obamacare

In continuing the split among the Lower Courts, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Individual Mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. However, they also concluded that the lower district court erred in its severability ruling and that the rest of Obamacare can, in fact, stand on it's own.

I have not had time to read the entire 207-page opinion (and 90ish-page dissent) to go over all of their reasoning, but I was able to make a quick skim.

Here's the conclusion:

We first conclude that the Act’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional. Existing Supreme Court precedent does not establish that Congress’s inducements are unconstitutionally coercive, especially when the federal government will bear nearly all the costs of the program’s amplified enrollments.

Twelve House Republicans have issued a joint press release encouraging state officials to not accept Obamacare funds. However, those 12 also voted on legislation to accept Obamacare funds to start the required health insurance exchanges.

How do they reconcile the change of heart?

"What we voted for was a free-market exchange based on choice and competition... [not] to accept federal money that may require us to set up a federal health care system." - Rep. Randy Grau (R-Edmond)

"...it has become increasingly apparent that we cannot accept this money without also accepting the strings attached to it.." - Rep. Elise Hall (R-OKC)

"I strongly support the private sector and oppose Obamacare and the use of federal money for a health care exchange." - Rep. Dennis Casey (R-Morrison)

Many Oklahoma Republicans campaigned last year on "stopping Obamacare". And as the election results showed, many Oklahoma voters took the bait.

Now Oklahoma Republicans are telling a different story. On March 17, as the deadline to vote on bills in their chamber of origin loomed, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed HB2130 by a vote of 51-34. To help you better understand the shape of the vote, here's a table of those who voted for it:

You might recall from Election 2010 that many candidates campaigned in Oklahoma on the idea that they would "fight Obamacare". Obviously, this was a ploy to get the attention of voters who disagreed with the new federal healthcare system, specifically the individual mandate a buy health insurance, and did not want to see it implemented in Oklahoma.

Then shortly after taking office, newly elected Governor Mary Fallin accepted $54 million of federal money for implementing the health insurance exchanges required by Obamacare. Upon acceptance of the grant, she even called this part of Obamacare "consistent with our mission to design and implement an Oklahoma-based health insurance exchange" and a "step in the right direction for Oklahoma".

After Governor Mary Fallin campaigned on the support of fighting Obamacare, she has accepted a federal Obamacare grant on behalf of the State of Oklahoma. This smacks a bit of hipocrisy.

Justice Roger Vinson issued a decision today for the Northern District of Florida declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional and rendering the entire Act void.

As expected, the individual mandate was ruled as an unconstitutional expansion of the Commerce Clause. The justification under the Necessary and Proper Clause fails two of the five tests from Comstock in that "A statute mandating that everyone purchase a product from a private company or be penalized (merely by virtue of being alive and a lawful citizen) is not a 'modest' addition to federal involvement in the national health care market, nor is it 'narrow [in] scope.'"

Finally, the judge declares the entire Act void due to the lack of a severability clause.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson has ruled that the requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, splitting from the ruling in Michigan that the government can regulate even the decisions that you make. The opinion is 42 pages long, and I don't have time to go through it all right now. Specifically, what has been struck down is only Section 1501 of the Act.

THANK YOU!

My insurance premium (which I pay 100% because I'm one of those "evil" "rich" self-employed small business owners) goes up 45% effective January 1, 2011.

Why? Because of the so-called Affordable Care Act. So in order to "break-even" I need 10 or so appointments for "preventative services" and at least a night in the hospital. Or more realistically, 2 preventative appointments and 2 nights in the hospital, including an ER visit.

I was perfectly happy with my insurance plan until you bozos came along.

The opinion for Thomas More Law Center v. Obama was released earlier today.

First, we need to get a couple of things straight. This case only dealt with one argument the government has put forth, and that is that the individual mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause in light of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) and Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). It did not directly deal with the Necessary and Proper Clause argument, but made a passing reference to the Tax Clause argument.

According to the New York Times, there is growing bipartisan support to repeal a provision of Obamacare that requires businesses to file a 1099 on anyone they pay more than $600 for goods or merchandise. The problem with this provision is the massive amount of additional paperwork businesses will have to do.

I mean, seriously... Think about how much a mom and pop store spends at Wal-Mart on supplies per year. Now, imagine all of those businesses having to send 1099's to Wal-Mart and the IRS. Wal-Mart will have to spend more money on processing this paperwork to make sure that everything matches up on their end. Prices will go up. Those small businesses will spend more money making sure they are in compliance. Prices will go up. The IRS will have to spend more money processing these forms, and even more verifying them.