Court orders new look at health care challenge
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has revived a Christian college's challenge to President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, with the acquiescence of the Obama administration.
The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that Obama's health care law violates the school's religious freedoms.
The court's action at this point means only that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals must now pass judgment on issues it previously declined to rule on.
A federal district judge rejected Liberty's claims, and a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit voted 2-1 that the lawsuit was premature and never dealt with the substance of the school's arguments. The Supreme Court upheld the health care law in June.
The justices used lawsuits filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business to uphold the health care law by a 5-4 vote, then rejected all other pending appeals, including Liberty's.
The school made a new filing with the court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of the high court decision. The administration said it did not oppose Liberty's request.
Liberty is challenging both the requirement that most individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, and a separate provision requiring many employers to offer health insurance to their workers.
Liberty law school dean Mathew Staver said, "This case now will go back to the federal court of appeals where we will address the undecided issues that the Supreme Court did not address."
When Liberty's case was in front of the 4th Circuit, Judge Andre Davis broke with his colleagues who thought the challenge was premature. Davis said of Liberty's claims, "I would further hold that each of appellants' challenges to the act lacks merit."
The appeals court could ask the government and the college for new legal briefs to assess the effect of the Supreme Court ruling on Liberty's claims before rendering a decision.
Liberty's case joins dozens of other pending lawsuits over health reform, many involving the requirement that employer insurance plans cover contraception. These cases are working their way through the federal court system.
The case is Liberty University v. Geithner, 11-438.
The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that Obama's health care law violates the school's religious freedoms.
The court's action at this point means only that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals must now pass judgment on issues it previously declined to rule on.
A federal district judge rejected Liberty's claims, and a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit voted 2-1 that the lawsuit was premature and never dealt with the substance of the school's arguments. The Supreme Court upheld the health care law in June.
The justices used lawsuits filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business to uphold the health care law by a 5-4 vote, then rejected all other pending appeals, including Liberty's.
The school made a new filing with the court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of the high court decision. The administration said it did not oppose Liberty's request.
Liberty is challenging both the requirement that most individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, and a separate provision requiring many employers to offer health insurance to their workers.
Liberty law school dean Mathew Staver said, "This case now will go back to the federal court of appeals where we will address the undecided issues that the Supreme Court did not address."
When Liberty's case was in front of the 4th Circuit, Judge Andre Davis broke with his colleagues who thought the challenge was premature. Davis said of Liberty's claims, "I would further hold that each of appellants' challenges to the act lacks merit."
The appeals court could ask the government and the college for new legal briefs to assess the effect of the Supreme Court ruling on Liberty's claims before rendering a decision.
Liberty's case joins dozens of other pending lawsuits over health reform, many involving the requirement that employer insurance plans cover contraception. These cases are working their way through the federal court system.
The case is Liberty University v. Geithner, 11-438.
I wish that they would READ THE WHOLE LAW???????? No one who Voted on this thing even read it. That alone should be grounds for throwing it out!!! Not to mention who voted on it without reading it. I read it and it's well Over 2400 pages and full of double talk. Read it then tell me if it's Constitutional or not. Just don't pick parts of it. Pick the whole thing!!!!!! I already know the awnser, you decide after reaing it.
These religious organizations subscribe to a ideology that cares more about the rights of a fetus than it does the person it becomes after its born. Then its just another one of the 47 percenters mooching off the government - until it's old enough to join the military and become useful to them again.
Pleas God, save us from OmamaCare!!! I have that sticker on my garbage can that the garbage guys always put back facing outwards. I am at a loss as to why why folks think this Tyrant is going to save them. Do they not read what is going on, or actually believe what they have been spoon-fed? There is only so much money left and guess what?? It is the working-mans 401K plans that he wants to nationalize since estimates calculate the funds to be in the trillions. Spread that wealth as our taxes go up about $3,500 a year under this Tyrant...
Not wanting to cover employees' contraception is not the same as restricting it. Employees are free to pay for their own contraception - no one is taking that away from them. It's very simple - having to provide something you are morally against is tyranny. What if we were forced to pay for abortions? And what if we found out that some of those abortions were taking place simply because the fetuses were female? (China, India, Muslim countries, and immigrants in US). Would you be happy about that? Would you think it was fair?
Â
 @portlandborn83 @Repoman @Max Quinn @portlandborn83Â
Â
Â
So by your definition and insurance company should not cover anything "cheap"? Define cheap? If I were Buffet, an organ transplant could be considered "cheap" compared to other things I may buy. Dollar amount is not a valid reason to pay or not pay for a health service.
Â
Also insurance is often something I pay for (at least in part). So I cannot have a say in what I am buying because my employer might go in with me on it?
Â
So my employer wants me to have a car. They give me a stipend. If I choose a hybrid, should they tell me I cannot use the money to buy it? What if I DON'T get a stipend, can they tell me no?
Â
The issue here is religion tangling with science tangling with health. Now your choices for health can be swayed by your faith, by science but your insurance should be totally dictated by law, best health practice and science (and they should to some degree agree).
Â
Faith should not play a role in an employees health anymore than and employer deciding what faith their employee may have.
Â
So the government should pay for abortions? Imagine how many americans will kill the next generation before it even arrives...this is what the real cost is, the human cost.
 @portlandborn83Â
Â
Not that I advocate for abortion but let's be realistic, women who have them didn't make the decision on doing it over a scone and coffee at a bistro. This decision was made with all of her understanding (as grand or limited as it is) and thought about very carefully.
Â
Paying for, or not paying for an abortion, or even making it illegal will not solve the underlying issues of why the woman became pregnant and didn't want a child, or why she has now decided the best course of action is an abortion over other choices.
Â
So we can dispense with the idea that paying for, not paying for making illegal or vilifying a woman because of that choice do anything to mitigate the number of abortions done and are simply tools to make people feel self righteous and better than another person, particularly men over women.
Â
If you made abortions free with no questions asked, you might get 10% more than you do today. But if you gave housing to women under 21 who had children out of wedlock that number goes down 15% (this we have done and this is what we get).
Â
So the real question we should ask ourselves is, how much money do we want to spend to make abortion the least desirable option for a woman. Are we willing to pay for her medical care while pregnant? How about housing costs when she cannot work (FMLA should cover her keeping her job afterwards). Then will we pay to educate, support and care for the child for at least 18 years if no one else steps up to do it themselves. What about if the person is special needs? Special needs people can cost millions more in lifetime care than those who are not.
Â
So THAT is what the real cost is. It's not a human cost, it is a material cost. And people have chosen time and time again those children not theirs are not worth their money.
Â
I don't think the government should require "health" insurance companies to force contraception being covered by insurance...isn't that going too far? They shouldn't force anything at all....
 @portlandborn83
No. Contraception is a health issue. If Viagra can be covered, so should the pill.
Part of the law "forces" insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Should we do away with that, too?
What about abortions? That is covered in the law as well...
 @Max Quinn  @portlandborn83 Take a class at a OSU and you get it for free already don't need no stinking insurance to cover it...
 @Max Quinn  @portlandborn83Â
Â
I agree.
Â
My Mother-on-law suffered a condition that required her to take hormone birth control for most of her adult life.
Â
So I think it should be covered. Like you said, if Viagra is covered I don't know why birth control should not be.
Â
I agree with this statement; its all in the hands of the beholder and not the employer...
Â
What I don't like is our government promoting the killing of the next generation before it even arrives, I think this issue should be hands off. Imagine all of the crazy stuff that will happen once the religious people start aborting and start populating less (despite it being a sin), they will simply explode!
 @portlandborn83  @Repoman Â
But this isn't about money. From an insurance company's perspective, preventing a pregnancy is much cheaper than having one go forward.
Â
This is about an employer not wanting its insurance policy to offer birth control because the employer considers birth control to be a sin.
Â
If we are going to have an employer-based health insurance system, then there need to be limits on how much an employer can influence a policy. What if I'm employed by someone who believes in faith healing? Does he get to say that the health insurance policy I have access to can only cover anointing and prayer meetings? No. So, if you are opposed to birth control, don't use it. Let other people make that choice for themselves.
