Federal Judge Rules New Health Law Unconstitutional

A Virginia judge today decided that the marketplace freedom to choose trumps the tyranny of medical mandates. In striking down the key provision of the Affordable Care Act — the requirement to carry insurance — Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the federal government has no right nor any authority to require citizens to buy health insurance.

As NCPA Senior Fellow Devon Herrick pointed out in a Business Week/Health Day article, the Act is the first instance where Americans have been required by their federal government to purchase a commercial product or pay a penalty. As Herrick pointed out, it doesn’t make sense to require Americans to buy a product they cannot afford and fine them if they don’t buy it.

While the major provisions of the Act don’t take effect until 2014, the case now will likely wind its way to the Supreme Court.

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ken says:

    Good result. I’m glad to see there are judges who still believe in the Constitution.

  2. Lizzy says:

    Finally! The constitutionality of this mandate has been raised for months and months. So, can anyone tell us what happens now? Is Obamacare dead, just stalled or will it move forward anyway?

  3. Ivan Grazhdanin says:

    The bad news is that a couple of other federal judges have upheld this particular provision of the Act. 2014 isn’t that far away and the current makeup of the SCOTUS isn’t that reliable. Hooray for Henry Hudson, but right now, he’s a minority of one.

  4. Devon Herrick says:

    If the decision that the individual mandate is unconstitutional ultimately stands, getting rid of it will require rescinding other key provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The individual mandate is necessary to prevent people from gaming the system. New regulations will require insurers to provide coverage to all individuals at rates that are not adjusted for health status. In addition, oldest (i.e. sickest) enrollees can be charged premiums that are no more three times that of the youngest (i.e. healthiest) enrollees. Unless there is a requirement all individuals must have insurance, there will be nothing to prevent enrollees from waiting to purchase coverage until after they become ill. No insurance plan can survive if it only insures people who enroll are sick.

    The individual mandate that all legal U.S. residents must have qualifying health coverage is different than the auto insurance mandate — currently in 48 states.

    Most states merely require insurance to pay other drivers’ damages if you cause an accident. In addition, driving is a privilege rather than a right. You can decide not to drive – but you cannot decide not to have health coverage beginning in 2014.

  5. Al Farragosa says:

    You’d think that the right to choose your own insurance would be fundamental. But, alas, it isn’t and hasn’t been for a long time. Maybe Hudson’s is the first step to rationality in health care.

  6. Ken says:

    The public support for Obama Care has hit a new low. This is from ABC News:

    The law’s never been popular, with support peaking at just 48 percent in November 2009. Today it’s slipped to 43 percent, numerically its lowest in ABC/Post polling. (It was about the same, 44 percent, a year ago.) Fifty-two percent are opposed, and that 9-point gap in favor of opposition is its largest on record since the latest debate over health care reform began in earnest in summer 2009.

  7. Judy Bonney says:

    My daughter had surgery this year on her leg for a tumor. She lost her insurance a week later due to her employment contract ending. I tried for 3 months to get private insurance for her only to be told by several of the big health insurance co. that she would have to be tumor free for a yr before any of them would CONSIDER insuring her. Aetna said they would insure her but the monthly payment would be 1,082.00 dollars. How can she or I afford this? She only makes 15,000 per year and I don’t make much more. If she hadn’t had the surgery she would have had a monthly payment of 182.00 with all of the bells and whistles. This country is going to h-ll in a basket. Politician not giving a hoot and big industries worshipping the almighty dollar. Makes a person ashamed to call themselves an American…….

  8. artk says:

    It would have been much better if the judge that ruled against the mandate didn’t have a significant financial interest in a Republican political consulting firm. It sounds like a clear conflict of interest.

  9. Erik says:

    So the Republicans gave Obama another step towards single payer with this decision.

    Now the administration can claim the mandate is a tax which is what they are going to do since Congress can raise taxes with impunity. Once the tax is in place it becomes a premium which allows you to enroll into government sponsored insurance (Medicare or the Exchange). It is all in place now and only the rhetoric needs to be agreed upon.

  10. Virginia says:

    It’s an interesting point that you make in your post:

    “As Herrick pointed out, it doesn’t make sense to require Americans to buy a product they cannot afford and fine them if they don’t buy it.”

    If we could all afford it, would it matter if there was a law requiring us to buy it? Most of us can afford at least minimal car insurance, so you don’t hear any complaints (or very few, at least) about people being forced to buy car insurance in order to drive.

  11. David says:

    Please, We are required to have car insurance, pay taxes, pay into social security, etc. And it all has benefited us in means we have forgotten or taken it for granite. Before congress spends another cent on repealing it, lets give it a chance. Nothing can ever be solved if we don’t learn to follow through on new ideas. Do you really want us to be the country that failed to implement it or the country that tried it and it didn’t work out. Lets just give it a opportunity.