Breaking News: Judge Rules that a Provision in the Administration’s Healthcare Act is Unconstitutional

December 14, 2010
Print This Post Print This Post

Justice A federal district judge in Virginia has ruled that one of the central provisions in President Obama’s healthcare act is unconstitutional. ANH-USA has filed an amicus brief on the same provision, but in a different jurisdiction.

In the federal court opinion, Judge Henry Hudson wrote that the individual mandate clause in the healthcare act—the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance policies—exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Compelling people to enter into a commercial transaction, Hudson wrote, was tantamount to “invit[ing] unbridled exercise of federal police powers.” He continued: “At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”

The Justice Department, which is defending the statute, will appeal Hudson’s ruling to a higher court, and it may get fast-tracked immediately to the Supreme Court. The administration has said that if the provision in question eventually falls, related insurance changes would necessarily collapse with it—most notably the ban on insurer exclusions of applicants with pre-existing health conditions. However, Hudson denied Virginia’s request to prevent the entire law from being implemented. Instead, he specifically stated in his ruling that any portion of the healthcare law that does not rest on the individual mandate could proceed.

ANH-USA recently filed an amicus brief in support of famed attorney Jonathan Emord’s Ohio lawsuit to overturn the healthcare act. You may recall that we have our own lawsuit pending, which we filed along with the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons. Both our suit and Emord’s are based in large part on the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate provision.

We see the individual mandate, together with government’s mandate of what will be covered or allowed in the insurance, as a dagger aimed at medical treatments based on natural health. The trouble with one-size-fits-all medicine is that it will be defined by the AMA, drug companies, hospitals, and equipment companies—by the special interests with money and political clout—not by integrative physicians, and certainly not by the American public.

This is the problem with the recent bill that unites critics on both the left and the right: consumers shouldn’t be forced to transfer their money to giant companies in the medical-industrial complex. The healthcare act’s virtual repeal of high-deductible insurance policies is an example of this and a special concern of ours. These are the kinds of policies best suited for people who believe in natural medicine and have to pay for it out of their own pocket.

18 Responses to “Breaking News: Judge Rules that a Provision in the Administration’s Healthcare Act is Unconstitutional”

  1. Sean says:

    The whole Health Care Bill is just plain wrong for everyone. Mandatory health insurance is not only unconstitutional it is social-fascism, forced upon the people. This Bill will not bring better health to anyone. If you want better health you need to eat real food not processed garbage sold in most stores.

    Most Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that “Insurance” in any form is the norm-WRONG ! By giving your money to someone else you have given them the ability to make health decisions for you whether you like them or not. I refuse to participate in anything that takes away my freedom, what’s left of them. One does not need “Health Insurance,” we need affordable care without going bankrupt in the process. American’s need quality health care not outrageous health care costs.
    The government is the last entity we need making our health decisions for us and interfering in freedom of choice and free enterprise. (shoot-the-politicians.org)

    The “Health Care Industry” is nothing but a scam to get consumers into paying for something that they may barely use. Also the “Health Care System” is nothing but a tread mill with extremely dangerous doctors, dangerous synthetic drugs and dangerous procedures than only keep patients coming back to keep the money coming in from their insurance providers.

       0 likes

  2. Mary says:

    Our family is one that would most likely receive medicaid because of low income. But I personally do not want it. I am not looking for a handout. I also do not want to be forced to receive immunizations or tests (like mammograms) that I view as essentially poison. I have very little use for mainstream medicine and pharmaceuticals. If our income were to rise I don’t want to be forced to purchase something that I have no intention of using. The only use for health insurance is in case of accident, broken bones, etc. A high deductible policy with a HSA is the only form of insurance that I would ever be interested in and the Health Care Bill essentially eliminates that option. As for the example one person used of automobile insurance, yes that is required if you CHOOSE to have an automobile. The Health Care Bill automatically requires you to carry health insurance simply by daring to breathe.

       0 likes

  3. Amber says:

    If healthcare coverage actually covered any of the needs of my family which we utilize to stay healthy or support us in times of inbalance it would be a whole different idea. However the gentle effective modalities, many of which are thousands of years old, are not considered by the mainstream “health” system.

       0 likes

  4. Leonard Langberg says:

    Thank you so much for standing up for everyone’s right to choose their own methods of getting and staying healthy!

       0 likes

  5. What planet do you live on by thinking that High-Deductible Insurance is available to any but the very wealthy. You will assist in overturning the already weakened reform and fall smack into the hands of insurers.

    It’s time to unsubscribe for me.

    Joe C.

       0 likes

    • Steven Salamon says:

      Mr. Castronovo,
      Every health insurance company sells high deductable insurance. It’s just not their ‘lead’ product, as the primiums are lower. Just ask your agent.
      Steve S.

         0 likes

  6. Maggie says:

    This is a pack of lies of course a Bush appointed Judge. Anything with the bush name attached to it in anyway is a huge signal of deciet and lies. Why would people believe in the bush era. We were lied to over and over and the repuplicans fall for it everytime. Triillons how far can you count were wasted in Iraq because of weapons of mass destrucion. It turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction and billions of dollars wasted in lookling for something which did not exist. That is a all time low for any president! The rich came out with all the money and the poor and middle class has to spend lifetimes to pay the debt. What about those commmandants kill, kill, kill dont ever tell me this is God’s way. The republicans were the christian group what a joke! Big companies made huge profits at the expense of life. Insurance can be like gas who knows what you will pay from day to day. Big companies have stole and come Jan. the first job of Republican spend, spend, steal and lie!. The lobbyist pays them and throws their vote to the richest. The healthcare would put competition into the picture and that cannot happen and they will lie to keep all Americans right in line. Fools twice that is what you call idots! They are holding the Democrats and President hostage if they don.t get their way.!