@Repoman @Max Quinn I simply don't think it should be covered because birth control is cheap, unless we are talking about abortions which are not cheap...
@portlandborn83 Hey, Daddy, I want an Oompa Loompa! I want you to get me an Oompa Loompa right away! And a lifetime supply of free condoms!
"The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that Obama's health care law violates the school's religious freedoms."
Â
Good for them! Man, Jesus hated the idea of people getting healthcare. It's not like you can open the Bible and find any stories about him healing the sick without first making sure they could pay.
 @Max Quinn Equating Jesus with government? Well, actually, I can see that making sense for about 47% of the population.
So you, like ms. brown, believe in the right to file bankruptcy over medical bills and make us, the ones who pay for health insurance, pay for YOUR bonehead mistakes ??
Â
Sixty-two percent of people who file for personal bankruptcy do so because of medical bills, placing those debt burdens on the American taxpayer.
Â
Â
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/09/441386/lead-plaintiff-in-health-care-reform-case-filed-bankruptcy-with-medical-debt/
 @sargerator Is think progress a legit site or just a left wing one? I know lots who have done bankruptcy over the last 50 years and none were due to medical reasons.
Â
All were I want lots of free stuff from those dumb enough to give me credit...
@TimBurr @Max Quinn And to think, in early January 2009 the conservatives magic number was around 51%.
 @TimBurr Yea, you probably can see that making sense... That's about the percentage of voters who voted for Bush in 2000.
Every decision will have to be revisited once insurance companies go under and government uses the crisis to enact true single payer socialized medicine........all by design of course.
@TimBurr I don't see what the problem is!
 @peckishpete  @TimBurr Of course you don't, you're part of the problem.
 @kramr He'd have to Skype his problem into the Doctors office.
@peckishpete PeePee, I tell you what, once you've lived with England's healthcare system for a few years...... I'm no pete rose, but I'd bet my lunch money you will have quite different view of single payer health care.
@TimBurr I find it interesting and somewhat appalling that you and others view providing universal health is a problem because it costs too much money. I guess health is only for those that can afford it or have the luxury of working for a company that provides health insurance. Otherwise get sick, run out of money, go bankrupt and perhaps die. That's not the America I want known around the world - the world's largest economy but can provide affordable health care to all of its citizens. Shame on us.
I think I'll invest in Skype. It's the new wave of future socialized medicine according to Britain.
The way around it is to only hire part time workers. Problem solved.
Â
Part time is the new fill time. Expect to see a lot of 0.7 FTE employees.
 @RalphCramden Luckily, since those part timers with no health insurance will also not earn enough to be required to buy thier own insurance. Well... unless they are lucky enough to get multiple part time jobs. In which case, they will have even less spare time because of added travel time for multiple jobs, no clear days off most likely since part time positions rarely have a nice set m-f schedule, and end up having to pay for thier own insurance. Net effect will be no spare time, and less money. I call it fair since the people who will mostly be effected by this change will be the same people who eagerly voted the tool in to office.
@RalphCramden Currently Part Timers are safe, but for how long........Big Brother will go after them too. They want all to be compliant and subservient. The long term future of the UN and the USA will make sure of that. There will be NO FREEDOM of choice available. It will be a choice of do it of be either punished or dead, world wide if they get theri way.
@RalphCramden Yep, profits over peoples' health. Easy fix.
 @peckishpete Â
No profits no jobs. It's about surviving in a very unfriendly business environment.
Â
Once the economy tanks no one will have insurance except the rich who will always have insurance.
 @peckishpete Â
Just a natural response to government regulations.
 @peckishpete  @RalphCramdenÂ
Â
I donât think it's about profit in the cases for these folks; it's what they see as a moral standing point.
Â
Now I don't agree with them, I don't think that medicine and religion are supposed to intertwine, at least when it comes to employees, but profit, or lack of it, is not the root of their issue.
Â
Â
"I donât think it's about profit in the cases for these folks;"
Â
Then try taking away their "tax exemption" status !
Â
Churches (orginized religion) is all about money, money gives you power !
@peckishpete welcome to corporate America where profits and money are the only thing that matters.