Obamacare is Unconstitutional

So says the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The insurance industry was only too happy to collude with the Democrats to turn health care delivery into a government operated cartel, provided everyone was forced to buy their wildly expensive product. Now that it’s appearing more likely that could very well be off the table, I’m going to bet the health insurers lobby up to get Obamacare repealed right quick once he leaves office.

6 thoughts on “Obamacare is Unconstitutional”

  1. This one is definitely headed for the Supreme Court. However, given the asinine conclusions the court reached in Kelo v. City of New London that for the first time said government can seize private property from one individual & give it to another (a perversion of eminent domain if ever there was), the eventual ruling could go either way. This one will come down to Justice Kennedy and most likely be a 5-4 split. Don’t count your chickens.

  2. As I understood it, the court said the requirement to buy something you didn’t want like insurance, was unconstitutional, but went on to say the rest of the bill passed muster.
    This is less than helpful since the bill was written in such a way as to render the whole thing dead if any part of it is found wanting.

  3. Sure, Wickard v. Filburn. But see also the interesting gun case United States v. Lopez (1995), which as you know was the first major SCOTUS case limiting Wickard v. Filburn. The interesting thing about Lopez is that the government specifically included the costs of health insurance as part of their argument, and this argument was rejected:

    Quoting Renquist: “The Government’s essential contention, in fine, is that [the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is valid] because possession of a firearm in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce…The Government argues that possession of a firearm in a school zone may result in violent crime and that violent crime can be expected to affect the functioning of the national economy in two ways. First, the costs of violent crime are substantial, and, through the mechanism of insurance, those costs are spread throughout the population…”

    The court rejected the insurance costs argument in this case, though perhaps only because you had to argue layer upon layer of connection, like the butterfly-causes-hurricanes argument. It would be interesting to see if Lopez is used in all-but-certain SCOTUS case & what the justices say. If upheld & broadened, it could get rid of other onerous federal intrusions, such as the W. Bush-Ted Kennedy NCLB legislation & perhaps the entire Department of Education.

  4. And then there is the argument that they are not technically *forcing* you to do anything. You are simply taxed at a higher rate if you don’t buy insurance.

  5. Yeah, I love that last one. The presumption is that hitting you with an extra tax isn’t a “forcing” move is only valid if you don’t have to work for any of your money. Like a congressman.

Comments are closed.