READ THE 11TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION
11TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECLARES INSURANCE MANDATE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
21 posts - 10 voices- Started 1 year ago by Checker
- Latest reply from Obot 50549535
- out of
- Rate this Topic here:
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Significantly, the court concluded even though that key section to be unconstitutional, the entire law need not be set aside.
In
fact, the judges said the law's expansion of the federal Medicaid
program was constitutional, since states-- which administer it -- would
not bear "the costs of the program's amplified enrollments."The
ruling conflicts with another federal appeals court in Cincinnati, which
found the "individual mandate" to be lawful. That conflicts sets up a
final ruling on the matter from the Supreme Court in coming months.Posted 1 year ago # -
Fair & Balanced? Sample headlines from around the net.
Washington Post
Appeals court strikes down health overhaul requirement that most Americans must buy insuranceCNN
Appeals court says key parts of health-care reform unconstitutionalMSNBC
APPEALS COURT STRIKES DOWN HEALTH CARE REQUIREMENTYahoo
Court: Part of health care law unconstitutionalFox
OBAMACARE SLAPDOWN!Posted 1 year ago # -
Hoodie,
LOL....LOL....LOL, does FOX'S headliner surprise you?
Posted 1 year ago # -
'Course not. LOL I just wanted to illustrate the difference between news organizations and tabloid reporting.. ROFL
Posted 1 year ago # -
Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law
Published:
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 | 1:48 PM ET
Text Size 
-
Twitter
LinkedIn
Share
WASHINGTON
- An appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama's
healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a
penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.The
Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that
Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage,
but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in
effect.The
legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the 2010
healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court.
The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.The
case stems from a challenge by 26 U.S. states which had argued the
individual mandate, set to go into effect in 2014, was unconstitutional
because Congress could not force Americans to buy health insurance or
face the prospect of a penalty."This
economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded
assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to
purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to
buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month
for their entire lives," a divided three-judge panel said.Obama
and his administration had pressed for the law to help halt the steep
increases in healthcare costs and expand insurance coverage to the more
than 30 million Americans who are without it.It
argued that the requirement was legal under the Commerce Clause of the
Constitution. One of the three judges of the appeals court panel,
Stanley Marcus, agreed with the administration in dissenting from the
majority opinion.The
majority "has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power
has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now
generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create
rules regulating large areas of our national economy," Marcus wrote.Many other provisions of the healthcare law are already being implemented.
The
decision contrasts with one by the U.S. Appeals Court for the 6th
Circuit, based in Cincinnati, which had upheld the individual mandate as
constitutional. That case has already been appealed to the Supreme
Court.The Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, has yet to rule on a separate challenge by the state of Virginia.
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
Posted 1 year ago # -
LOL......oh those silly Murdoch puppets!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Wonder what Fox will do if Chief Justice Roberts votes to keep the mandate. They probably don't have a talking point ready for that.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I suppose the govt will request a review by the whole court. But none of the articles I've read say one way or the other.
Posted 1 year ago # -
In
fact, the judges said the law's expansion of the federal Medicaid
program was constitutional, since states-- which administer it -- would
not bear "the costs of the program's amplified enrollments."**********************
Who do they think would "bear" the amplified enrollments costs if not the individual States? Is the FED supposed to foot the bill and if so who do these Judges think "the Feds" are anyway if not the "FEDeration of States"? Is one State supposed to bail out another? WTF?!! this part of the ruling is so stupid its hard to believe.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yawn..............not one of these cases means fuck all square. Until the Supreme Court gets a casde AND makes a decision it's all piss and wind...........just like all the RWNJ crap
Posted 1 year ago # -
You have to love how FOX goes the extra mile to make themselves into the Star or Enquirer....
Posted 1 year ago # -
So why do you watch them when you have msnbc, pravda and tass to feed you the communist point of view?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well if the Supreme Court finds health insurance mandates unconstitutional - then there is a good case to win a law suit declaring Social Security requirements unconstitutional.
Posted 1 year ago # -
BB,
Good point!!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
So if the Court says Congress can mandate you purchase health insurance...what else can they mandate you buy, and are they than essensially dictators?
Posted 1 year ago # -
jtfax -- you may laugh, but the ridiculous talking point you just presented is basically the argument of the 26 states.
It's sad they couldn't come up with anything based on law. Like, where does the Commerce Clause talk about limitations on Congress's ability to regulate Commerce? Answer: it doesn't. That's what the Constitution says. The 26 states don't like that, so they want the Supreme Court to invent a limitation that is not in the Constitution.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Good!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Newsmax's Patten Misleads About Health Care Reform Ruling
Topic: NewsmaxAn Aug. 12 Newsmax article by David Patten promotes the 11th Circuit U.S. Couirt of Appeals ruling against the individual mandate in President Obama's health care reform law, citing various "experts" to inveigh against the law and in favor of the ruling. But all of Patten's "experts" are conservatives not identified as such, Patten ignores another appellate court ruling in favor of the reform law, and he misleads about the nature of how judges have ruled on the law.
Patten quotes "healthcare expert" Betsy McCaughey -- a longtime serial misleader on health care reform -- asserting that the ruling is "a very important day for all Americans who care about individual liberty, and a very important day for those who are concerned about the economic growth urgently needed by this nation" and that it "effectively puts the brakes on cash-strapped states’ implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." But Patten buries the fact that the Sixth Circuit federal appeals court ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the law in June, writing only that "In June, a Cincinnati court ruled in favor of the law in a case brought by the Thomas More Law Center." Patten failed to identify that ruling as coming from a federal appellate court, just like the 11th Circuit ruling.
Newsmax published no analysis of that ruling, only a short AP article.
Patten wrote the "Cincinnati court" ruling "was notable because one of the judges in the majority was a Republican," adding:
So far, federal judges in Florida and Virginia have ruled against the Act, while judges in Michigan and Virginia upheld it. Judges appointed by Democrats have consistently upheld the law, while Republican judges generally ruled against it. But Friday, one Republican judicial appointee and one Democratic judicial appointee concurred that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
As Patten hinted but didn't explain, just like in the 11th Circuit, the Sixth Circuit ruling had a Republican-appointed judge and a Democratic-appointed judge in concurrence in favor of the law. Indeed, that Republican judge was appointed by President Bush with 41 Senate Democrats voting against him.
As we've detailed, Patten as a long history of slavishly following conservative talking points in his reporting.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Wonder what that part about "effectively puts the brakes on cash-strapped states’ implementation" is all about. The appeal court ruled against the 26 states' complaints about Medicaid, and also did nothing to stop implementation, i.e. there was no injunction or anything like that.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.