A federal judge in Florida today declared Obama's health care law unconstitutional, siding with 26 states that sued to block the bill. The main snag, at least according to U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson? The requirement of buying health insurance.
Vinson ruled the new law violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties. Attorneys for the Obama administration have been arguing the states don't have the power to challenge it and the case should be dismissed.
Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance stipulation, but a federal judge in Virginia also ruled the insurance provision violates the Constitution. Hello U.S. Supreme Court.
We'll have more on the health care fall out tonight at 8pm ET.
Leave a Comment:
Aren't we mandated to buy many forms of insurance already? Can we toss those out now?
Yes, but those are voluntary by nature. You must have car insurance IF you buy a car and want to drive it on publicly-owned roads. However, the healthcare bill mandates that you have to buy insurance simply because you exist. There is no way to opt out of doing something, at least paying the fine.
Amend the law to remove the mandate and move on.
Is that so hard?
@Bobford, the difference, I believe, is the health care mandate is federal, the others are state mandated.
But isn't there some federal reason behind the fact that all states have mandated home, mortgage and automobile insurance?
Republicans mandated that anyone signing up for Medicare must also sign up for a Prescription Drug Plan from private insurance companies whether they take any prescription drugs or not or pay a stiff penalty on premiums when they do decided to sign up later. How is that different from the requirement for everyone to buy health insurance or pay a penalty? Other than the fact Republicans passed the Drug bill by using the reconciliation and lying about how much it would cost the Federal, not state government and it has been a cash cow for insurance and drug companies and only modestly helpful for Seniors.
Jackie -- there is a reason -- it's the insurance industry lobby. Plain and simple.
Samirah -- +100!
I guess I can get rid of my insurance on my house and car too?
Have you heard of FICA? It stands for Federal Insurance Contribution Act. We are mandated to buy healthcare insurance. Don't remove the mandate, remove the insurance companies.
Pawlenty's wasn't governor of Michigan. It was Minnesota. (today's show)
Someone help me out here...I am required under the (?)16th amendment to pay Federal Income Tax and the government chooses to spend it however they wish. They can choose to buy a B-1 bomber with aggregated money and I have a small, indeed a very small tranche of this purchase, perhaps only one rivet.
Now, the health care bill requires me to spend money on health care (just as I am required to pay a Medicare tax on earnings) BUT I have the ability to CHOOSE how to spend it. How is this a bad thing when I can choose where to put my earnings? I am not permitted to direct my taxes to not support a B-1 bomber or any other individual purchase now.
Any help here?
Einstein said, "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." People don't know how crappy are healthcare system is compared to the rest of the industrialized world.
apparently just you and Michael Moore
Wouldn't you have more choice in the matter if you were allowed to spend YOUR money on whatever YOU wanted, and not just healthcare? And Steve, you do realize that our healthcare system is not "crappy" by any means. Its expensive because people live unhealthy lifestyles and then expect to be able to medicate all their problems away. I mean, Michael Moore himself would need less healthcare if he wasn't such a disgusting fat-ass.
I live in the state of Missouri where you cannot get a license for your vehicle unless you show proof of insurance. Does this not show the contradiction of those that oppose mandatory insurance for health? Seriously, what is the difference in someone who operates a motor vehicle without insurance and anyone who enjoys the benefits of this country without health insurance?
You get to choose whether or not to drive... driving is a privilege, not a right because it is on public roads, not your roads. You could hurt someone else on the roads, and you need to be able to pay for their expenses, too. However healthcare insurance is an entirely different matter. It is totally individual and they are going to make us have it simply because we exist. What does enjoying our freedoms have to do with paying for insurance? It's not a pay-up-for-living-in-America tax, its health insurance. If you don't get health insurance, only you will suffer. If you don't get car insurance, others could suffer.
