# Appeals Court Strikes Down the Individual Mandate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 12, 2011, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508 "2011-08-12T21:01:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2011, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/41 "2011-08-13T06:15:19Z")
The democrats created the current plan with the hopes that it would persuade the Republicans (or a certain independent that was voting with them). That’s where the idea that they messed it up comes from. The original plan included a single player option. When the Republicans refused to enact the plan, that’s when the Democrats took advantage of the situation and voted it in anyways. If they’d have delayed and put back in the original plan, nothing would have been passed. And, anyways, everything in the bill had widespread public support, while the individual option was much more divided. Finally, after the shit we went through now, it’s really hard for anyone to think that Republicans ever actually tried to compromise. It is, unfortunately, much easier to believe that they pretended to be for something they were not. The idea that Republicans would create a plan that they did not 100% like, and actually plan on voting for it, just seems odd. Maybe that’s just viewing older Republicans through a modern lens. But, either way, it’s a compelling position to take. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2011, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/42 "2011-08-13T07:15:06Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Nobody is making this attempt in the way you are interpreting it. Nobody is running from it, but it is criticized since it did not live up to what it could have been. There has been a definite change of rhetoric on the left from, “This is a great plan!” to, “This is a good plan with some unfortunate compromises”, to “Hey, Republicans had a plan like this too!”, to “This is Republican plan! It’s not the one we wanted!” No one shifts their rhetoric like that unless they realize the plan sucks. No one’s proud of this achievement any more. When’s the last time you heard Obama tell people how proud he was of the health care bill? This is not a guy who’s shy about taking credit for things. > [@](#): > > But we’ll get there somehow. Perhaps we can cancel the Joint Strike Fighter or some other massive waste of money. It’s a necessary reform and the benefits of it will make it obvious that it is worth paying for. It’s good that there are people willing to make this argument to keep the idealists honest. Okay, so long as you admit that this is going to cost a hell of a lot of money. But if you haven’t noticed, you’re not going to find an easy place to cut to get the additional money, because everything else is getting cut already. The U.S. is broke. There is going to be a ‘supercommittee’ that has to find 1.2 trillion dollars in cuts, which must be applied to the debt. Just what do you think is going to be left that’s easy to cut after they’re done? It’s going to be a tremendous battle just to get the cuts they have to find to avoid automatic, across the board cuts to everything. There’s not going to be any easy money for you to confiscate to pay for this. > [@](#): > > Holding back “job creation”. You’d think businesses would be holding back “job creation” based on not needing employees to provide goods or services. So which businesses will not hire employees to supply goods and services, despite needing them, just because of unknowns about health insurance? Wouldn’t the market destroy such a company for failing to satisfy its customers? Wouldn’t a smaller company grow larger taking these customers? Do you understand business economics? Jobs are created when the marginal productivity of a new worker is greater than zero. Jobs are lost when the marginal productivity drops below zero. If you raise the cost of employment _for any reason_, workers on the zero marginal productivity line lose their jobs (with some wiggle room for ‘sticky wages’ and the cost of firing and re-hiring). I can absolutely guarantee you that adding $2000-$3000 to the cost of an employee will absolutely cause some jobs that would otherwise be created to be lost. As a side issue, the minimum wage was raised in 2007 from $5.85 to $7.25. That change didn’t go into effect until 2009, right in the middle of the recession. It’s most likely a contributing factor to the much-higher unemployment rates for young workers. Add in the health care mandate cost, and you get a dramatic rise in the cost of minimum wage employees. Let’s assume you want to hire someone for a job 35 hours per week, 50 weeks per year. In 2007, that job would cost a business $10,237. In 2014, that same job will cost $12,587 because of the minimum wage increase. If the employer also has to pay a $2,000 health care fine, we’re at $14,587 - a 40% increase in the cost of a worker. If you think increasing employment costs by 40% won’t result in lower job growth, you’re crazy. It’s probably a big reason why unemployment is much higher among people who would be earning minimum wage - young people and uneducated people. > [@](#): > > Not sure if I disagree