Politics & Media
Feb 10, 2011, 06:36AM

The Shabby Case Against ObamaCare

Judge Roger Vinson's ruling was executed in bad faith and with faulty logic.

3827481955 5a54731ba6 z.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1


At the start of his ruling last month striking down health care reform, Florida’s Judge Roger Vinson writes (full ruling here; subsequent numbers refer to the original document): “This case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation,” and “it is not really about our health care system at all. It is principally about our federalist system, and […] the Constitutional role of the federal government.” In truth, Judge Vinson’s opinion is about neither of these issues. It concerns President Obama. His decision, clearly guided by an originalist, libertarian and religious outlook, is, like the entire conservative case against reform, a reactionary attack on the president. As with every Tea Party talking point, it is steeped in lies, hypocrisy, and perverse revisionism.

You’d expect to encounter all these problems when perusing Tea Party forums and listening to Republican politicians. But for a judge to resort to this behavior is particularly dangerous because he need not answer to anyone; and this must give us pause when we consider that the ultimate health care verdict will likely come down to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s swing vote.

Judge Vinson’s misinformation is astonishingly and embarrassingly transparent. In an effort to portray reform as oppressive, he asserts without any evidence that “a single twenty-year-old man or woman who only needs and wants major medical or catastrophic coverage,’ for example, is precluded from buying such a policy under the Act” (38, FN 14). According to the Urban Institute, however, under the Affordable Care Act “a catastrophic plan will be an added option available to young adults under age 30.”

Judge Vinson further charges: “Never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States” (38). In fact, health care reform does not require that “everyone” buy insurance—according to Politifact, exemptions apply to “those for whom insurance premiums would be a financial hardship, Americans with religious objections, American Indians, undocumented immigrants and prison inmates.” In addition, we need not purchase from “a private company,” since reform provides many private and public insurance options from which to choose.

In any case, the notion that Congress has never mandated that private citizens must buy a product is conclusively overthrown by the 1792 Militia Act, in which Congress required every white male age 18 to 45 to “provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack” on pain of potential court-martial, rather than a mere fine/tax, as in the case of health care reform. It is ironic that Judge Vinson, a purported devotee to the Founders’ intent, ignores this fact in his decision.

Adding to the hypocrisy, he claims that “as the Supreme Court presently defines it” (43), Congress does not have authority to regulate interstate commerce by penalizing inaction, which could create unlimited federal power (whether refusal to buy coverage, which would drain insurance pools and deprive others of health care, constitutes inaction is a matter of heated debate). This contradicts Justice Antonin Scalia’s prevailing opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, that “where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make the regulation effective” (though I wouldn’t be surprised if Justice Scalia conveniently forgets this when he writes his ruling on health care). We must also bear in mind that although the Supreme Court has never explicitly granted Congress authority to penalize inaction, it has never forbade the practice either; thus, by assuming penalizing inaction is unconstitutional, Judge Vinson’s argument is false in its own terms, since at another point he claims that “all federal legislation carries with it a presumption of constitutionality” (39).

There are many other falsehoods. His remark that “It was not until 1887, one hundred years after ratification, that Congress first exercised its power to affirmatively and positively regulate commerce among states” (28) is a classic instance of historical revisionism. It was the very first Congress that regulated interstate commerce by passing “an Act for registering and clearing vessels, regulating the coasting trade, and for other purposes,” requiring American ship owners to register their vessels and follow rules when traveling from Baltimore to Philadelphia. This explains why many feel Judge Vinson’s opinion would make George Washington cringe.

It is not just the blatant inaccuracies that make Judge Vinson’s decision disturbing. His tone conveys the true motivation behind his thinking: it is not fear of unlimited Congressional power, nor the “unprecedented” nature of a mandate, nor faithfulness to the Founders’ intent; it’s not even about conservatism. It’s about Obama. By referring in his ruling to then-Senator Obama’s initial opposition to mandates (76, FN30), Judge Vinson reveals more than one might immediately suspect. In this sequence he argues that, although Congress generally has power to regulate and reform health care in a “constitutional” manner, in this case it “chose to exercise… power” in an unlawful way by imposing a mandate. He points to Obama’s contradictory stances as if it supports his argument, suggesting that the President is certainly aware of legal alternatives.

