Up next: court challenges

posted at 11:36 am on March 22, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The passage of the ObamaCare bill and its certain signing by Barack Obama now moves the fight from Congress to the courts.  While the politics on Capitol Hill will continue for at least a few days on the reconciliation sidebar bill that will go to the Senate, the main damage has already been done with the vote last night in the House.  States have already begun preparations for constitutional challenges, mainly based on the unprecedented creation of federal mandates on individual citizens:

The next chapter in the health care fight will play out not only in the midterm elections, but also in the courts. Attorneys general in three states — Virginia, Florida and South Carolina — have indicated they will file legal challenges to the measure, on the grounds that it violates the Constitution by requiring individuals to purchase insurance.

In an interview Sunday, the Virginia attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, said he intended to base his challenge on two grounds: that the federal bill conflicts with a newly passed state law that says no Virginian may be compelled to buy insurance and that Congress does not have authority to impose the mandate under its powers to regulate interstate commerce, as Democrats contend.

“This is such an incredible federal overreach,” Mr. Cuccinelli said, but added that he did not plan to ask the courts for an order that would prevent the bill from going into effect because the individual mandate does not take effect until 2013. “On our basis for a constitutional challenge, there’s no rush,” he said.

The courts seem like a fruitful place to deconstruct ObamaCare.  Even the CBO warned Congress in 1993 about the novelty of requiring Americans to buy health insurance as a requisite for residence:

AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.

Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society. For example, the section of the Americans with Disabilities Act that requires restaurants to make their facilities accessible to persons with disabilities applies to people who own restaurants.  The Federal Labor Standards Act prohibits employers from paying less than the federal minimum wage. This prohibition pertains to individuals who employ others. Federal environmental statutes and regulations that require firms to meet pollution control standards and use specific technologies apply to companies that engage in specific lines of business or use particular production processes.  Federal mandates that apply to individuals as members of society are extremely rare. One example is the requirement that draft-age men register with the Selective Service System. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is not aware of any others imposed by current federal law.

That’s because none other exists.  The Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce, not to force individuals to purchase items from that commerce.  And let’s not forget that no interstate commerce in health insurance exists, thanks to Congress keeping people from buying that insurance across state lines.

However, the politics of ObamaCare will continue to resonate this year, and into 2012.  Democrats insist that they will benefit politically from the passage of ObamaCare, but the numbers and the structure of the bill strongly suggest otherwise.  They jammed the bill through Congress using arcane parliamentary procedures despite the strong disapproval of their proposal among voters — between nine and 20 points, depending on the pollster.  In comparison, Democrats proclaimed a landslide when Obama won office by an impressive seven points among the popular vote, one of the larger margins of victory in the past 20 years.

The structure of the bill is another problem.  Very few of the benefits of ObamaCare even begin before 2014, but all of the taxes and business mandates start this year.  The extra expense on businesses (Caterpillar estimated it would cost them $100 million a year) will keep companies from hiring or investing in expansion.  That will kill any employment recovery in a weak economy, meaning that high unemployment will continue for the next several years.  Health care will cost more, be less available, and people will remain out of work.  In that kind of environment, Democrats will have to answer for their government takeover, and the results won’t be pretty — nor should they be.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Fire them ALL

kirkill on March 22, 2010 at 11:37 AM

I’m afraid the court system is established to allow slow and steady progression through the system.

By the time it even reaches the Supreme Court, the political aftermath will have happened and we’ll be at some different point.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM

An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society.

It may be the first imposition of a duty on individuals, but the Fascist-Democrats will make sure it isn’t the last.

rbj on March 22, 2010 at 11:39 AM

The extra expense on businesses (Caterpillar estimated it would cost them $100 million a year) will keep companies from hiring or investing in expansion. That will kill any employment recovery in a weak economy, meaning that high unemployment will continue for the next several years. Health care will cost more, be less available, and people will remain out of work. In that kind of environment, Democrats will have to answer for their government takeover, and the results won’t be pretty — nor should they be.

This is what the media and Dems(I know, I’m being redundant) seem to be conveniently overlooking in all of this. The reason the Dems were headed toward massive losses in the fall was because of a stagnant economy and out-of-control spending. The passage of Obamacare means more of the same. So how exactly are they supposed to sell this to the voters come November?

Doughboy on March 22, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Related parody: Historians Discover Lost Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (click image to enlarge) http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/02/historians-discover-lost-letter-from.html

Mervis Winter on March 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM

That will kill any employment recovery in a weak economy, meaning that high unemployment will continue for the next several years.