See the entire point is the . It is a gateway for the govt to force one to buy what they believe is bestgovt.does not have the right to make me better yet force me to buy anything ever.and what willthe govt do go round up the homeless and force them to payup or go to jail. I could care less if my neighbor has healtcare brushes his teeth or has a flaming case of whatever. If he doesn't have helthcare that is his right. As long as I pay my taxes work everyday raise my children and love my neighbor as I do myself. I expect to be left alone. I worked in section 8 housing received my GED, graduated from community college and eventually earned a degree in engineering. I got out got a job pay for my major medical. The funny part is my brother is a college townee 40 and still in college he had a seizure last year and it cost him 150k. bankrupcy he took. His one get out of debt free now if he seizure he is denied care it is on him he had 22 years to graduate college,but now he isstill back to his college partying smoking dope and going to be a history teacher. We all have decisions to make good or bad right or wrong and uncle sam doesn't need to tell me how to make them I have the right to do me just like my brother has the right to do him...dig it
Driving is a priviledge... and a choice. Living is not. I believe that is the distinction between mandated coverage for drivers - who risk injury, and doing injury to others, when taking the road, as opposed to living, which is a gift, not a choice.
As a liberal - leaning, Independent, fomer ER/ICU nurse who is strongly in favor of universal coverage, I usually find myself in agreement with Rep Wiener --- but not today.
Mr Wiener is quite arrogant to characterize people as freeloaders for not being able to afford coverage that, added to their out of pocket medical costs, will leave them short of money for meds, or people who see the need to pay to send their kids to schools that aren't failing (and now facing severe budget cuts), but can't afford to trade their kids' present and future for insuring against medical problems which might, or might not occur.
As a rare dissenter in a sea of red-state BS here in Texas, I'm surprised to have to point out such spurious, and fascistic, casting of aspersions by a supposed liberal..
For a congressman who was a vocal leader of a strong Congressional
majority which played 'politics-as-usual' after being told, via the
polls, that 'We, The People', wanted something better, to blame the
less fortunate, while enjoying his federal health coverage, and having
failed to properly utilize his time in the majority to deliver
universal coverage.... What a hypocrite!
This is the kind of thing that lends credence to the endless stream of labels like "liberal elite", "socialist", and "Ivy League" that come from the right.
Mr. Wiener, has being in Congress made you drunk with power?
Amen vitalsigns! What a hypocrite! We need a system that applies 100% of premiums to care period, call it single payer call it free market reform, be creative and work with repubs to get a solution that eliminates profit from the administration of healthcare benefits and doesn't mandate anything and doesn't bring the IRS and a bloated/convoluted tax code to further complicate our lives. What a shame that we have leaders that probably could come up with something if they utilized ideas from both sides of the aisle and ironically that is most likely when one party holds both senate, house and the presidency, just like the dems had, but what did they do? They passed something so bloated that no single person has probably ever read it and so heavyhanded that its unconstitutional. Nice try wiener lets see what the supremes say about how clearly constitutional this is, of course if they disagree with you, you will say that a coffee mug knows more about the constitution than they do.
If this health insurance mandate is unconstitutional, what is the mandatory auto insurance all about?!? Should we all sue and drop out of THIS insurance mandate also?
Wow Gram you must be kidding, the federal govt. does not mandate auto insurance, your state does. Further you probably haven't read this monstrosity of a bill, neither have I, but I can assure you of this there is no comparable mandate currently in existence, bringing the federal govt. and specifically the IRS in to this part of our lives is unprecedented. My scepticism is fueled by this blind need by hyperpartisan dems to insist that this bill is good for Americans. Mr. Wiener tried to make it sound like before the bill all the "freeloaders" were making the rest of us pay for their medical bills and now with this bill and its forced mandate all those "freeloaders" are gonna have to pay up, apparently Mr. Wiener doesn't realize those "freeloaders" don't have the money to pay for healthcare so even under this bill these people end up getting subsidized and the rest of us pay for it just like before except the insurance company's will now get more of the action and under provisions of the bill Mr. Wiener loves so much will be allowed to take 20% right off the top. Intelligent dems know this bills not just unconstitutional its a thoughtless sellout to the insurance companys who make their profits denying coverage, and of course bringing the IRS further into our lives who could ask for anything more. As an Indy who voted dem in 2008 I have to say I regret voting dem now and guys like this wiener are the reason, he's an arrogant fool who thinks he knows better than everyone else, truth is he's probably smart enough to know this bill doesn't make the freeloaders pay but knows people who compare mandated auto insurance to the mandate in this healthcare bill will believe his lie however obvious a lie it is.
