Obamacare ruled unconstitutional

A US District Judge ruled ALL of Obamacare is unconstitutional which, contrary to the New York Times reporting, this ruling kills every sspect of the bill until a stay is sought and given (which will likely occur today). 
 
This decision is more sweeping than December's because it argues the mandate is not severable from the rest of the bill, which it legally is not (Democrats removed the severability clause basically all legislation contains during final negotiations). The judge even quoted then-candidate Obama's criticism of the mandate, saying if this is allowed, we can eliminate homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house. The judge also argued that the Commerce Clause cannot be used to regulace inactivity and this bill would, basically, give Congress unlimited power.
 
This is likely going to be the main case hitting the SCOTUS and I do not see it passing. Justice Kagan should --- but won't --- recuse herself, but Justice Kennedy is basically going to go with popular sentiment and that remains with repealing it. 
 
Do you agree with this? Can you provide an argument against the decision?

We seriously need to re-write the constitution every 250 years or so. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but also a lot of horse shit.

Maybe we could get that whole 'blacks are 3/5th of a person' thing out of there, too.

The mandate that everyone MUST buy healthcare was first suggested by republicans as a way to make sure that people didn't hold off on getting insurance until they got sick (a practice which would essentially break the system). Just thought this was a useful piece of information.
 
It's a complicated issue, which causes us to ask a lot of questions about how our society should run. Its just a shame that the USA hasn't been able to sort themselves out yet.
 
Oh yes, I'm Canadian, so this is all just academic from my perspective. Though I would like to express some platitude to those without healthcare.

" We seriously need to re-write the constitution every 250 years or so. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but also a lot of horse shit. "

 The judge even quoted then-candidate Obama's criticism of the mandate, saying if this is allowed, we can eliminate homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house.   

" Maybe we could get that whole 'blacks are 3/5th of a person' thing out of there, too. "

The constitution could definitely use a big redo every few hundred years. Stuff like the right to bear arms have done way more harm to the US than good in the last hundred years. Things change, society evolves. This is largely the same problem religions face with their "holy" books. Crap like the Bible looks more and more ridiculous with every decade that passes. People start to interpret it less literally as they realize it's a bunch of junk. This is no different with the constitution.

Though I understand it's importance as a starting point for all government decisions and recognize the good it has done us, it really annoys me when people hold the Constitution to be infallible and unchangeable. Frankly, it is lazy to call something unconstitutional and thus dismiss it offhand. It sets the precedent, but there is still room to argue why that precedent should be overturned. It must be challenged in order to progress.

There are still plenty of entities upheld by the Constitution that are very much relevant even today.

this is an outrage! how can it be unconstitutional to force people to buy something!?!?

@ slaker: Nobody is arguing it is infallible or unchangeable. The Founders wrote a method of changing it into the Constitution. But changing it is difficult as it should be. If this isnt unconstitutional, then what limits exist for Federal power? If the national government can force you to buy a service from a third party to simply exist, it can do anything. Calling it unconstitutional is not lazy if it does violate the Constitution.
 
@toowalrus: It was removed with the passing of the 13th thru 15th Amendments. 
 
@mzucker: I count 4 almost guaranteed votes for repeal. 4 almost guaranteed to keep (including Kagan who, again, should recuse herself but likely will not). And given the widespread and constant hatred for the bill, I see Kennedy voting to repeal. And while I do@not love coujrts getting involved, that members of Congress feel there are no limits to their power, then it is a necessity. cp Commerce Clause jurisprudence has been abused, but if it is allowed to impact inactivity for something that legally cannot be sold across state lines, then the Feds have limitless power. 
 
That would be bad. 

