Hudson's ruling would make sense the day I can opt out of paying my own increased premiums when other Americans who can opt out saunter into the ER for health care that they did not pay for (which costs me $1,000 per year right now)?

The moment the health industry removes its fundamental oath to treat anyone that is sick. The day ER care becomes optional in the US (or anywhere in the world for that matter). The day I can opt out of Medicare payments and Medicare itself is unconstitutional as well as Social Security. If I can opt out of both those (maybe even out of wars that were found with false reasons and get my tax refund for those parts).

You won't be fined by the government if you choose to walk or take publc transportation rather than get auto insurance and drive your car.

No one is forced to buy auto insurance. You have the choice not to drive. Apples and oranges.

Will you opt out of paying your own increased premiums Jim C and Indy Lib when I or millions of other Americans saunter into the ER for health care that they did not pay for?

If I can opt out of that then I will agree with the decision to allow other opt out. The moment the health industry removes its oath to treat anyone that is sick. The day ER care becomes optional in the US (or anywhere in the world for that matter). That's apples to apples.

i must be dreaming, yes the state cannot force you have to have Car Insurance. But if you decide you want to drive on state roads then you agree that you must purchase car insurance.

forcing someone to buy health insurance for no other reason that they are alive, clearly violates your rights to decide if you want to purchase a product or not. And the court today agreed, Congress cannot force you to purchase any product.

What about if you decide you want to NOT go to a hospital ER when you become sick? Oh you cant.

Actually, Richter, if you are conscious they cannot force you to go to the doctor or hospital if you are sick or injured without your permission. The problems come in when you are unable to speak for yourself. Even your family members cannot force you to seek medical treatment without getting a court order, and then they have to prove incompetence.

Yes you can. You are not required to accept any medical treatment.

My exact question!

FrankUSA,

All humans get sick, or have some kind of accident at some point in their lives. Over 30,000,000 million Americans were previously uninsured. some because they could not afford health insurance and others because insurance companies refused to insure them. This reform bill offers solutions to these groups of uninsured. Therefore, most of the barriers to purchasing health insurance have been removed. If most Americans purchase insurance, gradually, insurance rates will decrease, and less people will have to use emergency rooms for routine care. If less uninsured people use emergency rooms, less taxpayer dollars are required, and hospitals & insurance companies will have to transfer less liability from those that are uninsured to those that are insured. The uninsured affects all of our premiums.

We can change the bill to allow citizens to opt-out if they sign a no-treatment affidavit, if they don't sign a no-treatment affidavit and are treated, they pay the fine.

If the tax was not attached to the bill, the bill would not have had any enforcement power, that is the main reason it is there. Healthcare liable is pulling our profitability down and something had to be done. The States argument is a week argument, everyone knows that some states will offer better solutions to health care than others. We can see the same problem with Education. Education is left to the States, and we see that our children are not equally educated. Some states offer a better education than others and if you cannot afford to send your children to a private school in many cases they are screwed. It is the same way with healthcare today. We need a Federal healthcare solution that will apply to all citizens of the United States of America.

Judge Hudson made a decision based on his political affiliation, not as a judge with an unbiased opinion. How can you possibly say this law is unconstitutional and say that the insurance law is? The reason it was instituted (the insurance law) is for the exact same reason, which is this:

The Affordable Care Act came into being precisely because of the interconnectedness of our health care costs. People who make an economic decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market, but instead shift their costs to others when they become ill or are involved in an accident and cannot pay. Those costs - $43 billion in 2008 alone - are borne by doctors, hospitals, insured individuals, taxpayers and small businesses throughout the nation. This cost-shift added on average $1,000 to family premiums in 2009 and roughly $410 to an individual premium.

Steven, More of the liberal and progressives talking points. The left always blame the judges decision on political affiliation except when it goes their way. BTW what costs have been lowered because of this bill, as claimed above by the WH response above?

Disagree, the judge ruled correctly based on the constitution, in which there does not exsist anywhere, that gives Congress the right to force a Citizen to purchase a product. Never before has congress tried to do so, and the court correctly ruled that that provision of the law is unconstitutional.

They need to take the non paying illgals and make them pay that would drive down health care. I pay for mine at 66+ I still work full time so I don't take Medicare. I am finished with paying for the freeloaders. Go to work, be here legal and pay your way. I have always paid my own way and it's my choice not the government.

