Ben Smith Politico: The perfect partisan streak in health care rulings continues, with D.C. federal district judge Gladys Kessler, a Clinton appointee, ruling the Affordable Care Act constitutional. She's the third Democratic judge to do so; two Republicans have found it unconstitutional.Kessler writes in one key passage on the mandate:But people can still opt out by paying the fee, so is anything really solved? I also fail to see where the Constitutional authority comes from for the government to save. If such a thing exists, why the heck hasn't been enforced across the board? Our $14 trillion deficit would seem to speak to the contrary.
First, this Court agrees with the two other district courts which have ruled that the individuals subject to § 1501’s mandate provision are either present or future participants in the national health care market. See Liberty Univ., 2010 WL 4860299, at *15 (“Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care.”); Thomas More Law Ctr., 720 F.Supp.2d at 894 (“The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. . . . The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings . . . they cannot opt out of this market.”). Thus, the vast majority of individuals, if not all individuals, will require some medical care in their lifetime.
The Supreme Court really needs to fast track this.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: The Note
Via: Ben Smith Politico