        1. You’re wrong, but not because of the strawman you posit.
          Try again……..

          1. You tell me, where did regulations come from ?

            Without doing any research, I can only imagine that they came to be like many other laws and regulation come to be, consumer complaints.

            1. “Without doing any research,”

              Uh, well, you made the claim, now you’re admitting you have no basis?
              Surprise!
              Go away.

            2. Try industry complaints.

      2. Do you ever go to a casino?

        Have you ever seen how a black jack table works?

        There is a
        – dealer
        – pit boss
        – two cameras per table with 4 people watch from above
        – private casino security
        – state gambling commission with undercovers watching

        why do u think that is ?

        1. Uh, yeah and purple unicorns.

        2. And what about the tracking anklets? Why do they put them on me, but no one else? Is that weird?

        3. why do u think that is ?

          Because they don’t want to end up like D.C.?

        4. “I”

          I think it bc teh State wants 2 keep foxez out of teh hen house. u no they get a lot of money fr teh casinos due to taxashun n paybacks rite???

          U cant have lotz of kool mob ties in a truly unregulated market. For realz.

    2. This whole mess started when the government started giving tax breaks to companies for providing health care. Know that, I’m guessing the regulations came from the insurance companies getting the government to help them sell their product.

      That’s usually how this shit works.

  59. We should definitely make a public option OPTIONAL. That is, all of you conservatives/libertarians that are willing to deal with the free market can do so. I would join you guys.

    However, there should be an OPTIONAL healthcare service provided by the government with doctors, nurses, and others that work for salaries.

    What is the problem with this? We are going to have to pay for the uninsured anyway. Right now, we allow people that can’t pay to have premium services…at the taxpayers expense. Let’s simply provide these people with government supplied healthcare were we can truly control the cost.

    1. You realise no one can deal with the free market if they’re having money confiscated from them by the government, because you can no longer spend that money the way you want to?

  60. “However, there should be an OPTIONAL healthcare service provided by the government with doctors, nurses, and others that work for salaries.”

    You truly *are* an ignoramus!
    Distort the market by offering *free stuff* and you think there is a market?
    I’ll bet you think the housing bubble had nothing to do with Fannie and Freddy!

  61. Nothing is free. We would have to pay for it.

    But if it makes you feel better, we will be continuing to pay for PREMIUM healthcare services. I say that the PREMIUM part out of it and have them go to government run clinics.

  62. Alice Bowie|1.31.11 @ 10:25PM|#
    “Nothing is free. We would have to pay for it.”

    Look, you need to do some, well, thinking. I’m tired of pointing out your idiocy.

    1. Oh u have to read this article
      http://www.realtruth.org/artic…..ealth.html

      1. Oh, of course their conclusion is inevitable. I was skimming that article, and then — wham! Bizarro conclusion.

  63. Look, I’ll go away, I Promise, If you can tell me honestly that you truly believe that the existing regulations came out of no-where.

    Obviously , I know that competitors use our legislature to run each other out of business. Nevertheless, the vast majority of these regulations came from consumer complaints. AND YOU CAN’T PROVE OTHERWISE.

    1. If the government passed a law tomorrow saying that b anks were required to turn over forclosed homes to the homeless, I wouldn’t say that it ‘came out of nowhere’. But it would still be insane and stupid.

  64. “Nevertheless, the vast majority of these regulations came from consumer complaints. AND YOU CAN’T PROVE OTHERWISE.”

    OH, NOES! I can’t prove an ignoramuses’ negative!
    Oh, oh, I must be……
    Well, ok.
    Go away.

    1. “[…] AND YOU CAN’T PROVE OTHERWISE.”

      Little trouble with that whole “burden of proof” concept-type thingie, I take it…?

  65. Slow clap.

  66. See ReasonTV, Wheat, Weed, and Obamacare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful, August 25, 2010…

    The Nefarious Koch Brothers are so giving you a huge bonus this year, Gillespie.

  67. Great article – thanks for sharing the video on this. I believe this is a step in the right direction. Government alone cannot change the system. You really need to read Uproot U.S. Healthcare: To Reform Healthcare by Deane Waldman, MD MBA, which I found to be very eye opening on how our health care system has become so corrupt. But I also felt empowered as the author offers ideas on how to take charge and create real change.

  68. Heh, I am surprised so many libertarian-leaning people still read tReason Magazine and still participate here after the last election with the publication’s all but prima facie endorsement of Obama as “Jesus Returned to Save Us All.”

    Carry water much still?

    I cut my subscription to tReason and The eCommunist at the same time because of this. Is it possible the editors have seen the error in their ways?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.