Opponents: Congress went too far in Obama healthcare law (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) ? Congress went beyond its powers by requiring Americans to buy insurance under President Barack Obama’s sweeping healthcare overhaul, opponents told the Supreme Court on Monday in arguing the law’s centerpiece provision should be struck down.

In separate written briefs, 26 states and an independent business group argued Congress overstepped its authority under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce by mandating that individuals buy health insurance or pay a penalty by 2014.

They were responding to Obama administration arguments, filed with the high court last month, that defended the provision, known as the individual mandate, as a constitutional attempt to address a crisis in the national health care market.

The court has scheduled three days of oral arguments on the healthcare battle for March 26-28, with an election-year ruling likely by late June on the law that aims to provide more than 30 million uninsured Americans with coverage.

The 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business called it an unprecedented move by Congress to force individuals to buy insurance. The states say the entire law would be invalid if the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate.

A ruling striking down the law would be a huge political and legal defeat for Democrat Obama ahead of the November 6 election, when he seeks another four-year term. A ruling upholding his signature domestic achievement would be a major vindication.

Paul Clement, a former solicitor general under the Bush administration who is arguing for the states, said Congress may not circumvent constitutional limits by enacting a comprehensive regulatory scheme.

“The individual mandate is an unprecedented law that rests on an extraordinary and unbounded assertion of federal power,” he wrote in the brief, arguing that the mandate “was not a valid exercise of Congress’ Commerce power.”

Attorneys for the independent business group said the predominant purpose of the mandate was to force the uninsured to get coverage and to provide an annual subsidy of $28 to $39 billion to insurers and their customers.

They said Congress can regulate interstate commerce by setting rules that govern commercial activity between the states, but the powers were limited and Congress cannot force individuals to buy a product like health insurance.

“Forcing people into commerce does not regulate commerce. Otherwise, Congress could compel the purchase of any product,” they said in the written brief.

One of the attorneys, Gregory Katsas, told reporters Congress had never before in U.S. histroy made such a requirement. If the Supreme Court upholds the mandate, Congress next could force people to buy a specific car model, he said.

The legal arguments by the states and the business group were substantially the same to those they previously have made in the legal battle over the healthcare law.

The Supreme Court cases are National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, No. 11-398; and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 11-400.

(Editing by Todd Eastham)

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/obama/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20120206/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_court

the tree of life movie academy award nominees 2012 2012 oscar nominations florida debate kyle williams mark kirk rand paul

Appeals court hears challenge to health care law (AP)

WASHINGTON ? A conservative-leaning panel of federal appellate judges raised concerns about President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul Friday, but suggested the challenge to it may be premature.

The arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington over a lawsuit against Obama’s signature domestic legislative achievement focused on whether Congress overstepped its authority in requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014.

But Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a former top aide to President George W. Bush who appointed him to the bench, said that he has a “major concern” that courts might not be able to rule on the law’s constitutionality until 2015. That’s because a federal law bars most challenges to tax-related legislation before the tax or penalty is paid.

A federal appeals court in Richmond cited that law in throwing out another challenge to the overhaul. Two other appeals courts have reached differing conclusions ? one declaring the law unconstitutional and the other upholding it. The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in and could possibly even decide to review the law before the Washington circuit issues an opinion.

The Washington case was brought by the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson, on behalf of five Americans who chose not to buy health insurance because of religious beliefs that God heals their afflictions or a holistic approach to medical care. Their attorney, Edward White, told the appellate judges that one of the plaintiffs, Charles Edward Lee of San Antonio, is so devoted to faith healing that he hasn’t been to a doctor in 20 years and has told his family that even if he has a heart attack or is hit by a car just to pray for him and not seek medical care.

White argued the health care act passed by Congress is unconstitutional. “Congress cannot force people into private commerce and to buy a private product for the rest of their lives,” White said.

But Kavanaugh pointed out that Congress has the power to regulate commerce and can require insurance companies to cover all Americans. “It won’t work without an individual mandate attached to it,” Kavanagh said. He also theorized that the health care law could mark the shift in the social safety net to private industry. “Why should the court risk getting in the middle of that?” the judge questioned.

But later, when questioning government attorney Beth Brinkman, Kavanaugh and the panel’s other Republican-appointed judge, Laurence Silberman, expressed concern that if the court upholds the requirement to buy health insurance, Congress could require Americans to buy a wide variety of other products. Kavanaugh said that could include individual retirement accounts to replace Social Security and Silberman wondered if wealthy Americans could be required to buy a car from General Motors if the company falls toward bankruptcy again.

Brinkman responded that the government isn’t requiring Americans to buy health care for the product’s own sake, but to finance the system as part of an expanded regulatory scheme.

A requirement to buy a product “has never been done in 222 years,” Kavanaugh said. “That alone is cause for judicial hesitation.”

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/obama/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110923/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul

prn