Yet, as Judge Vinson notes, Obama initially countered that mandates are best avoided not because they abuse federal power but because they are impractical—by the same logic, we could “solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,” he objected during the 2008 campaign. But he came to embrace the mandate “kicking and screaming” because it is the most feasible approach. As such, it’s obvious that Judge Vinson includes Obama’s about face not to strengthen his critique of Congressional overreach or to sharpen his call for pursuing alternative “constitutional” options, but to embarrass the president.

And this pattern is perfectly consistent with the ruling’s general tone. It could not be a more blatant regurgitation of Tea Party “principles.” On top of the pseudo-originalism, false outrage and revisionism, some passages are clearly designed to please the Tea Party faithful, such as the reference to William Paley’s infamous “watch” argument for design (73-4), which prompted the people at More Than Right to proclaim, “The contest, therefore, is not over healthcare. It is a fight over who will be America’s watchmaker.” Apparently, Obama’s watch is not as well designed as god’s creations; but presumably, Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan is a closer approximation.

Similarly, Tea Party activists relish Judge Vinson’s disgraceful attempt to equate President Obama’s health care plan to “a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America” (42). Among many gross incongruities, that the British never faced elections while Obama won in a landslide does not seem to matter (it was “taxation without representation” that spurred some colonists to commit the notorious act of rebellion of which, as it happens, Washington and Franklin disapproved, the latter calling it “an act of violent injustice.”)

Judge Vinson and mainstream conservatives are concerned not with what’s in the legislation but with who wrote it. In 1993, numerous Republican alternatives to President Clinton’s health care overhaul featured mandates. Co-sponsors included Orrin Hatch, Richard Lugar, Chuck Grassley and Judd Gregg. In 2006, Mitt Romney implemented a very similar reform in Massachusetts, describing it as “liberal in the sense that we're getting our citizens health insurance” and “conservative in that we're not getting a government takeover.”

At the time, the conservative Heritage Foundation applauded Romney’s “bipartisan” plan and considered the mandate “onerous and philosophically objectionable,” but “unlikely to prove onerous in practice” mainly because the “connector,” as they called the insurance pool, would make it easy to obtain affordable insurance and enable residents ages 19 to 26 to attain “mandate light” policies (which did not include being covered by their parents’ plan). Nowhere did they call it unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Heritage Foundation indignantly lambasted Obama for comparing his policy to ideas found in their endorsement, dismissing his reform as “a vehicle for federal control of state markets,” a gross exaggeration—it relies on state-based exchanges that must follow federal requirements—and claiming that they disowned mandates “well before Obama was elected,” as if this negates the notion that most conservatives have historically promoted the policy.

You might presume that all this is merely political posturing and that nonpartisan judges will determine the fate of reform. But, as Judge Vinson’s ruling indicates, partisan politics permeates our judicial system. And this is what makes the impending Supreme Court decision so troublesome. What a travesty it would be if millions were denied healthcare by activist, conservative judges who were not appointed by American citizens.

—Marc Adler also writes at thebloodycrossroads.com

  • Writer Mark Adler's article was executed in bad faith and with faulty logic. Just a few examples. 1. Comparing Romneycare to Obamacare as a constitutional issue. One was for a state, one is for the country. The commerce clause for the country is one of the key constitutional debating points. This is an apple/orange argument. 2. Comparing the mandate to the 1792 Militia Act. First, Marc does not address the direct quote from Vinson. He excludes key words like "everyone". The militia act was basically a draft of sorts. It only applied to white males. Thusly only applying to a minority of U.S.citizens. This comparison fails on all levels. 3."like the entire conservative case against reform, a reactionary attack on the president" There are many valid arguments against Obamacare. Marc cherry picks a few examples and paints all those opposed to this plan as "steeped in lies, hypocrisy, and perverse revisionism" Can anyone say BIAS? The only point of this comment is that Marc has become what he so despises, and not a comment on the wisdom or constitutionality of Obamacare.

    Responses to this comment
  • One clarification: The militia act only required those in the militia to obtain said items. Not every private citizen. Those were unable to serve in the milita were not required to buy anything.