with this statement but then I don’t care about these companies’ profit margins anyway. This is the attitude that just makes me roll my eyes in disbelief. Some of you think businesses are just a bottomless well of money, that no matter what mandates you throw at them or costs you impose on them, they can somehow just ‘take it out of profits’. It’s an almost childlike view of how the world works. In reality, many businesses, and especially small businesses, are generally cash-strapped and operating on razor-thin margins. Most new ventures fail. Small businessmen often go years without taking a salary or taking only subsistence salary from their business because they can’t compete well enough to build a real profit margin. An awful lot of them have a hell of a time just meeting payroll, and every pay period makes them sweat. Most businesses are not Apple and Microsoft. In many industries, profit margins may only be 2-3%. And out of that, they have to raise capital for expansion so more jobs can be created. And there are always businesses ‘on the margin’. Those businesses that are just hanging on by the skin of their teeth, with their accounts payable overdue, juggling their finances so they can survive another month. Raise the cost of doing business, and you kill the businesses on the margin. This is a fundamental economic law that is beyond dispute. You may not care about profits, but you should care about the people who work for those companies. > [@](#): > > Or their profits will just shrink. Don’t buy health insurance stock. Uh huh. More magical thinking. Their profits will just shrink but that won’t change a thing, will it? Other than taking money from the guys in the Bentleys smoking big cigars, right? Again, here’s the reality: In a competitive market, profits are already at about the lowest level they can be. If they weren’t, more competition would enter the field to drive down prices. industries that have higher profits than others often take larger risks, and the higher profits are necessary to pay for that risk. Or, they have higher costs of entry some other factor that demands those levels of profit. They are not a bottomless well of other people’s money for your social programs. If you raise their costs, they will respond by raising their rates. If the government caps their rates, they’ll respond by cutting services. If the government forbids them to cut services, they’ll go out of business. Some might survive, but the ones on the margin will be gone. [quote] Nice examples except that all of them ignore the actual fact that the types of businesses you are describing [already supply health insurance (end of article)](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141533342803608.html). [/quote Actually, what is says is: > [@](#): > > Less than half of businesses with three to nine workers offered health insurance in 2009, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That figure climbed above 70% for companies with 10 to 24 employees and to nearly 90% for those with 25 to 49 workers. It also says this: > [@](#): > > The National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small business, says \*\*the proposal will burden employers and threaten broader economic recovery \*\* and that few businesses will qualify for the tax credit. > > The administration acknowledges that health-care costs strain companies but says it’s only fair that larger employers—those with at least 50 employees—share the responsibility for ensuring workers have health-care coverage. So, small businessmen say this is going to hurt them and threaten the recovery, _and the administration admits it_ but says it must be done for reasons of fairness. But everyone seems to agree that this is going to cost jobs and hurt the recovery. > [@](#): > > …this plan is going to be a neutral to a win for a vast majority of these companies. Since most decent businesses are good at math, they already know it. No, they don’t. The NASB says it will hurt business. The administration says that’s probably true. Surveys of small businessmen in the Chamber of Commerce finds that 72% of them say that the new health care law is going to hurt their companies and cost jobs. > [@](#): > > I, and an other rational creature, would hire people if their business required it and layoff people if it needed to shed jobs. Why would a business owner consider hiring if their sales or growth or whatever did not need it? Really? So you’d hire a worker for your 7/11 if you had to pay $100,000/yr for him, and you were only making $90,000/yr from the store? If you have an opening for someone to make shirts that sell for $30 and take an hour of labor to make, you’d hire him if you had to pay $35/hr? Remind me not to invest in any businesses you might start. > [@](#): > > Maybe we could raise revenues or something and enjoy a higher standard of living through better availability of healthcare. Maybe the revenue fairy will bring it. In case you haven’t noticed, the U.S. government is already borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends. You’ve run out of other people’s money. > [@](#): > > I much prefer that than to raising revenues due to irresponsible tax cuts, wars