Have the Democrats extended any of the 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010?

WashJeff on March 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM

It can be structured as a tax – not that I want it to, I want it repealed but relying on the courts is iffy at best – this has to been done legislatively

EricPWJohnson on March 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Stupid question but when do the taxes kick in – right away I’m assuming?

Just need to be prepared for the paycheck shock.

gophergirl on March 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM

I’m a young lawyer and would like to know how I can help on any legal battles. Nothing I learned in law school allows this kind of mandate.

Byzantine on March 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Tell you what, if the kids I bring in to sweep the floors start demanding HC coverage, they will politely guided to the door and told never to return. However, if they agree to work off the books for cash, they will still have a place.

There are ways to starve this system and I will devote much time to figuring out every last one of them.

Bishop on March 22, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Have the Democrats extended any of the 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010?

WashJeff on March 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM

No

MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Byzantine on March 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Appreciate anything you can do. God Bless…

OmahaConservative on March 22, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Obama wants a Great Depression, to have everyone dependent on him and the Govt. for their liveliehood

jp on March 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM

The only partisanship for this ObamaDemCare bill was against the bill.

The word Democrat should be anathema to any candidate running as a centrist in future elections.

iamsaved on March 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Who do we call in our State to encourage our State Attorney General to do the same? The Governors office?

Yakko77 on March 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Maybe Obama is a uniter. Looks like he is uniting some states to fight this monster.

Herb on March 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM

We need to forward this to Geraldo. It will help his ignorance.

the Coondawg on March 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Uh, er, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, nevermind.

Patrick S on March 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Aside from the obvious challenges, just wait until the individual states figure out the cost THEY will assume as this boondoggle kicks in!

These are states already on the verge of bankruptcy and now they’ll be looking at staggering health care costs that no one told them was coming.

When a State like California is 20 billion in debt and showing NO signs of recovery…or a willingness to bite the bullet and balance their budget…how are they supposed to take on the billions in federally mandated health care costs?

GoldenEagle4444 on March 22, 2010 at 11:46 AM

If we can win on the Mandate thing

Can we then challenge we shouldn’t be forced to pay the taxes on it either?

jp on March 22, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Don,t know if it,s true or not but there is a reliable leak out of the republican caucus this morning that as many as 10 to 12 Dems in the house who voted no last night have file paper work with the rep. leadership to switch parties by the end of this week.Take it for what it,s worth.

thmcbb on March 22, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Have the Democrats extended any of the 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010?

WashJeff on March 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Tax cuts? We don’t need no stinking tax cuts. We get as the ultimate gift, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the other assorted dictocrats. That is what we must focus on, and glorify in. We’re sooooooo very lucky to have them! UGH UGH UGH!!!!!!!

capejasmine on March 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Stupid question but when do the taxes kick in – right away I’m assuming?

Just need to be prepared for the paycheck shock.

gophergirl on March 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Right away, but I’m not really sure what that means.
Today, in a week, in a month?
Before the tax can start, regulations and such have to be written, notices sent out, etc. It takes time, I’m not sure how much time.

These taxes won’t hit you in the paycheck, at least not directly. They will make most medical devices that you purchase more expensive, which will in turn make your insurance more expensive.

I hope the insurance companies make a point of reminding the people just why they are raising the rates. Otherwise the Democrats will just demagogue them as being greedy.

MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Have the Democrats extended any of the 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010?

WashJeff on March 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Nope. They’ve promised to allow them to expire for the upper income earners. I assume that’s in addition to the massive tax increases in Obamacare. The jury’s still out on what they’ll do about the middle and lower income brackets. But with the midterms approaching, I can’t believe they’d openly admit they plan on raising their taxes.

Of course, if they don’t raise everyone’s taxes, we’ll be running $2 trillion deficits for the foreseeable future.

Doughboy on March 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Who do we call in our State to encourage our State Attorney General to do the same? The Governors office?

Yakko77 on March 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM

I called my State Senator’s office and encouraged his staffer to to ask Senator to introduce legislation similar to what Idaho did. She sounded receptive to the idea but who knows.

So call your governor, state lawmakers, anyone who will listen. It only takes a few minutes of your time.

