Federal appeals court rules health care reform bill is constitutional

[BostonPirate]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/29/health.care.appeal/index.html?hpt=us_c2

The political and legal future of the sweeping health care reform bill received a big boost Wednesday after a federal appeals court in Cincinnati ruled in favor of the Obama administration and Congress, concluding a key provision in the landmark legislation was constitutional.
The "individual mandate" requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties -- was challenged in federal courts by a large number of individuals and groups, who said people should not be forced to purchase a product like medical coverage. A partially divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit disagreed.
"We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause," said the three-judge panel on Wednesday, in a 64-page opinion.

......

"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," he said. "The provision regulates active participation in the health care market, and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity."

Now perhaps one of the legal minds... Pale or construct.. can tell me if this is the last step before SCOTUS decides whether or not to hear the case.

 

[MoltenRock III]

It depends on how the judge's ruling is worded, and what if any findings they might want to challenge of the appellate court ruling. They may hold out for a different lawsuit making its way thru the courts, or indeed try to appeal this ruling to the SCOTUS.

My guess is that the SCOTUS will not hear it until next spring at the earliest, and might in fact wait until fall so as not to influence the election of 2012. However, given the hyper partisanship of this Court, who knows if they'll go by precedent and stay out of the election spotlight.

Most courts would hear it in the fall and announce any decision after the election.

 

[JB3]

It depends on how the judge's ruling is worded, and what if any findings they might want to challenge of the appellate court ruling. They may hold out for a different lawsuit making its way thru the courts, or indeed try to appeal this ruling to the SCOTUS.

My guess is that the SCOTUS will not hear it until next spring at the earliest, and might in fact wait until fall so as not to influence the election of 2012. However, given the hyper partisanship of this Court, who knows if they'll go by precedent and stay out of the election spotlight.

Most courts would hear it in the fall and announce any decision after the election.

They're going to care more about when provisions of the law take effect, and whether a ruling sooner rather than later would affect that. If they don't have a reason to make a decision before the election, they won't.

 

[rareboy]

Well this will make the Obama haters heads explode.

 

[landers]

The easiest way to get around the constitutionality is to call the individual mandate a tax that you get credit for if you have insurance.

 

[Tengilethos]

The republican judge that ruled in favor of Obamacare pointed out that the fine for not getting insurance cannot be called a tax.

 

[Kulindahr]

The reasoning boils down to "the end justifies the means". Essentially the court said that because they feel the commerce clause can be stretched this far, dictating the personal expenditure of money by citizens is justified.

But as others have noted, if this is justified, anything is justified. In pursuit of cleaner air, Congress could mandate that we all have to buy new cars every three years. In pursuit of better health, it could mandate that no fast food be sold without a salad.


Now it will go to a circuit court, and then to SCOTUS.

 

[JayHawk]

I understand the worry about being ruled by Washington on every issue. However this country DESPERATELY needs healthcare for its citizens. I consider it necessary infrastructure for a viable democracy.

This is the most remarkable piece of trash bill that could ever be passed. It simply does not mandate enough or do enough to be effective. SO it will either fail and be kicked away or succeed somewhat and be improved. i can only hope for the the latter.