on countries that are no threat to us, and poorly regulated financial services. Great. Repeal the Bush tax cuts on the rich. Cut the military in half. Guess what? That only pays for less than a third of the _deficit_. Raise taxes on the rich by another 20%. That might get you another 20% of the deficit. Now you’re REALLY out of money, and you have nothing left to cut other than other liberal programs, and you haven’t even closed your deficit. You need to get it through your head that you’re _broke_. Did you hear that the U.S. Treasury got downgraded? It was in all the papers. The debate in Washington now isn’t where to spend more money, but where to cut to avoid defaulting on the debt or having the U.S. credit rating downgraded again. And you’re facing a massive increase in spending as the baby boom retires. Your debt is 13 trillion dollars. There’s no easy money left. There are no financial games you can play that will allow you to fund a massive new entitlement program without hurting real people. That’s just reality. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2011, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/43 "2011-08-13T14:09:42Z")
> [@](#): > > …The National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small business, says the proposal will burden employers and threaten broader economic recovery and that few businesses will qualify for the tax credit… Oh, look its another totally unbiased, non-partisan cite source from **Sam!** I can tell its totally non-partisan, because its from **Sam** , and if they had any political leanings, he would respect your intelligence enough to say so, 'cause that’s how he rolls! So, who are these strictly non-partisan National Federation of Independent Business? Lets nose around their site a bit, shall we, see what we come up with. “While big labor can just take money from union dues to fund political operations…” Big labor? Oh, dear, this is not a promising beginning, non-partisan wise. "…NFIB’s SAFE Trust PAC supports proven business candidates… " Hmmm. “Proven business candidates”. So far, then, what we have is people who favor business over the scurrilous labor bosses. As well they might, being non-partisan and unbiased. Yes. “President Obama continues to stress the importance of creating jobs in the midst of our economic recession. Yet, small business owners, the top job creators, are unwilling to create new positions or add extra costs because of economic uncertainty. Why? Concern about rising healthcare costs under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is one of the top contributors.” (emphasis added in snark) This is nicely done! Note: they don’t say it is the “top contributor” to “economic uncertainty”. They just slip it to you with a flexible caveat, it “ **one** of the top contributors” Well, is it “one” of the top two? One of the top ten? One of the top ten thousand? They slide past that like Hans Brinker skating on a frozen lake of bullshit. Wouldn’t it be easier, **Sam** , not to try and pull this crap? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2011, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/44 "2011-08-13T14:36:54Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m Canadian, Yank. I have no memories of _not_ having government health care, but I’ve noted that Americans on this board and on their various punditfests throw around the term “Obamacare” a lot and I figured it was high time I got a straightforward factual summary of what exactly it entails, and I thank Inbred Mm domesticus for giving me a starting point. My apologies, then. I thought you were trying what Diogenes did. The [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act) article is a good place to start. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2011, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/45 "2011-08-13T14:58:34Z")
> [@Cyberhwk](#): > > That is why I’m not sure a SCOTUS decision along the lines of the 11th Circuit’s thinking would be all that bad for Democrats. It could force Congress to revisit HCR while the provisions that were upheld could give Democrats a great position to bargain from. Break up the bill into it’s constituent parts and the bill, the mandate not withstanding, polled reasonably well. These are the parts the GOP would be having to oppose if the mandate is ruled severable and Republicans still insist on full repeal. Evidence suggests that even though the Democrats control the Senate and the White House their negotiating tactic is to cave in to the GOP, so not sure it would be any different in this scenario. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2011, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/46 "2011-08-13T17:07:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, look its another totally unbiased, non-partisan cite source from **Sam!