Byzantine on March 22, 2010 at 11:48 AM

thmcbb on March 22, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Well…not sure what to make of that if it’s true. I sure wouldn’t trust them. For me, a Dem coming over, would legislate as a rino, wouldn’t they?

capejasmine on March 22, 2010 at 11:48 AM

The word Democrat should be anathema to any candidate running as a centrist in future elections.

iamsaved on March 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM

If last night’s vote taught us anything, it’s that there is no such thing as a centrist Democrat. They all vote the way the leadership tells them when they get to DC.

MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Have the Democrats extended any of the 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010?

No

MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 11:44 AM

The economy is going to take some severe punches in 2011 without the extension of the 2003 tax cuts, new health care taxes, and states clawing at our wallets and wealth.

WashJeff on March 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM

By the time it even reaches the Supreme Court, the political aftermath will have happened and we’ll be at some different point.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM

That’s my fear. The SC was not designed for speed; fighting Obamacare with it will likely take years. By then the damage could be done.

Dark-Star on March 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM

If this doesn’t kick in for four years, does that mean grandma has 4 good years left before she is sent to a corner with her pills?

OmahaConservative on March 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM

I’m afraid the court system is established to allow slow and steady progression through the system.

By the time it even reaches the Supreme Court, the political aftermath will have happened and we’ll be at some different point.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Yawn. Ever hear of the phrase injunction pending appeal?

Blake on March 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Anyone having problems with comments not being posted???

No, it wasn’t nasty.

GoldenEagle4444 on March 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Is working toward the States calling for a Article 5 consitutional convention as reasonalbe course to overturn this law? How about some analysis of that?

John E. on March 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Of course, if they don’t raise everyone’s taxes, we’ll be running $2 trillion deficits for the foreseeable future.

Doughboy on March 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM

If they do raise taxes, we’ll be running $3 trillion deficits for the foreseeable future. As new taxes will cause the economy to tank completely.

MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM

While the politics on Capitol Hill will continue for at least a few days on the reconciliation sidebar bill that will go to the Senate

The Senate will never take up Reconciliation. I’m surprised people still think the Senate is going to take it up.

Obama will sign the Senate Bill…and it’s over as far as the politics is concerned.

uknowmorethanme on March 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM

And the political aftermath is renewed every time they raise premiums and raise taxes.

Blake on March 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM

The structure of the bill is another problem. Very few of the benefits of ObamaCare even begin before 2014, but all of the taxes and business mandates start this year.

Almost none of the taxes and mandates start in 2010, according to this WSJ summary:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575137370275522704.html

2010

One of the earliest is a new 10% levy on indoor tanning services, starting in July, under the sidecar package.

2011

Drug makers face annual fee of $2.5 billion (rises in subsequent years).

2013

Requirement begins for most people to have health insurance. Subsidies begin for lower and middle-income people

New Medicare taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and couples filing jointly earning more than $250,000 a year.

Tax on wages rises to 2.35% from 1.45%.

New 3.8% tax on unearned income such as dividends and interest.

Excise tax of 2.9% imposed on sale of medical devices.

Employers with more than 50 employees that don’t provide affordable coverage must pay a fine if employees receive tax credits to buy insurance. Fine is up to $3,000 per employee, excluding first 30 employees.

Insurance industry must pay annual fee of $8 billion (rises in subsequent years).

2016

Penalty for those who don’t carry coverage rises to 2.5% of taxable income or $695, whichever is greater.

2018

Excise tax of 40% imposed on health plans valued at more than $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage.

Jimbo3 on March 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM

(capejasmine) Your probably right on the rino stuff.Did not mean to sound like i was happy about this rumor i just reported it.

thmcbb on March 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM

GoldenEagle4444 on March 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM

A couple of mine have been eaten on various threads, not sure what’s up.

Dark-Star on March 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM

I’m afraid the court system is established to allow slow and steady progression through the system.

Bush v. Gore

evie on March 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Desperately looking for an upside, and the best I can do is this: the new taxes on business will make any improvement in unemployment impossible, and may stall or reverse economic growth. Maybe for long enough that by 2012 Obama will still be riding a stalled or failing economy, meaning he won’t have a hope in h*ll of getting reelected.

ProfessorMiao on March 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Anyone having problems with comments not being posted???

No, it wasn’t nasty.

GoldenEagle4444 on March 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM
——————–

Did it have a CNN link it in? Nothing with a CNN link seems to get past the censors for me unless I tinyurl it.

uknowmorethanme on March 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Texas AG has just gotten off of a conference call with AGs from several states, and they are planning to file a lawsuit to prevent implementation as soon as the senate bill is signed.

