Monday, February 14, 2011

ObamaCare has so Many Myths, It's Hard to Know Where to Begin

Cory L. Andrews started with the litigation side of matters, debunking the leading Obamacare litigation myths:

My favorite:

Myth #5: “Judge Vinson declared not just the individual mandate, but the entire ObamaCare law unconstitutional. That shows how radical he is.”This is the myth that will not die. Following Judge Vinson’s ruling in Florida, defenders of ObamaCare seized on the supposed “fact” that he declared the entire law unconstitutional as further evidence that Vinson was an unhinged jurist whose ruling placed him “outside the mainstream.”
Similar reports followed from virtually every media outlet in the country (see herehere, and here). But nowhere did Judge Vinson hold that the entire law was unconstitutional. Rather, he found that only the individual mandate was unconstitutional; yet, because Congress hadn’t bothered to include a severability clause, the entire law was void.
This is an important distinction. Other than the individual mandate, Judge Vinson impugned no portion of ObamaCare on constitutional grounds, nor did he overstep his judicial duty.

Check it out. (Links in original)

Judge Vinson's decision was handcuffed upon him by Congress' failure to include a severability clause so that even if Judge Vinson found every other provision constitutional, the fact that one feature is unconstitutional invalidates the whole 2200 page think.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers


StoppingTheHate said...

It is very easy to criticize health care reform and focus on all of complexities of reform. Let's remember this, Obama's health care reform legislation improves many things, particulary denying coverage on the basis of prexisting condition. The republicans never did anything to improve health care during the eight years they had control, so shame on them for criticizing Obama. They had a chance and did nothing so now it is time for them to "Shut Up"

Matt Johnston said...

I love comments like this, long on generalities and short on actual argument. My post above had nothing to do with the actual complexities of the ObamaCare bill (and believe it has more than its fair share). Rather it takes a look at the legal myths that are rising up.

But as to Stopping the Hate's Comment, there is not one of the "many things" mentioned by the comment that ObamaCare has supposedly improved. Not one. An argument cannot be raised without details. Furthermore, an argument cannot be refuted when it is not raised.

So, Stopping the Hate, I challenge you to name one thing, just one (although you are free to name more than one) that ObamaCare has improved. Then we can have a discussion about whether the President's signature bill has actually made healthcare better or cheaper.