Actually, I think if they removed the mandate that hospitals must treat anything that comes through their doors if they are to receive government money, the illegals would stop using them so much. They would have their 'anchor babies' on the streets or go home to have them. At least they wouldn't be a burden on the taxpayer for their medical care.

nanag,

Instead of worrying about undocumented workers, try worrying about American citizens that were suffering because they, even those that worked hard, could not afford health insurance. To get back at a few, we are now willing to punish our own fellow citizens? Those of us that have insurance have seen our premiums go up because of the uninsured. We have some of the best health care, in the area of knowledge, but many of our fellow citizens working citizens were denied access to these medical wonders because they could not afford heath insurance and all some of you can focus on is illegal immigrants? Once we grow-up, we can see the big picture and understand that healthcare reform is necessary (not just tort reform and exchanges) if we are to grow and prosper as a country.

To FrankUSA,

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. ... [Congress]To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof..

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

If these posts are representative of the people, Congress will raise a lot of revenue from all of those that refuse to purchase health insurance.

Carmarie, No where in Article 1 Section 1 does it permit congress to force the American people to purchase anything against their will. Maybe you should read more of the constitution and what it actual means. Actually your comment does nothing to advance the discussion of this subject.

I have not only read the Constitution, but have read the Federalist papers and other books and articles pertaining to the Constitution. The penalty imposed is really a tax which Congress has the Constitutional right to impose.

Carmarie, You are just spouting the democrats talking points. A penalty is not a tax. I suppose if congress wanted to call a horse a zebra it would make a horse a zebra. The judge was right no matter how you spin it.

If a penalty is not a tax, why do you keep saying that a tax is a penalty?

Very Good point

This law also shift the cost to our higher premiums which is why Health care premiums went up a higher % for 2011 compared to the last several years.

Our health care premiums have been going up average of 16% every year for the past 10+ years before this law (about 30% for some in 2008)!!!

That was what makes every administration for decades keep trying to get a health care law!

The thing is, Obamacare did NOT address the real problems with the delivery of medical care. If it had, people would not be so upset about it. All this piece of unConstitutional trash does is line the pockets of bib pharma and insurance companies and pay back political favors. If it were such an upstanding piece of legislation, why did so many votes have to be bought?

Thanks Marv, great point.

I concur with the issue of cost shifting. I have worked in hospitals for over 20 years, and cost shifting does occur because of those who do not have insurance. Granted, there were roadblocks to getting insurance, which health care reform is trying to fix - for example, cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, can't have caps on coverage, can't expel sickest from coverage, etc. Another costly fallout for those not having insurance is that they wait until they are very, very ill before getting treatment. This is a huge drain on our resources. Prevention is a much better option and much less costly. People need to take responsibility for their health..........

Tammy,

People were upset before they knew what was in the plan. Fearing change is what got most people up in arms. Many did not know what they were protesting, they only knew that the reform act would affect health insurance. The President and Democrats made changes in the reform act to include some of the Republican proposals and they still were not satisfied. I am still stumped by the number of people that are currently acting against their best interest. Is there something in the water?

Banning private medicine would be unconstitutional.

No more than this ridiculous idiocy called HCR!

Alan, NJ: I'd like to know what costs have come down since the law has passed.

None. But it's the intent that counts, correct?

And besides, the magic just hasn't happened yet. Just like with the 2009 ObamaStimulus, the jobs will come, they just haven't come yet, but they will come . . . . . Any day now they'll be here . . . . . We've turned the corner . . . . . Recover Summer, ehh, Fall, ehh, Winter . . . . . .

The correct question Alan is not since the law has passed but since X amount of it has been implemented. Laws don't create effects just by passing but by implementation.

Many of the provisions do not kick-in until 2014. However, listed below are a few provisions of the reform bill that have been implemented:

2010

1. Small Business Credit

Provides tax credits to small employers with no more than 25 employees and average annual wages of less than $50,000 that provide health insurance for employees. Phase I (2010-2013): tax credit up to 35% (25% for non-profits) of employer cost; Phase II (2014 and later): tax credit up to 50% (35% for non-profits) of employer cost if purchased through an insurance Exchange for two years.

Implementation: January 1, 2010

2. Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan

Creates a temporary program to provide health coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months. The plan will be operated by the states or the federal government.

Implementation: Enrollment into the federal plan began July 1, 2010; implementation dates for the state-operated plans vary

3. Coverage of Preventive Benefits

Requires new health plans to provide at a minimum coverage without cost-sharing for preventive services rated A or B by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommended immunizations, preventive care for infants, children, and adolescents, and additional preventive care and screenings for women.

Implementation: Plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2010

4. Adult Dependent Coverage to Age 26

Extends dependent coverage for adult children up to age 26 for all individual and group policies.

Implementation: Plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2010

5. Insurance Plan Appeals Process

Requires new health plans to implement an effective process for allowing consumers to appeal health plan decisions and requires new plans to establish an external review process.

Implementation: Plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2010

Since we have to purchase health insurance it is not Medicare for all. If we had a single payer system, then the person could complain, as he visited his doctor's office that its "Medicare for all."