Vashta.Nerada on March 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Does the proposed cost of this scheme include the new bureaucracy which is going to be created, the tens of thousands of shiny new federal employees leeching more money from the taxpayers?

Bishop on March 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM

No, it wasn’t nasty.

GoldenEagle4444 on March 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM

This site has an odd array of forbidden words. Things like what happened in 1776 and what happened in 1860 are forbidden subjects here.

MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Many of the benefits of the bill occur instantly. Namely, the consumer protections. The individual mandate (what people here probably think will be the least popular feature) doesn’t kick-in til 2014.

crr6 on March 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

By the time it even reaches the Supreme Court, the political aftermath will have happened and we’ll be at some different point.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Not if a lower appellate judge orders the tax collection be put on hold pending the outcome of the Constitutionality of the law. The filthy lying dictator and his corrupt party would work overtime to fasttrack this to the SCOTUS- who may or may not be over their anger at being slapped around during the SOTU (wonder the filthy lying dictator figured on that).

Last four words in American: I Can.
Last four words in Republican: I Can.
Last four words in Democrats: Rats.

highhopes on March 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

I’m a young lawyer and would like to know how I can help on any legal battles. Nothing I learned in law school allows this kind of mandate.

Byzantine on March 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Might be best just to offer assistance to those of us who don’t plan on getting insurance.

Considering pre-existing conditions are no longer an exemption, it makes financial sense to wait until health insurance is absolutely necessary and cancel immediately after.

This alone can easily kill private insurance.

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

A woman named Margaret blogged today that her employer can’t afford to pay for both health care and the taxes on Obamacare. The passage of this bill has eliminated her health insurance for the next 4 years. I suppose none of the idiots in Congress ever thought about this.

GrannySunni on March 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

By the time it even reaches the Supreme Court, the political aftermath will have happened and we’ll be at some different point.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM

State lawsuits go direct to the supreme court.

Vashta.Nerada on March 22, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Anyone having problems with comments not being posted???

No, it wasn’t nasty.

GoldenEagle4444 on March 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Yesterday every message I wrote that included copied material I was responding to was either swallowed whole or burped up a little while later. Weird.

ProfessorMiao on March 22, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Bush v. Gore

evie on March 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM

An exception to the rule. They had to decide right now on the contested outcome of an election that had just finished. Something like that absolutely cannot wait. As disastrous as Obamacare is, good luck getting that kind of line-jumping for your case.

Dark-Star on March 22, 2010 at 11:54 AM

That’s my fear. The SC was not designed for speed; fighting Obamacare with it will likely take years. By then the damage could be done.

Dark-Star on March 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM

I’m more optimistic.

But then, I have real experience with relying upon anything that the government mandates/funds.

Funds given today are taken away tomorrow.

That drives people nuts. Now, I still say that’s why the insurance industry really messed up. They started pulling the same stunts.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:54 AM

If they do raise taxes, we’ll be running $3 trillion deficits for the foreseeable future. As new taxes will cause the economy to tank completely.

MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM

I was trying to be optimistic with my prediction of the annual deficit being “only” $2 trillion.

Doughboy on March 22, 2010 at 11:55 AM

The dems believe this will help them in Nov?! RUKiddn’ me! These guys have drunk their own kool-aid.

Kissmygrits on March 22, 2010 at 11:55 AM

I’m afraid the court system is established to allow slow and steady progression through the system.

By the time it even reaches the Supreme Court, the political aftermath will have happened and we’ll be at some different point.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM

They sure did take their sweet time ruling on Bush v Gore didn’t they?

uknowmorethanme on March 22, 2010 at 11:55 AM

A woman named Margaret blogged today that her employer can’t afford to pay for both health care and the taxes on Obamacare. The passage of this bill has eliminated her health insurance for the next 4 years. I suppose none of the idiots in Congress ever thought about this.

GrannySunni on March 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

They’re creating demand for a ‘public option’. Sure they thought of it.

ProfessorMiao on March 22, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Nope…No forbidden words or phrases…but two comments just wandered off into the air, never to reach their destination.

Thanks for the responses. Maybe the techies are “fixin’ on it”.

GoldenEagle4444 on March 22, 2010 at 11:55 AM

State lawsuits go direct to the supreme court.