The next logical step for republicans is to deny folks admittance into hospitals if they don't have health insurance. Not just folks but babies also.
How do they do that with a growing population? A lot of those NEW Americans won't be able to afford health insurance.
How do they address that?
People at Micky D's have like a 5000 dollar deductible with a 1000 dollar lifetime cap.
How do the republicans plan on addressing this with a growing population?
Before November it was JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
Now it's REPEAL, REPEAL, REPEAL.
I see SUCKERS, SUCKERS, SUCKERS.
I am not sure how "free market" principles apply to health care, but if I as a very healthy 28 year old single person don't want to spend my money for health care why should I be forced t0, my neighbor agrees with that if I am willing to agree that if I crash my motorcycle and have severe injuries, the local hospital need not provide me medical services unless I pay in advance, that he and the rest of my neighbors don't have to use their dollars to pay for my care. In short if I want the freedom not to buy insurance then the other half of that is I am willing to pay my own bills, not to ask others to absorb the cost, if I can't pay, if others don't pay does the "free Market" allow a hospital to refuse medical services for someone who can't or won't pay for their own care ? Hugh, watervliet, NY
A "free market" by definition would not allow or disallow anything in particular, it allows the best offerings to succeed because they become the most popular. I think what's being missed here is exactly what mr. wiener lied about on lawrence's show the other night and that is nobody was being denied treatment before the healthcare bill and yes those who couldn't afford to pay for their care and didn't have insurance passed that on to the taxpayers. Under the healthcare bill those same "freeloaders" as mr. wiener calls them are still being taken care of by the rest of us, slight difference is that we're buying their insurance for them rather than just picking up their emergency room visit, at first sight it seems like a reasonable idea, but the ramifications are huge, beyond what you might expect, I won't go into all the ramifications I'm aware of here but to impose something as odious as a mandate enforced by the IRS and really not achieve any improvement for the vast majority of americans is shameful. Insult to injury is to hear these dem politicians say the public option is the best way to go but we opted for a bloated complicated mandated system because we had to make the insurance company's happy and the boogeyman republicans wouldn't let us, nevermind the bill that passed in fact passed without a single repub vote in the senate. Gutless wonders they never really tried and they know it, it was just too easy to sellout to the insurance industry and tell everyone what a fabulous achievment this was, knowing all their dem sheep would believe it no matter what the reality was.
Just a little note on Melissa Harris Perry's comment about how repub opposition to abortion funding is like a mandate to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Those who have different values than Perry shouldn't be forced to fund abortion via fed tax dollars. Overturning roe v. wade doesn't prohibit abortion it just doesn't allow federal funding of it and allows states to make the call on legality, it doesn't seem like a very good comparison to me although I'll give it high marks for being provocative. And if anyone can point me to the source material for Perry's claim that federalism and states rights are about the protection and maintenance of slavery, please do post. Regardless what does this have to do with a heathcare mandate's constitutionality? Can you say red herring?
No post on the source for Ms. Perry's comments? hmmmm I guess it was a creation of her bitter mind. Perhaps Ms. Perry should ponder what percentage of Americans, who had the means and need for slaves, owned slaves during this time period. I do not know the answer but suspect it is extremely high. Context is everything here and ms. perry gives none with her comments. Slavery was legal and accepted practice and what might be more telling about our founding fathers who owned slaves is how they treated them, some slaves where treated like animals and other slaves more like respected servants. Where did our founding fathers fall on this continuum? And finally how long can you hang on to bitterness and loathing for the founders and the system of govt. they created, when it ultimately produced Pres. Obama and you Ms. "ivy league" Perry. I think I will remain blissfully patriotic and continue to believe federalism and states rights has to do with the balance of power that was struck so delicately by our founders that it produced, while not perfect, the best system of govt. this planet has ever known. Finally to Ms. Perry, consider your genealogy and look at the country of your origins. As heinous a practice as slavery was it landed you in the most just and prosperous country on the planet, maybe based on this realization you could muster a little serendipitous joy and leave the bitterness to the past generations who had a real reason to be bitter.