Or a sicker less productive American work force with a bleak existence, bleak life outlook, bleak security to hazard out on self employment and small business, and a bleak future. Except that is already trending every year for a good while now.

70% of the people in this Country do not want Public Option/Single Pay insurance and it will not happen. Thank God.

You're right Dave. Best to leave all medical decisions in the hands of folks who have a dedicated interest in providing you with the least amount of medical care at the greatest amount of profit.

Kind of like Obamacare does, eh, Indy?

Tammy,

Do you know what is in the reform act? Some of the provisions that have been implemented are helping people already.

Then I would like to see the other states like Missouri that has passed a law that allows us to opt out of this crap also. I want Missouri to have a stronger Illegal laws also send their a$$es packing and we will be able to save money there. We should also have ID cards stating that you are a US citizen and id you are not in the database they have the right to refuse you service. That will keep a lot of them out of our state

There goes our freedoms... Fear will destroy us. One day when we finally stop to think, it will be to late.

Salt Grass; [We already pay for the poor and uninsured. it is called medicaid.]

who forced us to pay for that? what is the difference between them and we, being required to pay???

Dale - 763548

If we followed your line of reasoning, there would not be any uninsured because they are covered under medicaid. However, there are many Americans that work for firms that do not offer group health insurance and the rate for individual coverage is just too high for them to afford. Medicaid do not cover these people. You have an option not to pay. If you don't pay you will pay a penalty (tax). It's is your choice.

I am covered by my company; however, I do know several people that work for small enterprises that do not offer group health insurance as a benefit. The the people I know cases, the individual rates is just to high for them to afford coverage.

Kudos to this judge for considering the Constitution first and foremost re: the issue of the mandate to buy health insurance. America is facing multiple major issues, however, that should never be an excuse to side-step the Constitution.

"We the People" are not responsible for the gains and losses of insurance companies. Mandating health insurance is a bail-out for another business entity, and should NOT be forced upon any citizen in this country.

Allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines would force the issue of competition in the insurance industry and, until that happens, they have no incentive to change how THEY do business. Their lobbying power (like that of all other lobbyists) should also be eliminated. Lobbying is bribery, plain and simple.

Good decision on this issue. Now let's hope it goes to SC and achieves the same ruling.

No MN, We the People are not responsible for the gains and losses of a private industry; however, all people should be concerned about their personal gains and losses when they look at the deductions on their paycheck.

Actually, Jill, I did read it. It's only 42 pages and it's even double spaced, so it didn't take long at all.

From what I could see, the federal government tried several different tactics to try to get it thrown out and did not succeed. They tried saying that certain rulings set the precident, but the judge did not agree with their choice of precidents and cited other rulings that actually had more bearing on the case. He did not agree with all of the precidents cited by Virginia either, by the way, but it looked like Virginia did a better job on their homework than the feds did.

A lot of the decision is based on the feds saying that a penalty was equal to a tax, when the wording was obviously changed from a previous revision of the bill saying 'tax' to the word 'penalty' in the section that was struck down. They obviously were using the words to mean two different things in the final version, unlike what the feds were claiming. It was because the fees imposed are a penalty that the commerce clause is not valid as the federal government claims and it is what the judge cited as unconstitutional.

In other words, the judge said in his decision, that although they wanted to try to do the right thing, they went into an area that is clearly off limits by our Constitution. In other words, you can't make someone purchase a commercial product just to exist in this country.

Tammy, I, too, read the opinion and didn't need your explanation of what the opinion said. The opinion addressed two separate arguments put forth by the federal government, which you conflate in your summary. But, at least you read the thing before spouting off on it.

Many of the people on this blog seem to be saying that because the passage of the ACA is for the "benefit" of the people (in their view), the constitutionality of the law should not be as much of a concern. These are the very same people who will argue against, for example, the use of tactics like waterboarding because we must hold "true to principle." Well, what greater "principles" are there besides those enshrined in our very own Constitution?

With the size and influence of the health insurance lobby Frank, I doubt that problem will last long. Just an opinion. I was never a fan of the forced mandates; it's one reason I never considered voting for Hillary.

Jim C,

The link you posted is to a blog, it is someone's opinion. I read it and found two mistakes off the bat.

Candice,

It is a tax, and if the government calls it what it is, than it becomes constitutional. What happened was the Democrats fall into the Republican trap and were afraid to call it a tax because the Republicans would then say, the Democrats were raising taxes.

Glen,

That is the Republican line, and you presented it very well; however, the Budget Office stated that Tort Reform would only save enough to cover approximately 3,000,000 more people. What happens to the other 27,000,000 that will still be uninsured. Therefore, the must touted Tort Reform platform will do little to fix health care costs and take away the ability for the little guy to exercise his/her right to compensation for doctors and hospitals mistakes.