Vashta.Nerada on March 22, 2010 at 11:54 AM

We’ll see. It usually takes a few years.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Almost none of the taxes and mandates start in 2010, according to this WSJ summary:

Oh thank Gaia for that, because companies won’t be looking ahead to gauge their approaching losses and acting now to prepare. No no, that will never happen.

Great news, people.

Bishop on March 22, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Excise tax of 40% imposed on health plans valued at more than $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage.

Jimbo3 on March 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Unless you’re in a union of course.

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Professional politicians (is there any other kind?) do not represent their ‘Constituents’. Rather, they represent a.) The Party b.) Monied Special Interests c.) the Madam Speaker (in the Stupak case). When confusion sets it (as in the Biden case) see Rule A.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Federal-level ‘Representative’ (aka Congresstitutes) know how to treat the ‘johns’ in their districts. When ‘amnesty’ comes rolling around the summer, watch to see how quickly the voting rolls expand for the One-party.

SeniorD on March 22, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Jimbo3 on March 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Almost none of the taxes and mandates start in 2010, according to this WSJ summary:

But many Dem Reps presented hardship stories of why they are voting on this bill. Are hardships postponed for fours years? Or, are these hardships not worth spending money on for four years to get ensure a good CBO score?

WashJeff on March 22, 2010 at 11:56 AM

We’ll see. It usually takes a few years.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Maybe, maybe not. Ever hear of an injunction?

theenforser on March 22, 2010 at 11:56 AM

They’re creating demand for a ‘public option’. Sure they thought of it.

ProfessorMiao on March 22, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Yep. Create a problem so you can offer the fix that gives you even more power.

Classic power grab strategy…

Holger on March 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM

This is such an easy case to make, even a caveman could do it.

All the lawyer has to do is pose this hypothetical, which I’m sure happens to be true for many thousands of people who have been smart with their money: Suppose I am a person who has looked at my own health, age, and the cost of heaslth insurance and has decided to self-insure. I have $100,000 in savings specifically in order to pay for any medical expenses I and my family may have. I have saved much more than that in premiums I have notn paid to health insurers. I have paid cash for all my health care for the last 20 years. I have never been to the Emergency Room except for a true emergency, such as an auto accident or a broken bone.

What section of the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to tell me that I now MUST buy a very expensive health care insurance policy that I do not need, or pay a large government fine?

rockmom on March 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM

They’re creating demand for a ‘public option’. Sure they thought of it.

ProfessorMiao on March 22, 2010 at 11:55 AM

I agree, but I don’t think it’ll begin to work. They have totally bound themselves to this bill.

They’ll have to live with the fallout.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM

That drives people nuts. Now, I still say that’s why the insurance industry really messed up. They started pulling the same stunts.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:54 AM

By the “same stunts” do you mean not insuring people who are not insurable? Because that’s no different than a lender not giving you a mortgage because you can’t afford it or a bank not giving you a car loan because your credit is shot.

I’ll say it again, USAA will not insure your car AFTER you wreck it.

uknowmorethanme on March 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Does the proposed cost of this scheme include the new bureaucracy which is going to be created, the tens of thousands of shiny new federal employees leeching more money from the taxpayers?

Bishop on March 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Nope. The cost for the 15K IRS agents is added to the IRS’s budget.

MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Maybe, maybe not. Ever hear of an injunction?

theenforser on March 22, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Would that work on a state level?

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM

A woman named Margaret blogged today that her employer can’t afford to pay for both health care and the taxes on Obamacare. The passage of this bill has eliminated her health insurance for the next 4 years. I suppose none of the idiots in Congress ever thought about this.

GrannySunni on March 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

–Considering that the fine on employers doesn’t kick in for several years and that the fine is probably less than the employer’s portion of health care insurance premiums, I think her employer is lying or doesn’t understand the bill.

Jimbo3 on March 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Last I checked, the federal government had the final say. They have the army, the air force and the navy. This thing is a done deal. No force in the history of the United States has been successful in fighting the US government. Even the Confederate States, with an army of their own, fought and lost against Washington. They can force the states do to whatever they want – at the point of a gun if necessary. And their guns are a lot bigger.

keep the change on March 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM

This alone can easily kill private insurance.

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Which is of course, the goal.
Bankrupt private insurers, then declare, “See, I told you the private sector couldn’t do health insurance.”

MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Considering pre-existing conditions are no longer an exemption,

er, does not kick in until after 2014 I believe

runner on March 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Very few of the benefits of ObamaCare even begin before 2014, but all of the taxes and business mandates start this year.

