Key provision in HealthCare Law

[IDrinkaRum]

is deemed unconstitutional by Virginia state judge

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson said that forcing individuals to purchase health insurance was in violation of the Constitution's "commerce clause," The Washington Post reported.

The courts cannot enforce the law's requirement that Americans be fined if they don't have health insurance by 2014, the judge said in a 42-page opinion.

Though Hudson as said this part of the law is unconstitutional, the rest of the law is not, and can move forward as it is supposed to. (either in increments until 2014 or in full in 2014).

[crashhelmet]

Can this now be used as a precedent to fight laws that mandate Car Insurance? here in Nevada it's a $250 fine and a suspended license if you don't have Car Insurance. And you don't have to be pulled over and cited for it first. The insurance companies report you to the DMV when your policy is terminated.

[Rageaholic]

Can this now be used as a precedent to fight laws that mandate Car Insurance? here in Nevada it's a $250 fine and a suspended license if you don't have Car Insurance. And you don't have to be pulled over and cited for it first. The insurance companies report you to the DMV when your policy is terminated.

Yeah, I think manditory car insurance is bullshit, especially since it's no fault in my state.

I'm all for national healthcare, but I don't think it should be manditory. I mean what if you can't afford it? Insurance should be a choice, not a requirement.

[Frantic Freddie]

Can this now be used as a precedent to fight laws that mandate Car Insurance? here in Nevada it's a $250 fine and a suspended license if you don't have Car Insurance. And you don't have to be pulled over and cited for it first. The insurance companies report you to the DMV when your policy is terminated.

Probably not,since driving is a choice,you choose to drive then you choose to obey the laws.If you choose not to drive then you don't have to pay those taxes fees.

[Andara Bledin]

Can this now be used as a precedent to fight laws that mandate Car Insurance?

No. Apples to oranges.

The Health Insurance requirement would have been for the person and any dependents they have. Car Insurance requirements are specifically for the other person.

Well, and the insurance providers... >_>

^-.-^

[KellyHabersham]

Yeah, I think manditory car insurance is bullshit, especially since it's no fault in my state.

I'm all for national healthcare, but I don't think it should be manditory. I mean what if you can't afford it? Insurance should be a choice, not a requirement.

That's rather the way I feel about it, as the main reason I don't have health insurance is that I can't afford it on my own, and I don't have the options of getting it through work, or getting on Medicaid.

[drunkenwildmage]

The Health Insurance is(was)required by law for *everyone* to buy some form of it.

That's not the case for Car Insurance. Not everyone is required to have it. You are only required to have it if you drive.

[Salesmonkey]

It is in the interest of the Republic to maintain the health of the laboring classes. When the proletariat is healthy enough to perform their work, they can sufficiently support the bourgeouisie.

We, as Americans, are between two extremes. To the North, the citizens of Canada have adequate state-supplied medical care. To the South, the citizens of Mexico have cash-up-front treatment. We are in the middle- the wealthy have superlative medical care, the middle-class have mediocre health care, and the masses have whatever they can afford, be it some or nothing.

This is why the United States leads the world in bankruptcy due to medical expenses.

[HYHYBT]

The part that really gets me is that they included a requirement that everybody must buy insurance WITHOUT also requiring insurance companies to charge reasonable rates. Does that make sense to *anyone,* other than the obvious?

[Andara Bledin]

Define "reasonable rates."

For my last car, which included the basic liability requirement as well as a couple of extras, I paid $456 per year. My current rate, which includes comp and collision since I've got a loan, kicked it up to just a bit over $1000.00 per year. At that rate, it'll take 5-10 years before it reaches the point of costing more than the out of pocket for a mild accident, and that's before you even get into the idea of medical expenses.

In 20 years of driving actively, I've had 3 accidents worth mentioning. One was my fault, one was mechanical failure, and one was the other driver's fault. In all three cases, the funds disbursed were well in excess of the premiums paid, and that was without any medical expenses.

Of course, all that said, I'd just as soon they were lower.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

From the article in the OP

"Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market," Hudson wrote. "In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]"

Don't laws forcing a driver to purchase car insurance "compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market"?

Until these laws were passed, the only requirement you had to prove was your ability to pass a driving test and be licensed to operate a vehicle.

[HYHYBT]

Andara: that's car insurance, not medical.

Crash: that's referring to a limit on the power of the federal government. It's the individual stated that require car insurance... and, as has been pointed out, you can avoid that by not driving a car. There is no analogous way to get out of the health insurance requirement, short of suicide.

[FArchivist]

is deemed unconstitutional by Virginia state judge

Though Hudson as said this part of the law is unconstitutional, the rest of the law is not, and can move forward as it is supposed to. (either in increments until 2014 or in full in 2014).

Frankly, this ruling is not going to have much of an effect on anything.
On the subject of the constitutionality of the mandate, two federal judges (another one in Virginia and one in Michigan) have already ruled that it IS constitutional. As the judge who rendered this ruling of unconstitutionality is considered to be the most conservative judge in the USA, legal experts are of the opinion that he will probable be overruled at the appeals level, especially with the contradictory ruling in his own state.

[Racket_Man]

the difference between the mandatory health insurance vs. car insurance is that with car insurance it is the individual STATES that are mandating the vehicle insurance coverage (along with minimum coverage levels) NOT the Federal government.

IF at the Federal level auto insurance were mandated for ALL drivers/vehicle owners then the arguement would be the same

maybe if at the STATE level health/medical insurance were manditory (such as in Mass.), the Federal courts would not be getting involved as much. I have not really heard much opposition on the State mandated vehicle insurance. but then getting all 50 States and territories to agree on ANYTHING is a lost cause.

[blas87]

That's what you get for having a do-good socialist fuck in office.

The idea of everyone being able to get medical care at an afforable rate? Ideal. Yes. We should.

Making it madatory and a fine-able punishment to NOT have it? Absurd. If someone works at a gas station and can't get on state insurance or afford their own policy, how are they going to afford a fine? Really, I mean really here.

The government forcing people to do things a certain way, and not do certain things, is steering so far away from what this country was founded on. Last I checked, we came to this country to get away from governments and control that was nothing but holding people down and forcing them all to be the same.

It's fucking socialism, and it's disgusting.