E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Handing an important tactical victory to challengers of the new health-care law, a federal judge today refused to throw out one of the first lawsuits against it. And in doing so, he said the arguments against the law are worth further consideration.
The challenge was brought by the state of Virginia, which passed a law declaring that no state resident can be required to buy insurance. Though finding that the law "has a distinctive political undercurrent," Judge Henry Hudson nonetheless ruled today that Virginia has a legitimate interest in defending it. He rejected the Justice Department's argument that the state has no legal standing to challenge the health-care law and that any lawsuit is premature -- given that the federal requirement won't take effect until 2014.
Virginia claims the health-care law's requirement, that all Americans buy health insurance, violates the Constitution's commerce clause, which gives Congress power to regulate interstate commerce. The state argues that a decision NOT to buy something is not an economic activity -- it's the lack of it -- and is therefore beyond the reach of Congress. The federal government responds that no person can simply choose to avoid participating in the health care market, because everyone will eventually require medical care.
The Justice Department also says the federal law contains a penalty for failing to buy insurance, and Congress has broad taxing authority. The state contends, however, that the purpose of taxes is to raise money. If everyone buys health insurance, no penalties will be paid, and no revenue will be raised. So the state says it's not really a tax.
In today's ruling, the judge wrote that Virginia's attack on the constitutionality of the federal health care law has some merit. The law, he said, "extends Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high watermark."
"Neither the US Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed this issue" of whether Congress has the power to regulate and tax a person's decision not to participate in interstate commerce, he said.
Each side has some good arguments, the judge concluded, finding that the lawsuit should stay alive so that the issues can be hashed out in a full-blown trial over the health-care law.
Leave a Comment:
As Judge Judy said, Don't pe on my leg and tell it's raining... many on the Right are a glutton for punishment and this ruling from the South is a hard knock on many who realize that HCR is a test of ideals to a new age that involves new technologies in the medical field, new practices in stem cell use, new patient accountability for their own health and new areas of research that will be developed by our children.
I for one am certain that the HCR is for the best and will be tweaked as time goes by. It was necessary to get through at the time, although it was not perfect, what the hell is.
Virginia is in for beating in terms of tied up nonsense. I can only ascertain that the judge is reading deeply as possible between the lines to support some other motive the TEA party 'patriots' have assured would benefit him. The MSM will leave well enough alone because he supports the Right Wing Fringe nutcases.
Enjoyed your post. HCR is for the good of all.
Once again, Lewis, it was the Commonwealth of VA and not the Tea Party suing. And if you're so sure that the judge was promised something to rule this way, should I ask the same about Judge Bolton's ruling in AZ last week?
Your right dirt, it is the Common Wealth of Va. but what you again fail to state is the Governor and the attorney general who brought the law suit are both teabaggers. So in theory it was brought by the teabaggers.
LouisJ " HCR is a test of ideals to a new age that involves new technologies in the medical field, new practices in stem cell use, new patient accountability for their own health and new areas of research that will be developed by our children."
What a utopia you preach. Unfortunately, none of that is in the HCR bill. Explain how requiring people to buy something from a private company accomplishes any of your goals.
See that's the problem with maintaining the same stagnant attitude of whoever you have listened to your whole life. We cannot move forward with the way things have been in the past.
I never said it was written into the legislation. That's part of the academia to prove in the fields themselves. But you will never get it.
Why isn't Virginia arguing that Congress has abandoned insurance regulation to the states? Anyone know?
Should be interesting to watch. The judge did not rule one way or the other--just ruled for further consideration. Overall, health care reform is legal but the mandatory purchase could be questionable with both sides having good arguments.
Judy,
How is a service like HC legal? I have HC, so why should I pay for it if I don't want it? How can the Government force me to pay for something I don't want? It's not reform if I'm forced into it.
It's a service right , just like gas , food we need it so lets let the GOV run it we are forced to buy it because we need it. If we cant buy it we go without or the welfare will kick in and pay it if you are forced to go that low.
Gotta go the show is on as announced..
It wasn't a tax but now it is a tax? And, what hypocrisy for DOJ to say it hasn't even gone into effect yet. Why didn't they abide by that in the AZ case?
Before people get their knickers all in a twist just remember this is just a judge saying that more consideration is necessary. Nothing more, nothing less. That part of the law isn't even in affect yet, for crying out loud.
Actually if we offered people the opportunity to buy low cost insurance through the govt., private insurance, or no insurance at all but have them sign papers allowing everything they own to be taken to cover any medical bills, if necessary we would truly have something for everyone. No one would be compelled to buy insurance, the government could provide a policy that covers everything but for an affordable cost and then there would be the regular insurance companies who could choose to be competitive or not.
That way the tea partiers could have their choice not to buy insurance if they desire. Those with some wealth may want to opt for the regular insurance companies and for those trying to make ends meet the govt program would be available. There would be an opportunity to change once per year.