Can anyone point me to a summary of the immediate taxes and business mandates imposed by this bill?

mbs on March 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM

We have lawyers, Kelo to healthcare we stand
FALSE PROMISES, LOTS OF DEMANDS
Courts are a battlefield

Conservatives are strong, no one can tell them they’re wrong
Searchin’ our bases for so long, both of us knowing
Courts Are A Battlefield

You’re driving me to go, you’re bribing Stupak to stay
Why do you hurt me so bad?
It would help me to know
Do I stand in your way, or is Reagan best thing you’ve had?
Believe me, believe me, I can’t tell you why
But I’m trapped by your deficits, and I’m chained to your side

We have lawyers, Kelo to healthcare we stand
FALSE PROMISES, LOTS OF DEMANDS
Courts are a battlefield
Robert’s will is strong, no one can tell Thomas he’s wrong
Searchin’ our bases for so long, both of us knowing
Courts Are A Battlefield

We’re losing control
Do you realize Chinese bankers control us deep inside?
And before this gets old, will it still feel the same?
Our country is slowly starting to die
But if we get much closer, we could lose control
And if your heart fails, Obamacare will not hold

We have lawyers, gun rights to tort reform we stand
FALSE PROMISES, LOTS OF DEMANDS
Courts are a battlefield
Scalia’s will is strong, even if Kennedy is occasionally wrong
Searchin’ our bases for so long, both of us knowing
Courts Are A Battlefield

Mr. Joe on March 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Ann – hit the /blockquote button after the quoted text and before your response.

Not being a pr*ck, just trying to help you out.

Odie1941 on March 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM

er, does not kick in until after 2014 I believe

runner on March 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Except for children, that’s immediate, I believe.

mbs on March 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Children permitted to stay on their parents’ insurance policies until their 26th birthday.

From the WSJ….Children…26th birthday??? When I was 26, I had a Master’s degree, owned a house, been working for 3 years, married for 3 years and had my first child. Children….26 years old. Let that sink in. We are letting 18 year old toddlers (if at 26 you are still a child, 18 year olds must be toddlers) vote at the same time encouraging them to remain dependent on others well into adulthood.

evie on March 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Jimbo3 on March 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Almost none of the taxes and mandates start in 2010, according to this WSJ summary:
But many Dem Reps presented hardship stories of why they are voting on this bill. Are hardships postponed for fours years? Or, are these hardships not worth spending money on for four years to get ensure a good CBO score?

WashJeff on March 22, 2010 at 11:56 AM

–My understanding is that the funding for high risk plans starts this year, but ends in 2013 or 2014 when the exchanges are up and running.

Jimbo3 on March 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Would that work on a state level?

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM

The states are bringing suit against the federal government, not within their own borders.

Vashta.Nerada on March 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM

The only way they can pay for this is by eliminating the Standing Army. When they do, expect the GWOT to get hotter (maybe even Iran). A good way to get rid of political undesirables is have your enemies kill them as we saw the Soviet Union do in WWII.

Holger on March 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM

By the “same stunts” do you mean not insuring people who are not insurable? Because that’s no different than a lender not giving you a mortgage because you can’t afford it or a bank not giving you a car loan because your credit is shot.

I’ll say it again, USAA will not insure your car AFTER you wreck it.

uknowmorethanme on March 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM

I never understand why anyone would defend the insurance industry.

Here’s my take on it. They have you fill out their application forms. They fail to verify information. They take your premiums. Then, when you get sick, they find something and boot you.

In what world would this practice ever be acceptable?

For heaven’s sakes, it was awful! And no car insurance company would dream of trying run that scam.

What were they thinking?

That’s what I keep asking.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Sorry folks, but the system is broken, and needs to be fixed.

This Congress is out of control… and this administration will do nothing except reinforce their power grab.

The Courts, over time, have done nothing to really stem the Legislative power grab…

Thus it is time to remake the rules, and make Congress accountable to the people.

Three things need to be done, and all will have to be done through Constitutional amendments.

First, the Senate must go back to being the Representatives of the STATE governments. I submit that each State Governmor would choose ONE Senator, and each State House choose one… and they could also be RECALLED… (this would, in effect, stop all the unfunded mandates and most of the Federal Power grabs, and put some teeth into the 10th).

Second, Constitutional amendment stating that memebers of the House of Representatives are subject to RECALL.

Third, that all House Districts must be divided by strict Geographic lines, not political lines (no more Gerrymandering of Districts).

