An appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.
Appeals court rules against requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance in Pres. Obama's healthcare law
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's healthcare law suffered a setback Friday when a U.S. appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty.
The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire healthcare law.
The legality of the individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents have argued that without the mandate, which goes into effect in 2014, the entire law falls.
The law, adopted by Congress in 2010 after a bruising battle, is expected to be a major political issue in the 2012 elections as Obama seeks another term in office and as all the major Republican presidential candidates have opposed it.
Obama has championed the individual mandate as a major accomplishment of his presidency and as a way to try to slow the soaring costs of healthcare while expanding coverage to the more than 30 million Americans without it.
The White House said it strongly disagreed with the ruling and voiced confidence the decision would not stand.
"Today's ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act that we will see in the weeks and months ahead. In the end, we are confident the Act will ultimately be upheld as constitutional," Obama aide Stephanie Cutter said in a statement.
The Supreme Court is expected to take up the healthcare law during its upcoming term that begins in October with a ruling possible by the summer of 2012, just a few months before Obama faces re-election.
Twenty-six states had challenged the mandate, arguing that Congress had exceeded its authority by imposing such a requirement, but the Obama administration had argued it was legal under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-...
The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire healthcare law.
The legality of the individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents have argued that without the mandate, which goes into effect in 2014, the entire law falls.
The law, adopted by Congress in 2010 after a bruising battle, is expected to be a major political issue in the 2012 elections as Obama seeks another term in office and as all the major Republican presidential candidates have opposed it.
Obama has championed the individual mandate as a major accomplishment of his presidency and as a way to try to slow the soaring costs of healthcare while expanding coverage to the more than 30 million Americans without it.
The White House said it strongly disagreed with the ruling and voiced confidence the decision would not stand.
"Today's ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act that we will see in the weeks and months ahead. In the end, we are confident the Act will ultimately be upheld as constitutional," Obama aide Stephanie Cutter said in a statement.
The Supreme Court is expected to take up the healthcare law during its upcoming term that begins in October with a ruling possible by the summer of 2012, just a few months before Obama faces re-election.
Twenty-six states had challenged the mandate, arguing that Congress had exceeded its authority by imposing such a requirement, but the Obama administration had argued it was legal under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-...
I would like one of the opponents of the individual mandate to explain why, when somebody exercises their right NOT to purchase health care, the rest of us who do purchase health care have to pay for their health care when they require it?
That sounds like health care welfare--sponging--to me.