** I can tell its totally non-partisan, because its from **Sam** , and if they had any political leanings, he would respect your intelligence enough to say so, 'cause that’s how he rolls!.. I noticed that his responses to my comments on his original post were unrelated. Where I said I did not care about the profit margins of massive health insurance companies he starts talking about small businesses as though that was what I was talking about. In quoting from my cite he not only emphasized this organization that just screams partisan (so I ignored it) and then highlighted facts that were unrelated to my response. It went like this: **Sam Stone** , post #31: What about businesses with 49 employees and those that pay their employees $45,000/yr+? This uncertainty is dire to job creation. **Inbred Mm domesticus** , post#40: Roughly 90% of the companies you just described already provide health insurance, according to this [cite](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141533342803608.html). The legislation, with tax credits is likely to be neutral, according to this [cite](http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/smallbusiness/small_business_health_reform/), and the previous [cite](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141533342803608.html). **Sam Stone** , post#42: Ignoring the tax credits and citing statistics unrelated to my original post, this is quite dire. **Sam Stone** , as for the rest of what you said about the costs of this legislation. I am actually an adult. I am not a child who places unrealistic expectations on needed changes to our government so that it can be deficit neutral. I understand that nothing is free. This legislation is an improvement over the health care system we have but it could have been much better. It is needed so that all citizens of our country improve their access to health insurance. Obama should be proud of it as well as all those who voted in favor of it. Conservative viewpoints are beneficial to the legislation because it of the unintended consequences that you are so in love with. Keeping things honest will take this massive improvement to the lives of all Americans that much better as time goes on. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2011, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/47 "2011-08-13T23:48:53Z")
**Bryan** , since you keep asking: “Obamacare” is a rhetorical term invented by the more staunchly party-before-country wing of the Republican Party for the Affordable Care Act. The choice of term was made under the delusion that it is actually unpopular with the people, and that hanging it around Obama’s neck will prove to be electorally advantageous. It’s a boomerang, though - ACA actually being strongly supported, with a strong majority thinking it’s either about right or doesn’t go far _enough_, the name instead constitutes free advertising for their enemy. If what you mean is that you’re uninformed as to the operational details of ACA, there are many places you can go to find out for yourself - you’re way behind. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2011, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/48 "2011-08-13T23:52:08Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If what you mean is that you’re uninformed as to the operational details of ACA, there are many places you can go to find out for yourself - you’re way behind. Well, my country has universal health care and yours does not, so it’s not really _me_ who’s far behind, is it? In any case I’ve read some of the cites… I’m not yet sure what the big deal is, though I recognize the Republican incentive to _make_ it a big deal. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2011, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/49 "2011-08-14T00:34:02Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Was he the Republican who saved us from HillaryCare? You mean the program that would have had health care decisions made by distant government functionaries, rationing it based on available funds, instead of the system we got instead, where health care decisions are made by distant \*corporate \*functionaries, \*reducing \*it as much as possible based on profit maximization? Yes, that one - we very narrowly escaped that socialist hell, thanks to Bob Dole and his band of merry men. **Bryan** , I do think you’re better than that. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/50 "2011-08-14T17:32:24Z")
Quoth **Sam Stone** : > [@](#): > > There has been a definite change of rhetoric on the left from, “This is a great plan!” to, “This is a good plan with some unfortunate compromises”, to “Hey, Republicans had a plan like this too!”, to “This is Republican plan! It’s not the one we wanted!” How is this so difficult? Our opinions on the plan changed because the plan changed. The great plan, the one we wanted, was the one with the public option. The good plan with unfortunate consequences, which wasn’t the one we wanted but which we were willing to settle for, was the one the Republicans of over a decade ago came up with. We’re not trying to run from it; it was the best we were able to get. But the current Republicans _are_ running from it, at top speed. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2011, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/51 "2011-08-14T18:38:24Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **Sam Stone** :How is this so difficult? Our opinions on the plan changed because the plan changed. The great plan, the one we wanted, was the one with the public option. The good plan with unfortunate consequences, which wasn’t the one we wanted but which we were willing to settle for, was the one the Republicans of over a decade ago came up with. We’re not trying to run from it; it was the best we were able to get. But the current Republicans _are_ running from it, at top speed. I’m talking about how attitudes changed _after_ this bill was passed. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/52 "2011-08-14T18:54:01Z")
