Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Another Federal Court Victory For The Affordable Care Act

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 09:44 AM
Original message
Another Federal Court Victory For The Affordable Care Act
Posted in its entirety with permission from author.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/028134.php

ANOTHER FEDERAL COURT VICTORY FOR THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.... Over the last year, there have been all kinds of court rulings related to the health care reform law, but most deal with procedural issues. They all matter, but the ones that deserve the most attention are the ones that deal with the substance of the Affordable Care Act and the legal merit of the challenges.

Going into yesterday, four federal district courts had ruled on the legality of the law, with each side winning twice. Yesterday, Judge Gladys Kessler tipped the scales and made the right call.

Judge Kessler adopted the government's position on whether Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce is so broad that it can require people to buy a commercial product. Past Supreme Court decisions have established the standard that Congress can control "activities that substantially affect interstate commerce."

The judge suggested in her 64-page opinion that not buying insurance was an active choice that had clear effects on the marketplace by burdening other payers with the cost of uncompensated medical care.

"Because of this cost-shifting effect," she wrote, "the individual decision to forgo health insurance, when considered in the aggregate, leads to substantially higher insurance premiums for those other individuals who do obtain coverage."

Judge Kessler added: "It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not 'acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something."

The judge also tossed out a claim that the law restricted the plaintiffs' exercise of religious freedom because the mandate to buy health insurance conflicted with their belief that God would provide for their well-being. She wrote that such a burden, if it existed at all, was too minor to require invalidation of the law.


Perhaps most notably, Kessler's ruling added that those who buy the argument embraced by the two judges who ruled against the law are choosing to "ignore reality." As Jonathan Cohn explained, she also has no use for the so-called "broccoli argument."

The ruling is the result of a case brought by the American Center for Law and Justice, a right-wing legal group created by radical TV preacher Pat Robertson. It also keeps the partisan nature of the legal dispute alive -- three judges appointed by Democratic presidents have sided in support of the law, two judges appointed by Republican presidents did the opposite.

As a practical matter, all of these rulings are of limited value, since the issue will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, but given all the breathless media attention the conservative court rulings received, it's worth noting that there are now three federal court rulings that make it obviously clear that the health care reform law is clearly constitutional.


—Steve Benen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ItNerd4life Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. So what else is the government going to make us buy?
Her words 'the individual decision to forgo health insurance, when considered in the aggregate, leads to substantially higher insurance premiums for those other individuals who do obtain coverage.'

So we all now have to buy houses, certain foods, bottled water to keep costs down for everyone else? People need these things to survive also.

What a stupid stupid statement by this judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Pay attention
when you don't buy a house, I am not billed to pick up your housing expenses. When you don't buy insurance and get ill, I am billed to pick up the cost of your uncompensated care. Now, if we had a system where if you did not buy insurance and could not pay, you got no treatment that I end up paying for, your argument and comparison works. The problem is that if you happen to make it to a hospital, they will treat you and bill me for it, it is just a medical ethics thing. Personally I would prefer it if they simply taxed you and then provided "free" healthcare, it seems so much simpler. Bottom line, buy insurance or get taxed, I am good with it either way.

There is no housing ethics thing or bottled water ethics thing, so you are completely free to live on the streets and drink from the tap, if you care to and I do not mind at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 12:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC