“The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the Act’s myriad reforms. The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional system. The Act’s other provisions remain legally operative after the mandate’s excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the presumption of severability has not been met.”
I hate seeing this. At best we won a pyrrhic victory. If the rest of the law is enacted insurance co.'s will go broke and we will end up with the govt running healthcare.
FWIW, the opinion was written by a Clinton appointee.
I personally think that since the mandate was central to the legislation and in fact is the fundamental lynchpin, I don't see how the rest of it can be constitutionally implemented.
The states were suing on this one. The mandate was actually favored by the Insurance companies as this was going to ultimately be a full employment bill for health carriers (not doctors).
With the mandate gone and the rest of the legislation intact, the insurance companies will be screaming bloody murder. They will file their own lawsuits, and speaking as an insurance defense attorney, these insurance companies have armies of lawyers.