The conservatives jump all over it when a court throws it back. They seem to stay home when it is affirmed in court. It is not over. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/53 "2011-08-14T18:55:29Z")
**Sam** , has it not occurred to you that the rhetoric you hear from the responsible-adult segment of US society (OK, call it the monolithic “left” you imagine exists, if you prefer) might be _in response_ to the change in rhetoric from your guys? The “socialist”, “tyranny”, “loss of freedom” shit you no doubt are aware of (and, if you aren’t, then you need some de-ignorancing badly)? That it might be by way of pointing out the lying and ignorance and rabble-rousing that has resulted from the rise in power of the more irresponsible wing of the party you cheerlead for? Really now. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/54 "2011-08-14T19:42:01Z")
Our health care system is folded into the cost of doing business. That is just too stupid for defense. The implications are simple to understand. What we have sucks and hurts us competitively. Obama wanted to fix it, but the Republicans would have been on the outside looking in if they allowed him to do it. So they are blowing the whole thing up for political gain. The Affordable Care Act is a big improvement. But it still has health insurance companies sucking up a huge chunk of the money while denying as much health care as they can get away with. The Act forces the health insurance companies to put 85 percent of what they collect into health care. They are fighting that with everything they have. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2011, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/55 "2011-08-15T00:25:35Z")
As (basically) a democrat, I’m glad this got struck down. Requiring citizens to do business with another entity seems all kinds of wrong. Tax me if you want, but don’t force me to buy widgets from company A, B, or C. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/56 "2011-09-08T21:54:53Z")
Update: > [@](#): > > **Appeals court throws out health reform challenge** > > in one of the biggest victories for president obama’s health care reform overhaul, a federal appeals court dismissed two high-profile cases questioning the law’s constitutionality. > > The one-two punch from the 4th circuit court of appeals in richmond found that virginia attorney general ken cuccinelli and liberty university have no legal right to sue over the reform law’s demand that all americans buy health insurance or pay a fine. > > Source: [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/09/appeals-court-throws-out-health-reform-challenge.html](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/09/appeals-court-throws-out-health-reform-challenge.html) ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/57 "2011-09-08T21:58:44Z")
But that says nothing about the constitutionality of the law. In fact, the challenge was dismissed on a technical ground, which is akin to a “punt”. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/58 "2011-09-08T22:00:43Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > But that says nothing about the constitutionality of the law. In fact, the challenge was dismissed on a technical ground, which is akin to a “punt”. If they do not have the legal right to sue who does? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/59 "2011-09-08T22:01:16Z")
> **[HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News](https://www.huffpost.com/?err_code=404&err_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2011%2F09%2F08%2Ffederal-court-obama-health-care-reform-law_n_953896.html)** > > Read the latest headlines, news stories, and opinion from Politics, Entertainment, Life, Perspectives, and more. And so it goes. All this right wing certainty is uncertain again. But the Supreme Court works for the rightys ,so it is not hard to see another 5 to 4, in favor of the powerful. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/60 "2011-09-08T22:01:30Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > But that says nothing about the constitutionality of the law. In fact, the challenge was dismissed on a technical ground, which is akin to a “punt”. From the article: > [@](#): > > In a dissenting opinion, Judge Andre Davis said he wished the 4th Circuit would have considered the merits of the law itself rather than simply dismissing the cases on technical grounds. Two of the judges – Davis and James Wynn – noted that they would have ruled that the government is within its rights to implement the mandate. It would have been overturned on the merits as well, at least 2-to-1. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508.md?page=4)