Adler, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people , not just tea party folks as you imply, on all sides of the aisle that don't want to be forced to buy this
Adler-273784
i went home on lunch and the chick on fox basicly said that the judge would not throw the siut out because the government has no right to make people buy ins. what you said was right, the guest tried to tell the chick on fox what your saying but she said that no no the judge has sided with the AG in virgina. then fox has a poll saying most people are still not infavor in the HCR but last week FR ran a story saying the opposit, that people are warming up to the HCR now they are finding more about it. FOX makies me sick, i'm waiting for them to screw up and get put off the air. like last week they saidf on 4 different ocasions that the DOJ under the Obama administration choose not to go after the new black panther party, but we all know that it was the Bush administration that choose not to.
fox news they lie and lie, i hope one day therre lies wil put them off the air.
That ain't going to happen Jeff, the conservative activist court has already ruled that Fox lies are free speech protected under the first amendment. In their ruling that stated they could tell all the lies they wanted to and it would be protected. And as long as the 1% of the teabaggers keep tuning in to Fox their not going away. But on the bright side they do make MSNBC and the Democrats look a whole lot better to the rest of the country.
Maybe VA should subpoena Barry Obama to reassure the country, under penalty of perjury, it's NOT a tax.
LOL!!!
Joe, obama and his democrat buddies have stated that this is not a tax. Should be interesting testimony.
Mark, I heard that last week during arguments they did argue it's a tax. And, if not a tax, why did they argue that Congress had "broad taxing authority"?
It doesn't matter what it is. Everyone of us pays a "tax" for our health insurance to cover those who don't, won't, or can't afford health insurance--we pay for emergency care through increased premiums and co-pays and so do the employers who subsidize employee health care.
Actually, Jody, it does matter because the HCR law may not be constitutional under Congress's commerce clause powers. The Barry DOJ is now arguing it is a tax because the Congressional powers under the taxing provisions of the Constitution are much broader. Although I have seen one opinion piece in the WSJ that argues even if it is considered a tax, it is not one that would be authorized in the current Constituion. This law professor argues that, just like the income tax required a constitutuional amendment, the HCR tax would also need an amendment to pass constitutional muster.
This is going to be entertaining viewing.
Joe,
This is a case where they are correct with both the claim and the way they are fighting it in court.
If you purchase health insurance there is no penalty aka tax. The President’s claim is true.
When the DOJ fights it in court it will be called a tax because the way it is controlled by the IRS.
Joe it will only be entertaining to you till you lose again just like always. And then it will be an outrage and to you teabagger republicans the next thing out of your mouths will be well well it will cost the Democrats big time in November. We've heard it all before Joe nothing new here.
I have to admit a "federal mandate" to purchase a product from a corrupt industry has a somewhat sinister ring to it. I believe they should have dropped the federal mandate when they dropped the public option which was the centerpiece of price control and forced competition and offered an escape from any shenanigans the private insurance industry delved into, as a matter of fact the whole reform bill should have been scuttled because you really can't have "reform" without an alternative to private insurance companies. The insurance industry won and the American people lost, the Dems should have stuck to their guns on the public option that for months was a "must have", and Obama campaigned on the public option being absolutely necessary, which it is , only problem the insurance lobbyists wanted no part of it, Obama should have vetoed the sad bill sent to him and demanded they try again, but he wanted a quick win, he got a quick win alright, a quick win for the insurance industry at the expense of the American people.
Health care in this country is mosly for the better off, a shrinking number of us, we should care for each other, but the repubs see it as I got mine, get off your lazy a$$, and get yours. This monster that now consumes one dollar in six in this economy will continue to grow to one in five, one in four....., without addressing the problem. The dems are trying something, to addresss this problem, while the repubs (rich) will continue to ignor it. I hav'nt figured out how the repubs can continualy fool so many of the poor of this country, but they seem to believe them even as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...?
That's the million dollar question isn't it. One way is the republicans fool so many poor people is to convince them that religion and social issues must mean they care about their economic issues, too, which is far from the truth.
they keep telling the poor their giving them big tax breaks and their taking care of them and their too stupid to see their being lied to, that's why they all watch Fox and listen to Limbaugh.
On the face of it, if there is a question about law, court is the place to resolve it. I felt that way about the immigration law, I feel that way now. Does the Federal Govt. have an interest in people protecting themselves with insurance? I think that question is answered affirmatively. Witness the struggle of hospitals to collect unpaid debt, since there are those who cannot pay the bill. Here is a question for those of you in flood prone areas. Does the Federal Govt. require residents in certain areas to carry flood insurance? This is something I have wondered about since the debate began on HCR. Would be interested in someone has the answer.
On the face of it, if there is a question about law, court is the place to resolve it. I felt that way about the immigration law, I feel that way now. Does the Federal Govt. have an interest in people protecting themselves with insurance? I think that question is answered affirmatively. Witness the struggle of hospitals to collect unpaid debt, since there are those who cannot pay the bill. Here is a question for those of you in flood prone areas. Does the Federal Govt. require residents in certain areas to carry flood insurance? This is something I have wondered about since the debate began on HCR. Would be interested if someone has the answer.
Yes, I'm pretty certain the government requires home owners living in flood plains to purchase Flood Insurance in order to qualify for federal assistance. Just last week, a private dam broke in Iowa, the local district officials had opted against the federal flood control plan, and insurance program because they didn't like the "strings" that came with it. Had they opted in, the fed govt would have maintained the dam for one good thing. The week before last the dam broke flooding the area, destroying some homes. FEMA says they do not qualify for federal assistance because they refused to buy flood insurance, etc. Should be interesting to see how it goes. Some of the homeowners aren't happen with the local politicians for not opting in.
It reminds me of government stay out of our lives except when we didn't do what we should have and need it.
Thanks Jody, I was thinking that a requirement for flood insurance was also true in some areas here. Which brings me to my question...why can it be required if the righties want to make the argument that it is a violation of the Commerce Clause. I actually think that Clause supports it.
Jody - accoriding to your statement, the federal government does not mandate anyone to buy flood insurance. If you want to qualify for federal assistance, however, you must have flood insurance. The two are very, very different. If you do not care about qualifying for flood assistance from the federal government, your comment suggests there is no mandate for you to have it.
I have no idea why that double posted. Was trying to fix a typo. Sorry.
Fine, VA, and other state that joins in this foolishness. If the AG/LTG of States speaks for the citizenry of their states, so be it!
Don't buy coverage if you don't want it. Don't go to the ER or any other Medical Facility if you have NO coverage. Handle your business/health care the best way you can! That'll show the Obama Administration!
I don't want no stinkin' medical coverage!
As a partner in a small construction company who employees 42 people, this bill terrifies me! We pay our people an above average rate for our area and I have always paid 50% of my employees coverage and they pay for their families, even with premiums increasing every year. We have had to at times raise the deductable inorder to afford to keep the coverage. Under this bill I will now have to pay 75% of their coverage and 65% of their families coverage. Then this is to be reported on their W-2's and TAXED as income! Wake up people...this is going to bankrupt us all! Also, under this bill I can not change any existing coverage or be taxed for it. We are barely surviving! This will put us out of business and 42 more Americans will go on the dole! At this rate we will be a socialist country before 2014! What ever happended to the parts of the bill addressing medical lawsuites? That's right the lawyers i.e. congress and the senate wrote that part out!
Lisa your going to have to stop watching Fox, your workers will not be tax as income for their premiums, the reporting on their w-2's is so the irs will know who has insurance and who doesn't. Fox the teabagger republicans are trying to scare you and it seams they have succeeded.
Lisa, I'd recommend you find a competent tax accountant. Whoever is feeding you this line is clearly not helping you avoid unnecessary tax liability. You have perfectly parroted the 'rightwing' fear/smear campaign for how they perceive this bill. If you could line that up with factcheck.org or any other reputable fact checking site, you'd see a completely different picture. Of course, you'd have to WANT to see the truth. Or keep your blinders on and blame big governtment.
WOW, so tell me what's in the Bill? You read all of the pages? She owns a company and you tell her she's wrong? AWESOME!!
The states can make it a law that everyone has to have liability insurance when driving, they can make it a law that everyone has to use seat belts and have to wear motorcycle helmets and then they make laws against smoking in public places ... yet they fight Health Care Reform that also protects the people and has similarities to the values gained in those other laws. It would seem that there are other values at play here then just what is in the people's best interests ... like satisfying Special Interests and a select few, the influential, powerful and extremely wealthy supporters who stand to gain by blocking implementation of Health Care Reform. Again, it would seem there are those who put their political ambitions above all else, at any cost and without conscience while they just depend on subterfuge to manipulate public opinion.
RGiles - States have the right to do everything you list in your comment. States also have the right to mandate health insurance, like Massachusetts did. The question is whether or not the Constitution permits the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to mandate health insurance. The Constitution is very specific about what powers are granted to the federal government. Those powers not granted to the Feds, and are not prohibited elsewhere in the Constitution, are all given to the states. Our Founding Fathers had strong distrust of centralized government and did their best to limit their power. We should be just as cautious as the Founders were.
The courts have 4 years to make rulings before anything is enacted. It might be good to have the courts in on comments BEFORE the law is passed, but this is the system we have and we will work with it.
to Joe in Albany Now that Comcast bought NBC/MSNBC I'm sure they are going to want to make money. So I'll bet most of the Ultra Liberial news reporters will be gone soon. And replaced by more middle ground reporters who don't just write the White House talking Points Line By Line. It will be very refreshing.
Those of you who call yourself Republicans. You really think the Insurance Companies have your best interest in mind? If the Right Wing Politicians thought stepping on sidewalk cracks would keep you interested and off the real issues, they'd use it. You all spew REPUBLICAN talking points. Democrats are too divided to have talking points that could gather a majority to follow.
You miss the point...we Republicans want an overhaul of the healthcare system. We don't want higher premiums. The issue is the way this bill was crafted and voted on....they didn't even read the darn thing before passing it.