Tag: individual mandate

I’m Not So Sure I Like Your Mental Activity

The latest federal judge to declare ObamaCare constitutional claimed that Congress can regulate “mental activity,” like the mental activity of choosing not to purchase health insurance.  Or shoes and ships and sealing wax.  Or my book.

National Review editor Rich Lowry has an excellent column explaining why this latest, ahem, legal victory for ObamaCare “delivered a more telling blow against the law in the course of ruling it constitutional than critics have in assailing it as a travesty…It’s the most self-undermining defense of the constitutionality of a dubious statute since then–solicitor general Elena Kagan told the Supreme Court that under campaign-finance reform, the government could ban certain pamphlets.”

It’s Official: Governors Implementing ObamaCare Are Undermining the Lawsuits

Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida has just responded to the Obama administration’s “motion to clarify” his prior ruling, which declared ObamaCare unconstitutional and void.  That “motion to clarify” essentially asked Vinson, “Didn’t you really mean that we can keep implementing ObamaCare while we appeal your ruling?”  Today, Vinson answered, “No.”

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs, who include Florida and 25 other states, argued that the administration’s “motion to clarify” was actually a veiled request to have Vinson stay (i.e., set aside) his original order blocking implementation.  Vinson agreed, and therefore treated the Obama administration’s “motion to clarify” as a motion to stay, which he granted.  Vinson made clear, however, that if the administration fails to file a notice of appeal by March 10 or fails to seek an expedited appeal either with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, then his stay will lift and the administration will (once again) be barred from implementing or enforcing ObamaCare.  In other words, Vinson prevented the Obama administration from treating his stay as an excuse to ignore his ruling while the further entrenching the law.

It would have been better if Vinson had stuck to his original order blocking implementation.  Yet he made clear that one of the reasons he did not is that many of the states asking him to strike down the law are implementing it anyway.  Vinson wrote that the case for blocking implementation:

is undercut by the fact that at least eight of the plaintiff states…have represented that they will continue to implement and fully comply with the Act’s requirements — in an abundance of caution while this case is on appeal — irrespective of my ruling.

As the Obama administration explained to the court:

[S]ince the Court entered its judgment on January 31, at least 24 of the 26 plaintiff states have applied for additional grants authorized or appropriated by the ACA, continued to draw down grant funds previously awarded under the ACA, or otherwise availed themselves of resources made available by the ACA. Indeed, South Carolina has continued to drawn down exchange planning grant funds, even though it has declared the Act “void and unenforceable.” Similarly, Utah has described the declaratory judgment as an “injunction against further implementation” of the Act, but has continued to draw down Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (“PCIP”) funds and to request Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (“ERRP”) reimbursements.

Now would be a good time for the South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R), Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R), and the governors of the other 22 plaintiff states to join Alaska and Florida in refusing to accept any further ObamaCare funds, returning the ObamaCare funds they have already received, and ceasing all implementation activities, including “planning” efforts.

Tea partiers and other conservative groups turned on House Republicans in a dispute over when the House would vote to cut off all ObamaCare spending.  Where’s the outrage over the governors and state legislators that are eagerly pursuing that funding, actively implementing the law, and preventing judges from stopping implementation?

Obama Offers States ‘Flexibility’ to Adopt Single-Payer instead of ObamaCare

The New York Times reports:

Seeking to appease disgruntled governors, President Obama plans to announce on Monday that he supports amending the 2010 health care law to allow states to opt out of its most burdensome requirements three years earlier than currently permitted.

It’s significant that the president is finally acknowledging that ObamaCare is unworkable and will impose enormous burdens on the states.  Or is he?

A closer look shows that the president is not lifting the burdensome requirements ObamaCare imposes on states.  All he’s doing is proposing to move up, from 2017 to 2014, the date on which states can apply for federal permission to impose a different but equivalently or more coercive plan to expand health insurance coverage.  Here’s what the Times says about the legislation Obama will reportedly endorse, which was introduced by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Scott Brown (R-MA):

The legislation would allow states to opt out earlier from various requirements if they could demonstrate that other methods would allow them to cover as many people, with insurance that is as comprehensive and affordable, as provided by the new law. The changes also must not increase the federal deficit.

If states can meet those standards, they can ask to circumvent minimum benefit levels, structural requirements for insurance exchanges and the mandates that most individuals obtain coverage and that employers provide it. Washington would then help finance a state’s individualized health care system with federal money that would otherwise be spent there on insurance subsidies and tax credits.