These changes would go a LONG way to forcing the Congress of the US back to their intended role, that of the Servants of the People…. not their Imperial Masters.

Romeo13 on March 22, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Have the Democrats extended any of the 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010?

WashJeff on March 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Nope. They demonized those as “taxcuts for the rich.” Obama trumpeted that on the campaign trail and made certain after he was installed in office that those were going to expire. The one time anything ever sunsets in gubmint.

2011 is going to be a biznitch for the economy. I’ve got unemployment at 15% in my office pool.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on March 22, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Would that work on a state level?

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Huh? Federal courts will have jurisdiction as this is a Federal issue, not state courts. The injunction will against the enforcement of the mandate.

theenforser on March 22, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Nope. The cost for the 15K IRS agents is added to the IRS’s budget.
MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM

But of course that wasn’t included in the overall cost of the HC scheme, because it falls under a different branch of government.

Ok, I get it now. The domestic terrorists were right, this plan will save the U.S. a ton of money.

Bishop on March 22, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Considering pre-existing conditions are no longer an exemption,

er, does not kick in until after 2014 I believe

starts immediately for children…I wonder if that is for children up to the age of 26.

evie on March 22, 2010 at 12:00 PM

A woman named Margaret blogged today that her employer can’t afford to pay for both health care and the taxes on Obamacare. The passage of this bill has eliminated her health insurance for the next 4 years. I suppose none of the idiots in Congress ever thought about this.

GrannySunni on March 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

What part of “If you like your plan, you can keep it” does her employer not understand? /s

ROCnPhilly on March 22, 2010 at 12:00 PM

I’m honestly not sure how successful a court challenge is going to be. They’ve framed the mandate and have handled it like another tax (IRS agents, etc). And a Democrat was recently heard on record, reported by Michelle Malkin, that the CBO–the supposed non-partisan, non-judging body–was helping Democrats protect the legislation against challenges.

Enoxo on March 22, 2010 at 12:00 PM

–Considering that the fine on employers doesn’t kick in for several years and that the fine is probably less than the employer’s portion of health care insurance premiums, I think her employer is lying or doesn’t understand the bill.

Jimbo3 on March 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM

She’s not talking about the fine, she’s talking about the additional taxes.

mbs on March 22, 2010 at 12:01 PM

MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Thanks – I’ve been so focused on defeating this thing I forgot about the implemenation part of it.

Hopefully they can delay in the courts and nothing gets implemented.

gophergirl on March 22, 2010 at 12:01 PM

I suppose none of the idiots in Congress ever thought about this.

GrannySunni on March 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

I’m not so generous to them. They want single payer. All of this is helping them achieve that.

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 12:01 PM

The states are bringing suit against the federal government, not within their own borders.

Vashta.Nerada on March 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM

OK, I’ll just have to wait and read as it unfurls. I don’t really get how this works at this point.

I do understand that the Medicaid expansion will impact states. I “think” I understand that many states will actually need to undo their own current programs to afford the expansion.

More of less for more, I guess.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:01 PM

I’ve got unemployment at 15% in my office pool.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on March 22, 2010 at 12:00 PM

It is already above that with people who have exhausted their benefits and stopped looking.

Holger on March 22, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Here’s my take on it. They have you fill out their application forms. They fail to verify information. They take your premiums. Then, when you get sick, they find something and boot you.

In what world would this practice ever be acceptable?

Ann honey do you understand what insurance means? It’s insurance against risk. The insurance company sets out to reduce risk and exposure.

theenforser on March 22, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Last I checked, the federal government had the final say. They have the army, the air force and the navy. This thing is a done deal. No force in the history of the United States has been successful in fighting the US government. Even the Confederate States, with an army of their own, fought and lost against Washington. They can force the states do to whatever they want – at the point of a gun if necessary. And their guns are a lot bigger.
keep the change on March 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Yes, but who pays the bills?
(Yes, the Chinese! Ba Da bump bump)

Okay, who repays the loans to the Chinese when they pay the bills?

Chip on March 22, 2010 at 12:02 PM

I’m afraid the court system is established to allow slow and steady progression through the system.

By the time it even reaches the Supreme Court, the political aftermath will have happened and we’ll be at some different point.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Nope. We start the repeal process and the constitutional convention process today. With those three pathways on the way, Americans will prove that they will NEVER be at a different point on socialism.

csdeven on March 22, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3