@rolyat: Do not disagree on occasional Constitutional Amendments, but the 2d Amendment is the one rhat keeps your rights protected. Governments always seek to disarm the populace for a reason.

repeal of this bill would take away my insurance, therefore I am against that happening

I agree that the mandate, which isn't in effect yet, is a stupid way to increase the number of people with healthcare coverage. But the US got the only health care bill they could get, thanks to their political system. There are still good things in that bill like consumer protections and expanded Medicaid that shouldn't be thrown out.

The whole thing should be thrown out and Obama should pass by presidential decree Medicare part E.  Anyone who wants to purchase a low-cost Medicare plan should be able to do so.   

"@mzucker: I count 4 almost guaranteed votes for repeal. 4 almost guaranteed to keep (including Kagan who, again, should recuse herself but likely will not). And given the widespread and constant hatred for the bill, I see Kennedy voting to repeal. And while I do@not love coujrts getting involved, that members of Congress feel there are no limits to their power, then it is a necessity. cp Commerce Clause jurisprudence has been abused, but if it is allowed to impact inactivity for something that legally cannot be sold across state lines, then the Feds have limitless power.  That would be bad."

" @MikeinSC:@MikeinSC said:

"@mzucker: I count 4 almost guaranteed votes for repeal. 4 almost guaranteed to keep (including Kagan who, again, should recuse herself but likely will not). And given the widespread and constant hatred for the bill, I see Kennedy voting to repeal. And while I do@not love coujrts getting involved, that members of Congress feel there are no limits to their power, then it is a necessity. cp Commerce Clause jurisprudence has been abused, but if it is allowed to impact inactivity for something that legally cannot be sold across state lines, then the Feds have limitless power.  That would be bad."

I count 4 guaranteed to uphold (Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg).  They all agree that Congress has broad powers, and they also more or less agree with the underlying policy.  I think Kennedy is more likely than not to vote to uphold as well, given that he's been a pretty squishy conservative.  John Roberts may be the next likeliest to peel off, but it's probably folly to bet too strongly on what Kennedy or a couple of the conservatives might do.  I do expect to see a strong dissent from a Scalia or Thomas or Alito, but one of them may surprise us.  As for the limitless power argument, well, that's a bit of an overstatement but it's close enough to being true.  There's very little that the federal government can't stick its hands into, absent a clear Constitutional prohibition.  That's just the way the Constitution has been interpreted over time.  I find this very frustrating at times, but I have to acknowledge that it has been a good thing from time to time too (think Brown v. Board). "

I don't care what happens to the bill, as long as they keep the part where they allow people to get healthcare with pre-existing conditions, and probably the part where I can stay on my parent's healthplan until 26 or whatever.

@berzerker: I am sorry if it negatively impacts you, but the bill is something that has to be stopped. My premiums went up 12% this year for IDENTICAL coverage due to this bill. That is not going to work. 
 
@strangeone: They can propose those parts individually. 

" I don't care what happens to the bill, as long as they keep the part where they allow people to get healthcare with pre-existing conditions, and probably the part where I can stay on my parent's healthplan until 26 or whatever. "

The one thing that confuses me about Obamacare is this: 
 
You will be a criminal if you don't have some sort of health insurance. 
 
That seems a little messed up to me. Why not just do it like everyone else? Nationalised/Universal health care systems are a good thing. They mean paying a bit more in taxes, but I don't mind paying those taxes when it means if I break my arm or I get hit by a car (again) that when I wake up I won't have to worry about charges and fees incurred for daring to want treatment. I don't think anyone would mind privatized firms still existing. I just wish people could stop thinking like capitalists for one moment and think about the benefit of their brothers and sisters. If you're too selfish to think about that, then think about how it could benefit you and yours. 
 
/rant

@ninja: One of the Justices was WH counsel during a lot of the deliberations of this bill. I give her no chance of recusing herself as she should. That the Court is political, as said previously, has been the case since 1800 when judicial review emerged out of judicial fiat.