So states can “opt out” of ObamaCare’s individual mandate if they cover as many people, with as many benefits, and as many government subsidies, as ObamaCare would.  The Times quotes “administration officials” on how states might do that:

The administration officials said the so-called state innovation waivers in the Wyden-Brown bill might allow a state to experiment with ways to entice people to obtain insurance rather than requiring them to buy policies. It also might allow interested states to establish a single-payer system in which the government is the sole insurer. Gov. Peter Shumlin, a newly elected Democrat in Vermont, is pursuing such a proposal.

No such state plan can make a dent in the federal laws that are fueling the relentless growth in the cost of health care (see Medicare, the federal tax treatment of health care, etc.).  Therefore, the only way that states could cover as many people as ObamaCare does is by using ObamaCare’s tactic of forcing people to buy exorbitantly costly health insurance.  And if they’re not going to use an individual mandate, the only remaining option is a single-payer health care system.

President Obama’s move is not about giving states more flexibility.  It’s about moving the nation even faster toward his ideal of a Canadian- or British-style single-payer health care system.

Alaska’s Parnell Becomes 2nd Gov. to Refuse to Implement ObamaCare

The Associated Press reports that Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell (R) told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce that he will not be implementing ObamaCare:

“The state of Alaska will not pursue unlawful activity to implement a federal health care regime that has been declared unconstitutional by a federal court,” Parnell told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce, to applause, Thursday.

The AP included a couple of interesting comments from ObamaCare supporters Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington & Lee University, and Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.

Jost described Judge Roger Vinson (to whom Parnell referred) as “one renegade judge,” when in fact two federal judges have struck down ObamaCare’s individual mandate as unconstitutional.  (Since only two federal judges have upheld ObamaCare, who’s to say which pair are the renegades?)

Jost also called Alaska an “outlier” among states, while the AP reported, “Neither [Pollock] nor Jost knew of any other state taking action similar to Parnell.”  Jost and Pollack should know that Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) had already refused to implement ObamaCare.  (Here he is telling an approving audience of Cato supporters.)  Ironically, the AP story overlooking Scott’s leadership appeared on the Miami Herald web site, which had previously reported that Scott even returned to the federal government the ObamaCare money that his predecessor Charlie Crist accepted but hadn’t spent. Scott may not be enough company to keep Parnell from being an outlier.  But Jost should also know that dozens of governors who are implementing ObamaCare are also hoping the Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional.  Parnell and Scott are outliers for their courage, not because they oppose ObamaCare.

The news about Parnell came as the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion asking Judge Vinson to clarify that his declaratory judgment “does not relieve the parties of their rights and obligations under [ObamaCare] while the declaratory judgment is the subject of appellate review.”  Ilya Shapiro and I clarified that issue in our oped, “President Should Heed Court and Stop Implementing ObamaCare.”

President (and Governors) Should Heed Court and Stop Implementing ObamaCare

In yesterday’s Providence Journal, my colleague Ilya Shapiro and I argue that, since a federal court has voided ObamaCare as unconstitutional, the Obama administration should immediately cease all efforts to implement ObamaCare:

Federal courts do not issue advisory opinions. The parties to any lawsuit are bound by any resulting judgment.

At minimum, then, the government lacks authority to implement ObamaCare where the case was decided, in the Northern District of Florida, and the 26 state plaintiffs need take no action to do so. Likewise, members of the National Federation of Independent Business, another plaintiff in the case, may now be entitled to the same protection from Obamacare’s requirements.

Moreover, it is not unreasonable to argue that Vinson’s ruling applies to the nation as a whole. After all, this lawsuit facially attacked the law rather than just challenging its application to particular parties….

In so uncertain a legal context, it is simply reckless for financially strapped federal and state governments to pour resources into changing our health care system when those changes may not ultimately pass constitutional muster.

Governors should follow the example of Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), who recently told a Cato audience in Naples that Florida will not implement any aspect of ObamaCare.  Listen to excerpts from Scott’s remarks here.  Read the full Cannon-Shapiro oped here.

ObamaCare Falls

Federal Judge Roger Vinson has struck down the entire so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional.  Excerpts from the opinion:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place…

The individual mandate is outside Congress’ Commerce Clause power, and it cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is not Constitutional.

[O]n the unique facts of this particular case, the record seems to strongly indicate that Congress would not have passed the Act in its present form if it had not included the individual mandate. This is because the individual mandate was indisputably essential to what Congress was ultimately seeking to accomplish. It was, in fact, the keystone or lynchpin of the entire health reform effort…

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.

What’s more, it appears that the Obama administration must seek intervention from a higher court if it wants to keep implementing ObamaCare.  Even though Vinson declined to issue an injunction forbidding the administration to implement the law, he did so because of:

a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction”…”declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction”…Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.

In other words, absent intervention from a higher court, HHS must now sit on its hands.