由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
USANews版 - Judge Rejects Health Law
相关主题
Appeals court says key parts of health-care reform unconstitutional‘So Called’ Judge,Trump想推翻三权分立,行政干预司法
GOP candidates: Bashing judges, threatening democracyJudge rejects Schwarzenegger minimum wage request
Ignorance Is No ExcuseWhy I'm Never Going to "Two-Bit" China
The Donald & The La Raza JudgeFederal Judge Blocks Obama's Transgender Rules (转载)
Judge Contreras recused from Flynn caseJudge Nap on Gorsuch
经济好转个p阿,amex裁员8。5%这次travel ban肯定会一直打到最高法院
高院裁定巴马的任命无效老川今天停了奥粑粑care中违宪的subsidies
联邦法官竟然把美国宪法和独立宣言搞混了Breaking: a federal judge of 9th circus rule north korea m
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: law话题: obama话题: judge话题: insurance
进入USANews版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
l****z
发帖数: 29846
1
A federal judge ruled that Congress violated the Constitution by requiring
Americans to buy insurance as part of the health overhaul passed last year,
and said the entire law "must be declared void."
With his ruling, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson set up a clash over
whether the Obama administration still has the authority to carry out the
law designed to expand insurance to 32 million Americans.
A Florida federal judge on Monday ruled that a key plank of the health
overhaul passed last March violates the Constitution, in a decision that
could threaten the Obama administration's ability to implement the law.
Janet Adamy has details.
David Rivkin, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the ruling meant the 26
states challenging the law must halt implementation of pieces that apply to
states and certain small businesses represented by plaintiffs.
But the Obama administration said it has no to plans to halt implementation
of the law. Already, it has mailed rebate checks to seniors with high
prescription drug costs, helped set up insurance pools for people with pre-
existing medical conditions and required insurers to allow children to stay
on their parents' insurance policies until they reach age 26.
"We will continue to operate as we have previously," a senior administration
official said.
In a pre-emptive move, the Justice Department, which represents the
administration, is considering whether to seek a stay while its appeal
against the decision is pending, spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.
The legal morass is the biggest blow yet to the law since President Barack
Obama signed it in March. Most of the plaintiffs—governors and attorneys
general in 26 states—are Republicans seeking to knock down Mr. Obama's
signature legislative achievement.
The ruling by Judge Vinson, a Republican appointee in Pensacola, Fla., is
the second of four to find that at least part of the law violates the
Constitution's Commerce Clause by requiring citizens to carry insurance or
pay a fee. But in asserting that the whole law is unconstitutional, it went
much further than an earlier ruling in a Virginia case.
Thus far, the court decisions are breaking down along party lines, with two
Democratic appointees to the federal bench having upheld the law and two
Republican appointees ruling against it. The matter is expected to be
settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The possibility that a court could ultimately unravel the law underscores
just how difficult it is to enact universal health insurance—a goal that
had eluded presidents dating back to Theodore Roosevelt. Mr. Obama's law,
signed after a long-fought partisan battle, has been hailed by supporters as
a historic achievement. But it is also one that cost Democrats seats in
this fall's midterm elections, as the public was still divided in its
support of the legislation.
The court battle against the law—once seen as a long-shot strategy by the
Republicans—has emerged as the greatest threat to the overhaul. While the
Republican-led House has voted to repeal the law, that effort is expected to
die in the Democratic-controlled Senate, and in any case would face
President Obama's veto pen.
Now even some Democrats who voted for the overhaul are contemplating whether
Congress should strip out the so-called individual mandate, a once
unthinkable scenario since the provision is seen as the backbone of the law.
Since the law requires insurance companies to accept all comers, even
people who are already sick, it requires healthy people to buy coverage as
well.
Otherwise, economists say, insurance premiums would likely rise sharply
because people would wait until they were sick to seek coverage.
A look at key parts of the law and when they take effect.
The victories are emboldening Republicans in Congress who see attacking the
law as a key strategy for retaking the White House in 2012. "This ruling
confirms what Americans have been saying for months: The health spending
bill is a massive overreach," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R
., Ky.)