" @AnimZero said:

" I don't care what happens to the bill, as long as they keep the part where they allow people to get healthcare with pre-existing conditions, and probably the part where I can stay on my parent's healthplan until 26 or whatever. "

How noble of you, only caring about what directly affects you, and not giving a shit about the rest.   "

@King: I would prefer to keep the system that generates the lion's share of medical advances in the world. Poverty equality is still poverty. 85% of the people are covered. 

" @berzerker: I am sorry if it negatively impacts you, but the bill is something that has to be stopped. My premiums went up 12% this year for IDENTICAL coverage due to this bill. That is not going to work. "

If the health care bill is somehow overturned does this mean I won't have to buy car insurance either?  And I still don't understand how the public option didn't make it in.

" The one thing that confuses me about Obamacare is this:  You will be a criminal if you don't have some sort of health insurance.  That seems a little messed up to me. Why not just do it like everyone else? Nationalised/Universal health care systems are a good thing. They mean paying a bit more in taxes, but I don't mind paying those taxes when it means if I break my arm or I get hit by a car (again) that when I wake up I won't have to worry about charges and fees incurred for daring to want treatment. I don't think anyone would mind privatized firms still existing. I just wish people could stop thinking like capitalists for one moment and think about the benefit of their brothers and sisters. If you're too selfish to think about that, then think about how it could benefit you and yours.  /rant "

Oh America, when will you wake up and join the rest of the modern world with your heatlh care.

"Oh America, when will you wake up and join the rest of the modern world with your heatlh care. "

" @DeeGee said:

"Oh America, when will you wake up and join the rest of the modern world with your heatlh care. "

NEVER!  Don't forget people jumped on Michelle Obama when she encouraged people to eat more fruits and vegetables.  See it's american to deny people healthcare while you fatten them up. "

" @MikeinSC: Lion's share of medical advances? I hope you can back that up with some sort of documentation. It seems that most of the major advances in medical science have come out of europe in the last ten years.   I know it's easy to talk tough about these things until you run into a brick wall in a similar situation. I also never said privatized health care should be abolished, but for those %15 of people who can't get treatment, some basic human dignity should be afforded to them. Medicine is not meant to be withheld from people, or reserved for only the people who can afford it. I suspect you know this, but you've got this warped idea that because medicine in the United States is privatized, that it means things go better. Maybe they do, if you're white and middle class or higher.  "

" @MikeinSC: Lion's share of medical advances? I hope you can back that up with some sort of documentation. It seems that most of the major advances in medical science have come out of europe in the last ten years.   I know it's easy to talk tough about these things until you run into a brick wall in a similar situation. I also never said privatized health care should be abolished, but for those %15 of people who can't get treatment, some basic human dignity should be afforded to them. Medicine is not meant to be withheld from people, or reserved for only the people who can afford it. I suspect you know this, but you've got this warped idea that because medicine in the United States is privatized, that it means things go better. Maybe they do, if you're white and middle class or higher.  "

" @mzuckerm: Wow.  I'm talking about current/ongoing corruption and you're banging the pulpit and screaming about an organization she no longer has any involvement with.  She led the ACLU legal team IN THE PAST.  She's not currently flying out to speak at ACLU events.   As Scalia and Thomas are currently doing, and not just attending said events, but held up as a fundraising tool.   "

lol the judge's opinion is like 10 pages dedicated to the federalist papers, random out of context opinions from the 18th century, and a reference to the boston tea party. what a terrible judge

" @TooWalrus said:

" Maybe we could get that whole 'blacks are 3/5th of a person' thing out of there, too. "

It's not in there anymore.  This is commonly used as evidence that the Constitution was founded in part on racist principles (which is more or less true), but not for the reason most of the people quoting it seem to realize.  You may already know this, but there's actually an interesting history to that piece, because the people wanting blacks recognized as full persons were Southern states.  The North didn't want them to count at all.  This was for purposes of representation in Congress, so more representation for slaves would have perversely meant more pro-slavery representation in Congress. "

" @mzuckerm said:

" @TooWalrus said:

" Maybe we could get that whole 'blacks are 3/5th of a person' thing out of there, too. "

It's not in there anymore.  This is commonly used as evidence that the Constitution was founded in part on racist principles (which is more or less true), but not for the reason most of the people quoting it seem to realize.  You may already know this, but there's actually an interesting history to that piece, because the people wanting blacks recognized as full persons were Southern states.  The North didn't want them to count at all.  This was for purposes of representation in Congress, so more representation for slaves would have perversely meant more pro-slavery representation in Congress. "

The north wanted them to count for tax purposes though, but not representation.   "

" @mzuckerm said:

" @TooWalrus said:

" Maybe we could get that whole 'blacks are 3/5th of a person' thing out of there, too. "

It's not in there anymore.  This is commonly used as evidence that the Constitution was founded in part on racist principles (which is more or less true), but not for the reason most of the people quoting it seem to realize.  You may already know this, but there's actually an interesting history to that piece, because the people wanting blacks recognized as full persons were Southern states.  The North didn't want them to count at all.  This was for purposes of representation in Congress, so more representation for slaves would have perversely meant more pro-slavery representation in Congress. "

The north wanted them to count for tax purposes though, but not representation.   "

" @KingWilly said:

" @MikeinSC: Lion's share of medical advances? I hope you can back that up with some sort of documentation. It seems that most of the major advances in medical science have come out of europe in the last ten years.   I know it's easy to talk tough about these things until you run into a brick wall in a similar situation. I also never said privatized health care should be abolished, but for those %15 of people who can't get treatment, some basic human dignity should be afforded to them. Medicine is not meant to be withheld from people, or reserved for only the people who can afford it. I suspect you know this, but you've got this warped idea that because medicine in the United States is privatized, that it means things go better. Maybe they do, if you're white and middle class or higher.  "

Here's the thing - most hospitals will NOT turn someone away just because they cannot pay.  They're just gonna get a bill in the mail that will end up going to collections.  So it bugs the shit out of me when people say "people can't get treatment."  Because that's bullshit.  People can get treatment.  And they could probably even pay for it if they worked something out and didn't avoid all the hospital bills and calls and calls from the collection agency when it goes to them. "

It was mandated plutocracy, which is bullshit. Public Option is fine, voluntary private healthcare is fine, mandatory private (for profit) healthcare under the penalty of fine is the dumbest shit ever.

" We seriously need to re-write the constitution every 250 years or so. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but also a lot of horse shit. "

" @melcene said:

" @KingWilly said:

" @MikeinSC: Lion's share of medical advances? I hope you can back that up with some sort of documentation. It seems that most of the major advances in medical science have come out of europe in the last ten years.   I know it's easy to talk tough about these things until you run into a brick wall in a similar situation. I also never said privatized health care should be abolished, but for those %15 of people who can't get treatment, some basic human dignity should be afforded to them. Medicine is not meant to be withheld from people, or reserved for only the people who can afford it. I suspect you know this, but you've got this warped idea that because medicine in the United States is privatized, that it means things go better. Maybe they do, if you're white and middle class or higher.  "

Here's the thing - most hospitals will NOT turn someone away just because they cannot pay.  They're just gonna get a bill in the mail that will end up going to collections.  So it bugs the shit out of me when people say "people can't get treatment."  Because that's bullshit.  People can get treatment.  And they could probably even pay for it if they worked something out and didn't avoid all the hospital bills and calls and calls from the collection agency when it goes to them. "

Wait, so it's OK that people are indebted up to their eyeballs instead?   How exactly does their debt help your economy?  Isn't it smarter to have a broader taxation system which enables Health Care Services for everyone? It bugs the shit out of me that some American people don't understand that Universal Healthcare is a good and proper thing.  It also amazes me that the US doesn't have that for its own people when almost every other country in the western world does.  Doesn't that make you feel a little backwards as a country? "