       0 likes

  7. Gary Lampman says:

    The only thing unconstitutional is a judicially activist judge hired by the Bush administration that has lobbied against the bill on the onset. Here we have challages to the Health Care Bill even before the 2014 when it comes due to take affect. Where is the challenge to mandating seat belts and Car Insurance to drive etc etc etc?? No one has deamed it unconstitutional?
    Self serving individuals called health Care a privledge! So now we make it such and self serving whinnie bitches don’t want to participate. Boo Hoo you spoiled paphetic Brats. In our efforts for generations to enjoy what their parents had not.
    In doing so what has been unleashed from pandora’s box are groups of people who only think of themselves,have little compassion and in many cases apathy . Along the way much of the younger generations have lost a sense of civil service,community, compassion and understanding. So if your one ot those who fit the bill. One who is against everything that doesn’t bring profits to their pockets and denies others of improving their health or having access to health Care. Then I wish you a most disguesting and painful christmas this year!

       0 likes

    • rick raleigh says:

      Just a moment. Back around 1973 or so, the issue of mandatory seatbelt usage was determined by the courts to be an unlawful restraint. How did they get around this? They simply changed the definition of “unlawful restraint”, and failed to acknowledge that the fact it WAS unlawful preceded any legislative or judicial attempts to impose anything that would suddenly make it “lawful”. More government by whim.

         0 likes

    • Angela says:

      Why should we be forced to subscribe to a health care system we dont believe in? I dont use doctors unless we have a broken bone or something. We use natural medicine. I dont want my government telling me how to handle my health. Why does everyone think that the poor do not have access to medical care already? I used medical as a teenager and had better treatment then than I do now with my hmo??? As far as Im concerned this plan is crap! I cant believe so many are willing to eat it up!!!

         0 likes

  8. Arthur Lupien says:

    Health care providers should be fairly compensated for the services they provide, just like anyone else. Beyond that, it is morally repugnant that investors should be allowed to build their fortunes by taking money from the sick. Health care should be non-profit; such institutions already exist and should be encouraged. Health care insurers should focus on catastrophic coverage, and these insurance companies should be mutuals, that is, owned by the policy holders. In this way, there is an incentive to keep costs down, because mutuals return premiums in excess of the company’s anticipated obligations and capital reserve requirements. How to fund day to day health care? Easy. Let every individual to have a tax free interest bearing savings account that can only be used for medical expenses. Deposits would be made from pre-tax earnings, and employers may contribute. Allow family members to transfer funds between accounts to cover special circumstances, but withdrawals must be health related. Once people realize that real money is involved, i.e., their own, they will be far more careful about what they spend. KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF HEALTH CARE or this nation will go bankrupt. If the profit(eering) incentive is removed, costs will go down and the “crisis” will vanish.

       0 likes

  9. Amy Chase says:

    You guys are great! I didn’t know you had filed an amicus brief in support of Jonathan Emord’s suit nor that you had your own suit going. That’s a lot of work. Thank you for being out there for all of us, consumers, practitioners, and industry.

       0 likes

  10. L.P. says:

    Thank GOD there is ONE sane judge….so far.
    This is the best news I’ve heard all day!!!

       0 likes

  11. Deborah L. Freberg says:

    I had such great hopes for Barack Obama’s Presidency. At last, a man to stand up against the major controlling entities, the Pharmaceutical Industry, the Petroleum Industry, Financial Institutions, and Insurance Companies to name a few. What do I see now? A huge disappointment without the fortitude or leadership qualities necessary to stand against the afore mentioned entities and their political lackeys and return the Government of The United States of America to it’s original purpose, representing the Citizens of this Nation. We do not exist to support and finance the Medical Insurance Companies, the Pharmaceutical Industries or any other business entity.
    I hope that the Courts of this Nation will prevent our Government from selling us to the Insurance Companies.

    Thoroughly Disgusted

       0 likes

  12. Carolyn says:

    That’s the problem….it’s a lie that people with pre-existing conditions are not being denied coverage and they will be denied under this law…..Death panels will become a reality under this law…insurance rates will go up under this law…they already are!!!!!
    This law is Unconstitutional and over reaching and draconian!!!!! The Supreme Court should rule against making Americans buy something from a private company…unless they have abandoned the Constitution too as most of our so called representatives have done in their arrogant views!!

       0 likes

  13. Jim Lupino says:

    “Compelling people to enter into a commercial transaction, Hudson wrote, was tantamount to “invit[ing] unbridled exercise of federal police powers.” He continued: “At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”

    Would this not hold equally true then for involuntary automobile insurance?

    The real cost of insuring a vehicle lies in the “underinsured motorist” option: That is pennies on the dollars in comparison to the costs of liability and cmprehesive, but covers the other car involved? Do we really think the insurance companies lose a dime in ‘giving us a break’ on those costs? Is this not government-mandated public support of private enterprise for profit?

       0 likes

  14. Linda Elkin says:

    It is about time.

       0 likes

Leave a Reply

Comment Policy:
ANH-USA provides a comment forum for our readers to share their constructive thoughts and criticisms about our newsletter articles and engage in civil debate with other readers. All comments are pre-moderated regardless of author. We never censor comments based on political or ideological point of view. We only remove those comments that are abusive, off-topic, use foul language, include personal attacks, or are otherwise discourteous and uncivil. Please do not post comments in ALL CAPS; on the internet this is considered "shouting."

 characters available

Follow us on...