In his 78-page ruling, Judge Vinson wrote that the entire law must be voided
because the individual insurance mandate is "not severable" from the rest
of the law. Some laws contain what's known as a severability clause that
says the rest of the law stands should a judge strike down a piece of it.
But Democrats left it out.
The judge said he didn't believe an injunction to stop the health overhaul
was appropriate, because it is generally understood that the executive
branch will obey a federal court. The government, however, doesn't believe
the ruling requires it to stop implementing the overhaul.
In court filings and testimony before the judge, the Obama administration
argued that requiring Americans to carry insurance was within its
constitutional powers, particularly those of the Commerce Clause that allows
it to regulate economic activity. It argued that the health-care market is
unique since all Americans receive medical care at some point. Requiring
them to buy insurance is just a way of regulating how they pay for it, the
administration said.
View Full Image
0131health
Bloomberg News
The ruling also said that the entire law "must be declared void," because
the mandate to carry insurance is "not severable" from the rest of the law.
Above, an imaging technician prepares a CAT scan machine at Timpanogos
Regional Hospital in Orem, Utah.
0131health
0131health
Judge Vinson rejected that view. Under the Obama administration's logic, he
wrote, "Congress could require that everyone above a certain income
threshold buy a General Motors automobile—now partially government-owned—
because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are
adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business."
Judge Vinson ruled in favor of the Obama administration on a secondary part
of the suit, saying that the law's expansion of the Medicaid federal-state
insurance program for the poor doesn't violate the Constitution.
The states argued that the law's addition of 16 million Americans to the
Medicaid rolls violates the Spending Clause of the Constitution by burdening
them without giving them room to opt out of the program.
But Judge Vinson said states clearly have the option to withdraw from the
program, even though states "have little recourse to remaining the very
junior partner in this partnership."
Critics say the law's implementation has been undercut by waivers the
administration granted to various parties to avoid aspects of the law. For
example, the administration has temporarily exempted some companies that
provide bare-bones "mini-med" insurance plans from meeting a requirement in
the law that says insurers must spend a certain portion of premiums on
medical care.
View Full Image
HealthCare
Associated Press
A rally outside the Maine State House in support of the national health-care
law, in Augusta, Maine, earlier in January.
HealthCare
HealthCare
The Obama administration says such waivers are only a bridge until 2014,
when the full law takes effect and employers have more options for providing
affordable coverage.
In addition to the House vote for repeal, Republicans are drafting a series
of bills targeting particularly unpopular pieces of the law, including its
requirement that larger employers provide coverage or pay a fee. They're
also laying plans to choke off funding to hire federal workers to implement
the law.
Under the law, most Americans who do not carry insurance starting in 2014
will pay a penalty. It eventually tops out at $2,085 a year for families
lacking insurance.
Health policy experts say one alternative to the provision would be to make
insurance more expensive for those who wait to buy coverage, providing an
incentive for the uninsured to get covered early. But lawmakers from both
parties agree that it would be complicated, and risky, to pull out such a
central piece of the law without driving up insurance premiums.
1 (共1页)
进入USANews版参与讨论
相关主题
Breaking: a federal judge of 9th circus rule north korea mJudge Contreras recused from Flynn case
格老拒绝了让Kavanaugh先出席的要求经济好转个p阿,amex裁员8。5%
Republicans refuse bank reform高院裁定巴马的任命无效
八马大师到底有没有出生证明,哪位藕粉催催?联邦法官竟然把美国宪法和独立宣言搞混了
Appeals court says key parts of health-care reform unconstitutional‘So Called’ Judge,Trump想推翻三权分立,行政干预司法
GOP candidates: Bashing judges, threatening democracyJudge rejects Schwarzenegger minimum wage request
Ignorance Is No ExcuseWhy I'm Never Going to "Two-Bit" China
The Donald & The La Raza JudgeFederal Judge Blocks Obama's Transgender Rules (转载)
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: law话题: obama话题: judge话题: insurance