Jan
31

Healthcare Reform Ruling: A Quick Response

7 Comments

Many supposedly neutral courts are proving to be political hurdles to the implementation of healthcare reform.

As U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson passed down his ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I felt an immediate need to respond to the ruling.

First of all, Republicans are sure to seize on this ruling as justification for the law’s repeal. Their logic, however, will be flawed. The law has already been upheld as constitutional by two judges, and the only judge that has ruled it unconstitutional simply focused on the individual mandate. Judge Vinson has made the unprecedented step of going as far as ruling the entire law unconstitutional, a clearly inappropriate and unprecedented action with a bill of the size, scope, and importance as the healthcare reform law.

Its clear that question of constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not a constitutional question, but rather a conflict of partisan ideology. The lawsuit in Florida was filed by a Republican Attorney General. Not by accident, it was filed in a court in Pensacola, one of the most conservative parts of the state. In the collection of states that sued following the passage of the healthcare bill, almost all of them have Republican governors or attorney generals.

Former Republican Attorney General of Florida Bill McCollum filed his lawsuit minutes after the bill was passed by congress. While the majority of Republicans were complaining about not having enough time to read or understand the complex legislation, Attorney General McCollum clearly had enough time to understand it to sue to take healthcare and benefits away from millions of deserving Americans.

Most striking is Florida Governor Rick Scott’s discussion of the ruling, as explored by the Huffington Post. He called the bill “an unprecedented and unconstitutional infringement on the liberty of the American people.” When it has been determined the prison inmates across the country have a right to healthcare, it’s quite clear that Judge Vinson infringed on the rights and liberty of millions of Americans by removing their ability to purchase and receive healthcare. One can only hope that the Supreme Court will act with more prudence and thoughtful consideration when the bill inevitably makes it to their docket.

Related posts:

  1. Healthcare Debate: Far From Over
  2. The Obama Rebuttal: A Quick Review
  3. This Might Not Be An Average Supreme Court Case
  4. The Path To Prosperity: A Real Attempt At Reform
  5. A Ron Paul Supporter’s Response to the RJC

Posted in Domestic Policy Jack
7 Comments Posted by Jack

7 Responses to "Healthcare Reform Ruling: A Quick Response"

  • David says:
    January 31, 2011 at 5:00 pm
    Reply

    As a proponent of health care reform and a supporter of this bill, I find a few problems with your response. First, I realize that your intention was to post quickly after the ruling to which you were opposed so you have yet (I would imagine) to parse the details of Justice Vinson’s ruling. I haven’t had the opportunity to do that either, and I would like to before making any substantial arguments about it. However, I agree that since Justice Vinson found “the individual mandate… unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.” It seems ridiculous to me to suggest that only the mandate (which is the implementation of and force behind the provisions of this legislation) should be declared void. Without the mandate, the bill isn’t worth much, so, if that section is unconstitutional, the whole bill is crushed.

    Second, your logic seems equally as partisan (simply from the other side of the spectrum) as that of any of the Republican AG’s who challenged the bill and any of the Republican Governors who endorsed those challenges. I agree with your perspective, but I don’t think your critiques are necessarily fair. I find no problem with the AG McCollum filing in Pensacola because it gives him a better shot at a conservative justice. I feel this way in large part because liberals do the same thing (Haven’t you seen “Recount”?). The fact is, it’s smart politics. It’s the same smart politics that the Democrats used in rushing this bill through Congress while they had the political capital to do so.

    Your post is interesting, but I didn’t find it all that substantive a response to the ruling (though I know that your intention wasn’t a dense constitutional counter argument). I hope you or another writer posts a strong, non-polemical, Constitutional counter to the ruling, because I would like to read it.

  • Jack says:
    January 31, 2011 at 5:12 pm
    Reply

    In response, my intention was not to thoroughly outline the ruling. I’ll leave that to the legal scholars. My point was to draw out the partisan nature of the legal battle and the ruling. The neutrality of the courts is unfortunately undermined in this entire situation because those pushing for repeal, I argue, are doing so for the partisan victory that comes from repeal. Because they are unable to repeal the bill in the legislative branch, republicans have attempted to rely on an activist court to repeal the bill for them, despite the existence of very strong, important provisions aside from the individual mandate.

  • Lawrence (not Laurence to be clear) says:
    February 1, 2011 at 1:00 am
    Reply

    That’s one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind. Down with Healthcare!

  • Laurel says:
    February 1, 2011 at 9:26 am
    Reply

    Sorry, Jack, but I agree with David. While your post was eloquently written, it does seem a little bit like a knee-jerk reaction. I certainly agree with the Judge Vinson’s ruling. You cited how he (apparently) only focused on the mandate aspect of the bill. To me, it’s a central part of the bill – enough to declare the whole bill unconstitutional. I’m also confused as to why you say that the bill’s constitutionality is a partisan question, not one for the courts. It’s no secret that there are some very shaky parts of the bill, some that have already been heard by state courts. Eventually, the issue may make its way to the Supreme Court. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/08/AR2010110806297.html I believe that this is an issue very relevant to our judicial system. Sure, Republicans may be trying every trick in the book for repeal, but it’s in defense of the right cause.

  • joe says:
    February 1, 2011 at 10:58 am
    Reply

    jack-have you gone mad?

  • Rick says:
    February 1, 2011 at 11:13 am
    Reply

    If the writer is suggesting that repealing the Health Care bill is only to politically “beat” Obama, I think that is silly. The Health Care bill, which I consider over-reaching, expensive, and fraught with unlimited opportunities for unintended consequences (like bankrupting the government, for one) is flawed and many democrats, as well as republicans, feel that way. This bill was put together in an unmanageable form, and needs serious rethinking. While the House Vote was a message that Republicans feel railroaded, it’s fair to say that they were.

    This issue is too important for one party to have slammed it through, TOTALLY POLITICALLY, without the benefit of serious discussion.

    I’m all for sensible health care policies, which we currently don’t have, but what little I know of this bill is that it is cumbersome, overwrought, and needs some real thought. And I confess, the reason I don’t know as much about the bill as I should is that it’s so long and confusing, I don’t have the time to read it all. That should tell you something, right there.

    Finally, I’m laughing at the thought that you will be in the workforce soon, and you probably, like the rest of us, will be carefully husbanding your salary as you move up the ladder. The thought that you MUST purchase health care, even though your greatest worry is getting a cold or an STD,, should make you really ticked off. Why shouldn’t you be allowed to self-insure??? It will be one of the safest bets you ever make.

  • Sherlock says:
    February 1, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    Reply

    Vinson clearly states: “Not severable.” Hit the road, Jack. While the PASSING of the bill was almost ENTIRELY political, it repeal will be based solely on the protection of individual rights which our nation is founded upon.

    The entire bill rests upon the foundation that all citizens must either buy health insurance or receive it from the government. The government cannot tell me how to spend my money. That is an extreme violation of rights. Thus, the law is voided.

    Furthermore, Obama is a hypocrite. In response to Vinson, he said that the universal requirement provision is necessary for the bill to function. But in 2008, while campaigning, he claimed his healthcare plan was better than Hillary Clinton’s because he did NOT have this provision while hers did. See here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/

    Lastly, guess who appointed Vinson? Ronald Reagan. Even from the grave, Reagan > Obama.

Leave a Comment