OpEds: Assessing Judge Hudson's decision on individual mandate

Dec 14 2010

The Washington Post: Health Reform Will Survive Its Legal Fight
In March, New Hampshire preschool teacher Gail O'Brien, who was unable to obtain health insurance through her employer, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of lymphoma. Her subsequent applications for health insurance were rejected because of her condition. With each round of chemotherapy costing $16,000, she delayed treatment because she knew her savings wouldn't last (Eric H. Holder and Kathleen Sebelius, 12/14).

The New York Times: The Latest Health Care Decision
It was no great surprise that a federal district judge in Virginia, nominated by President George W. Bush, declared a provision of the health care reform law unconstitutional. Yet his decision offers at least some hope for health care reform because it bends over backward to limit the scope of his ruling in two important respects (12/13).

The Wall Street Journal: ObamaCare Loses In Court
Only a few months ago, the White House and its allies on the legal left dismissed the constitutional challenges to ObamaCare as frivolous, futile and politically motivated. So much for that. Yesterday, a federal district court judge in Virginia ruled that the health law breaches the Constitution's limits on government power (12/14).

The Washington Post: Health-Reform Advocates Have Little To Fear From Judge's Ruling
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee (and part-owner of a Republican campaign-consulting firm that fought the health-care overhaul legislation), has, as expected, ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional. So why are reform advocates so unexpectedly pleased? (Ezra Klein, 12/13).

Chicago Tribune: Uncertain Mandate On Health Care
The Obama administration's massive health insurance reform plan had to pass through numerous minefields before it finally became law. Now it has entered a new and equally uncertain part of the journey — the path through the courts. Monday, a federal judge struck down a part of the law on which its success may depend (12/13).

USA Today: Our View On 'Individual Mandate': Ruling On Health Law Offers A Victory For Freeloaders
Opponents of the nation's new health reform law are now batting 1-for-3. A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that requiring most Americans to buy health insurance violates the Constitution, but another federal judge in Virginia and one in Michigan had already held that the controversial law is constitutional (12/13).

USA Today: Opposing View On 'Individual Mandate': 'Unfair, Harmful'
The federal court ruling that the individual mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance is unconstitutional is a serious blow for the federal government's takeover of health care. It's also a clear victory for the people in the fight to restore the constitutional balance of power between the states and the federal government that is necessary to maintain individual liberty (George Allen, 12/13).

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Strike One Against ObamaCare
The idea that Congress can force Americans to participate in a market, and then tell them how to participate in it, is completely at odds with a document intended to limit the reach of the federal government. An enumerated power almost by definition cannot be unlimited. So, where is the limit (Kyle Wingfield, 12/13)?

San Francisco Chronicle: An Unsettling Second Opinion On Health Care
Obama still hasn't persuaded enough Americans that the reforms are in the interest of this nation's economic and physical well being -- which they are. He needs to do this, and not wait for a court to undermine this important message (12/14).

The Boston Globe: A Repeal That'll Be Dangerous To Our Health
As flawed as the law may be to critics on the left and right, going backward is not a reasonable option. More caution against wholesale repeal came in the form of a recent study from Columbia University that suggested that US overspending on health might be harming Americans (Derrick Jackson, 12/14).

The Christian Science Monitor: When Patents Kill: Genzyme's Patent-Protected, Life-Saving Drug
As noted by Mike Masnick on Techdirt ..., due to the monopoly granted by patent (yes, it is a monopoly), people are literally dying because Fabrazyme is in short supply and the sole, monopolistic manufacturer, Genzyme, can't make enough quickly enough-and no one else is permitted to make it due to the patent (Stephan Kinsella, 12/13).

Journal Sentinel: Not Now
Wisconsin is one of only four states that still tax contributions to health savings accounts. As a matter of fairness to those who have HSAs coupled with high-deductible health insurance plans, the state should change that policy, as Governor-elect Scott Walker has suggested. But not now. ... As a matter of principle, we like the idea of eliminating the tax. As a matter of budgeting, we don't (12/13).

Houston Chronicle: A Good Plan For All: State Legislation To Expand HIV Testing Is Worth The Cost
Although no cost estimate for the impact of the legislation has been made pending a committee hearing, a fiscal note for a similar bill offered in the last legislative session estimated that the cost in state funds would be roughly $4 million a year. Sen. Ellis contends that's a cheap price to pay to slow the spread of an epidemic that infects 4,600 Texans a year and entails a lifetime cost for treating one individual with HIV of more than $350,000 (12/13).