    Responses to this comment
  • I have no interest in debating Texan, but to clear up any obfuscation... The 1792 Militia Act states: "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen [though there are exceptions, mainly for government workers and various officials]... age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years... shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia [let’s also bear in mind that America was predominantly white in those days, though, as I explain in my article, not ‘everyone’ was required to buy equipment/join the militia, just as not ‘everyone’ will be required to buy healthcare]:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792#cite_note-2 And this was no mere draft. According to the Wikipedia summary: “This legislation creating the young nation's first National Conscription Act was passed by the Second Congress, and signed in script type by PresidentGeorge Washington on May 8, 1792.”

    Responses to this comment
  • Marc, here is an idea. Why don't you read the Act rather than sourcing Wikipedia. You may actually learn something. You state that the U.S. was predominatly white at that time. If you count Native Americans, women, children, blacks, asians, and people older than45 etc. you would realize that this applied to a small minority of people. Also, I suggest you look up the word conscription, it is the compulsory enrollment of people into public service most often military service. Sounds like a draft to me. By the way, I'm not debating you, just correcting some of your many errors.

    Responses to this comment
  • Marc, couple comments: First off, how is conscription any different than a draft? Seems like you made Texans point for him. Second, how can you say you aren't up for debate? You use straw man attacks against conservatives and then retreat when someone calls you out on it. Are we just supposed to take your word on it, almighty Marc? Isn't that kind of lazy thinking the exact fault you are trying to pin on conservatives?

    Responses to this comment
  • By "draft" I thought you meant that it was akin to a rough draft rather than a binding law... In any case we all agree that the Militia Act did not compel "everyone" to join the militia and buy ammunition, only whites age 18-45. My point is merely that the Militia Act illustrates that Congress has always had authority to compel private citizens to purchase a product. It is true that those in the military are public servants, but Congress forced initially private citizens to join and buy weapons. I think that is more demanding and a stronger illustration of federal authority than the health care mandate.

    Responses to this comment
  • Initially private simply means they are no longer private. Once they joined the militia (via conscription), Congress gained the authority to demand action from them (much like a general has no authority over an everyday citizen until they enlist). As far as I know, I'm not enlisted so Congress lacks that authority. Also, Obamacare applies to well over 90% of the population whereas the Militia act applied to 15%-20% tops (80% white, 50% male, at most maybe half in that age range).

    Responses to this comment
  • Ok! I said I have no interest in debating Texan because I do not wish to engage in a shouting match. Your last comment is very helpful, and I encourage this form of back and forth because we can learn something from each other. It was perhaps sloppy of me to assert that the Militia Act mandate applied to “private citizens,” though one could argue that it was, after all, a “citizen militia.” In any case, the matter of contention in the health care debate is about the “individual” mandate. It would have been more precise of me to say that the Militia Act proves that Congress can order "individuals" to purchase a product. Now, I suppose the real debate revolves around whether it’s fair to compare conscripted individuals to ordinary citizens, though again, in those days, “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen” was drafted, with some exceptions. Obviously, you feel it is not analogous, and I disagree. In any case, thank you for helping me clarify this for myself.

    Responses to this comment
  • Interesting, you don't want to debate me but concede my point? What about Romneycare vs. Obamacare? I'm not "shouting" at you Marc, merely pointing out factual errors to your argument. You may disagree, but you are wrong. Conscripted inividuals could be court-martialed for not buying the weapons. Court-martials only apply to a military system. Therefore, conscripted individuals are quite different from ordinary citizens since they (ordinary citizens) can not be court-martialed. This is a factual matter not one of opinion. There is no valid comparison of the Militia Act of 1792 and Obamacare mandate.

  • I concede nothing to you. I made my case, you made yours, and we both think we're right. So there's no reason to continue this argument.

    Responses to this comment
  • Wow, did the author of this article ever actually read Obamacare or the US Constitution. If he did he wouldn't be spouting what appears to be mindless drivel. The Federal government is essentially a powerless entity with powers specifically granted. Those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and or the people. This means you and I have more power than the federal government, not the other way around. People who seem to profess that federal government has all these powers clearly either have not read the constitution or do not understand it. Mr Marc Adler which one are you?

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment