Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: Raw StoryWASHINGTON – A federal judge on Thursday sided with the Obama administration on the sweeping health care reform law, throwing out a challenge to its constitutionality.
Keith Starrett, a George W. Bush- appointed US District Court judge in southern Mississippi, said opponents of the individual mandate had offered "insufficient" basis to challenge the government's ability to regulate health insurance coverage.
This is the first judge that I believe has gone against political lines on health care reform. I could be wrong, if I am someone please let me know and I will eat crow, but this could be a bit of a tipping point. I doubt it, but there is a chance. I am curious which case the Supreme Court will hear. That will be telling right off the bat. Whether you think the law is constitutional or not it is sad I have to ask this but CoH Please.......... None of us are evil and want the destruction of America. We all want the best and to leave this world a better place than we found it so let's try to come up with constructive solutions rather than tear each other down.
So far I believe the count was 2 in the Administrations favor and 2 in the opponents favor. This would make it 3 to 2 in favor of the Administration.
You could be correct that this is the first Judge in a "red" district to rule in favor.
You are correct about the count being 3-2 at the moment in favor of it's Constitutionality. Either way I am curious how this will turn out.
Why are people getting worked up about decisions that are going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Nine justices will make the only decision that will count.
Why are people getting worked up about decisions that are going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Nine justices will make the only decision that will count.
This is going to be a double edged sword for the right wing activist justices in the supreme court. Any ruling opposing the mandate could have serious unintentional consequence regarding the constitutionality of Social Security insurance that everyone is currently required to buy.
Every time I listen to faux fox news they say "now that Obamacare has been ruled unconstitutional".
Do they not know or do they want to mis-inform when they leave out the fact that other courts have ruled it constitutional.
Blaze, you are hitting the point that I think is most important. There are other mandates that other people do not recognize. This could have a devastating impact on our society due to the aftermath... it could under cut every single social program that we have here in the US. Some people would be overjoyed about this... until it affected them negatively. Only the wealthy elite want this removed because they figure they can get their hands on that cash somehow and the more money that is in the system and not being taken up by social security the more money there is for them to take.
Any ruling opposing the mandate could have serious unintentional consequence regarding the constitutionality of Social Security insurance that everyone is currently required to buy.
govt program versus private industry. there is a difference.
When they write a bill, don't they have all the right people, e.g. constitution lawyers as representative took that oath to uphold the constitution, in place to ask all these questions before wasting all our tax dollars on judges and how many others it takes to do this?
I am curious which case the Supreme Court will hear.
The Supreme Court will more then likely make them roll it into one cast before they will hear any arguments as they will not want to hear or rule on it more then once. That will make for some very interesting positioning for those against the law as who will run there dog and pony show.
govt program versus private industry. there is a difference.
The public option was also a government program that the Republicans replaced with the mandate.
Lets not forget that the mandate to buy insurance was in fact a Republican addition opposed by the democrats. Unfortunately the Democrats compromised and replaced the public option with the republican sponsored mandate. Personally I'm all in favor of replacing the mandate with the public option.
I am curious which case the Supreme Court will hear.
how will that work for all who want to privatize the current programs?
You are correct about the count being 3-2 at the moment in favor of it's Constitutionality. Either way I am curious how this will turn out.
There have also been an additional 16 cases that have been dismissed out of hand on procedural grounds.
Native, he will be looked upon as doing good for mankind not just a man.
Blaze, you are hitting the point that I think is most important. There are other mandates that other people do not recognize. This could have a devastating impact on our society due to the aftermath... it could under cut every single social program that we have here in the US. Some people would be overjoyed about this... until it affected them negatively.
The court still has to rule on legal principles and not impacts. Impacts can be adjusted by constitutional legislation.
Why are people getting worked up about decisions that are going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Nine justices will make the only decision that will count.
The arguments the justices will consider will include the reasoning in these lower court decisions. What principles did these lower court decisions invoke? The Nine Justices may simply dismiss the cases as presenting no Constitutional issue.
True, but according to the Constitution this is commerce and the congress has the right to regulate commerce. Like I said before, "If Reagan's solicitor general believes it is constitutional then I think this is pretty well settled and the rest is just a pony show."
Also impacts are not adjusted by constitutional legislation, they are created by legislation. The impact of the legislation would have never happened had the law been written. That is basic cause and effect. You cannot adjust something that is not already there.
Keep in mind the Constitution can be amended and thus the Supreme Court has to include that in their ruling. In other words, the Constitution is not static.
THis Seed is misleading
Judge never ruled on merits of Obama care, issued no decision on whether its constituional or not.
Ruling was based on the plaintiffs not having standing
it simply a procedural ruling..
nice try
blaze and conservative conspirator
I think you are hitting in the right direction. The decision will hinge on the Commerce Clause and I don't think a pro-business but pro-conservative court will want to, or be able to, make a bright line decision to block the bill.
Hmm, interesting...but the other judge declared in unconstitutional and null and void...all it takes is one...you know that right? Any further moves to implement Obamacare by the democrats is just plain lawlessness...and the left thinks Bush is an idiot too so what does that say about this judge? Hmm...
Judge never ruled on merits of Obama care, issued no decision on whether its constituional or not.
The truth is, the Supreme Court is not a Sophomore "bull session" and the Court does not pontificate on issues unless an adversary proceeding is brought before it, in which one party sues the other for damages it has suffered. No laws of Congress can be overturned unless they are first challenged, usually in lower courts, and a constitutional issue raised. These plaintiffs, in this case, wished to raise a "too broad" issue that they were unable to refine even given 30 days to amend the complaint.
the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition without prejudice.
Why are people getting worked up about decisions that are going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Nine justices will make the only decision that will count.
It may be appealed to the SCOTUS but it doesn't mean they will hear it.
Why are people getting worked up about decisions that are going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Nine justices will make the only decision that will count.
Well, some of us are actually garnering a benefit from this healthcare law, so it @!$%#ing matters.
Also if the SCOTUS knocks this law down it will be definitive proof to most Americans that the right wingers are the ones legislating from the bench. It will also be an issue in the next election to come up with a solution other than the mandate.
I was going to say that the next Congress would be tasked with coming up with a SCOTUS-proof law, but since the SCOTUS has demonstrated time and time again that they will legislate from the bench per their partisan biases, rather than with any better interest of the People in mind, it wouldn't matter. If Obamacare is stricken, medicare-for-all becomes the next solution. Karl Rove just published an op-ed, I believe, arguing for the cancellation of Medicare so it looks like our social safety net is under a redoubled, concerted and VICIOUS assault from right-wing @!$%#s. And I do mean ASS-HOLES. The only cause for canceling Social Security and Medicare (both of which do not add a penny to the deficit) is further hollow out the middle class and create a permanent underclass of desperate, disposable people. If you conservatives were at all serious about the deficit you would be pointing fingers at the unconscionable waste and fraud going on in defense spending, which IS NOT self-funding and comes out of the general pool.
Rimbauda
we already have two fed judges who have ruled it illegal... what this one ruled is basically meaningless.
ESPECIALLY since he made no ruling on the law but only on the standing of the plaintiffs.
Holy crap I hope the Author Sahil Kapur is not a lawyer, if so their law license should be revoked.
For those of you who are cheering this as a victory, this is a pre-trail dismissal. It was dismissed primarily on the grounds that the individual mandate is not yet in effect, so the the plaintiff has no legal standing to bring it forward. The judge DID NOT rule on constitutionality.
Let's set this straight as I know many of you are cheering for your side...
The judge DID NOT RULE on constitutionality.
The judge ruled on legal standing. You see, to go forward in a case like this, the plaintiff had to show duress or harm from the law. The portions they were challenging on do not go in effect until 2014.
This was a PROCEDURAL dismissal, not a ruling on constitutionality.
Some of you should really refrain from discussing legal matters. It is clear you do not understand the judicial process.
Jesse in #1.25 is absolutely correct.
This whole article is fallacious and the headline is completely disengenuous - the court in Mississippi did not 'uphold' obama care. In fact, it did not rule on the constitutionality of obama care. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case in the first place and dismissed it. The ruling of Judge Vinson stands and this case has no effect on Judge Vinson's ruling or obama care in general. But you obama backers keep holding on to this case - it's all you've got and all you'll ever have.
Greg and jesse
report it as inaccurate.. as I did.
its simply a lie.
we already have two fed judges who have ruled it illegal
It would be interesting if someone posted links to the reasoning in those two decisions.
The Act plainly meets the first three of Dole's spending restrictions, and it meets the fourth as long as there is no other required activity that would be independently unconstitutional. Thus, the only real issue with respect to Count IV, as framed in the pleadings, is whether the Medicaid provisions are impermissibly coercive and effectively commandeer the states.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47905937/Health-Care-Ruling-by-Judge-Vinson
Even if the Govt has the right to regulate healthcare would they have the right to force you to purchase healthcare.
What's say we come up with an alternative solution...Lets get Reoublicans to write a bill behind closed doors, tell everyone you have to pass the bill in order to know what is in it and see how long before Democrats want to declare this bill unconstitutional.
Greg and jesse
report it as inaccurate.. as I did.
its simply a lie.
Typical childish teaparty behavior, can't disprove something bash it and then try to get the information deleted.
Sorry this seed is not inaccurate as it accurately quoted the original article.
If you have an issue with the validity of the story take it up with the original author not the person who seeded the article.
Your post has been marked as inflammatory for attempting to deceive people into collapsing a seed simply because you don't agree with the article. Once again thats very childish and immature.
For those of you who are cheering this as a victory, this is a pre-trail dismissal. It was dismissed primarily on the grounds that the individual mandate is not yet in effect, so the the plaintiff has no legal standing to bring it forward.
All that proves is that an attempt to create a bogus test case was seen through as fraudulent and dismissed as bull@!$%#.
You can't, as I understand it, sue someone for something they have not yet done to you. But the racist right is so anxious to get this law struck down so they can use it to destroy Obama that they are now coming up with complaints that are as phony as an Andrew Breitbart/James O'Keefe video.
Maybe because in reality the damages their whiny asses are claiming are nonexistent. Oh, and by the way, how come Massachussets didn't strike this law down when Mitt Romney enacted a nearly-identical version of it?
This is going to be a double edged sword for the right wing activist justices in the supreme court. Any ruling opposing the mandate could have serious unintentional consequence regarding the constitutionality of Social Security insurance that everyone is currently required to buy.
Social Security is a government run program, not a commercial product or service. If you don't understand how that difference makes your "Double-edged sword" look like a butter knife, then this issue might be over your head.
Don't forget that Social Security is also supposed to be a trust. Your contributions are supposed to be held in trust, for you, based on the amount you contributed. The fact that our politicians have raided those funds is another matter entirely.
Social Security is a government run program, not a commercial product or service.
Apparently you missed it the first time I posted it.
The public option was also a government program that the Republicans replaced with the mandate.
Lets not forget that the mandate to buy insurance was in fact a Republican addition opposed by the democrats. Unfortunately the Democrats compromised and replaced the public option with the republican sponsored mandate. Personally I'm all in favor of replacing the mandate with the public option.
Are you claiming the republicans attempted to purposely sabotage this legislation by knowing including an unconstitutional mandate that they planned to later challenge. If so I think some impeachments are in order.
The defendants contend that there are three unique elements of the healthcare market which, when viewed cumulatively and in combination, belie the claim that the uninsured are inactive. First, as living and breathing human beings who are always susceptible to sudden and unpredictable illness and injury, no one can opt out of the health care market. Second, if and when health services are sought, hospitals are required by law to provide care, regardless of inability to pay. And third, if the costs incurred cannot be paid (which they frequently cannot, given the high cost of medical care), they are passed along (cost-shifted) to third parties, which has economic implications for everyone. Congress found that the uninsured received approximately $43 billion in uncompensated care in 2008 alone. These three things, according to the defendants and various health care industry expertsand scholars on whom they rely, are replicated in no other market and defeat the argument that uninsured individuals are inactive.
...the defendants emphasized during oral argument that it is not just the economic decision itself that renders the failure to buy insurance activity; rather, it is that decision coupled with the fact that the uninsured are guaranteed access to medical care in hospital emergency rooms as a backstop, the use of which can and does shift costs onto third parties. The defendants thus refer to the failure to buy health insurance as a "financing decision."
Because I find both the uniqueness and economic decision arguments unpersuasive, I conclude that the individual mandate seeks to regulate economic inactivity, which is the very opposite of economic activity. And because activity is required under the Commerce Clause, the individual mandate exceeds Congress'commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47905937/Health-Care-Ruling-by-Judge-Vinson
Jorge -
I copied and pasted the exact title from rawstory.com
The judge did rule on the constitutionality of the law. He found that the case had no standing because it is constitutional in his view. All three cases that have been in favor of health care reform have been ruled this way if my memory serves me correctly.
onevoiceamongmany
he made no such ruling
just said the plaintifss have no standing.
Luke Wright. None of the judges who ruled it unconstutional issued injunctions prohibiting enforcement. So going ahead with implementation is not lawlessness. Also, the authority of that federal judge's ruling does not go beyond his judicial district or, perhaps, the state in which it is located. I wonder if you have the same concern that the decision of the federal judge in California, who held that a law banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, is not being followed across the country.
One voice among MANY
this is what is said in the Storry you seed
The 23-page decision, obtained by the Huffington Post's Sam Stein, read: "The Court finds that the allegations of Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition, as stated therein, are insufficient to show that they have standing to challenge the minimum essential coverage provision of the PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]. Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition without prejudice."
It concluded, "the Court finds that the ten primary Plaintiffs have not plead sufficient facts to establish that they have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of the minimum essential coverage provision of the PPACA."
The judge then gave them "30 days to amend their case and refile
procedural ruling...
IF this was a ruling on the law he wouldnt have given them "30 Days" to amend their case and refile..
try READING your own SEED!
A title like that has to be making the heads of my liberal bretheran vibrate to the point of being ready to explode. Oh, how to explain this? Good enouigh to make me smile on a friday afternoon.
As painful as it is to say, Jorge is right. This Judge never reached the merits of the challenge. Like 12 other federal judges, he found that the plaintiff's lacked standing. Two judges addressed the constitutionality and found it constitutional and two addressed constitutionality and found it unconstitutional. All courts, however, had to address standing and 12 out of 16 found none. Standing will be an issue that has to be addressed on appeal. That means that the count remains 14 District Courts have refused to strike the law as being unconstitutional and 2 have found otherwise. It is not clear that the Supreme Court will find standing for any of the parties prior to 2014, when the individual mandate goes into effect.
Oh, and by the way, how come Massachussets didn't strike this law down when Mitt Romney enacted a nearly-identical version of it?
Because Mitt Romney is a white republican
And because it was a state law and was clearly within the police powers of a state.
blaze1024 said
Apparently you missed it the first time I posted it.
The public option was also a government program that the Republicans replaced with the mandate.
Lets not forget that the mandate to buy insurance was in fact a Republican addition opposed by the democrats. Unfortunately the Democrats compromised and replaced the public option with the republican sponsored mandate. Personally I'm all in favor of replacing the mandate with the public option.
Your story is one that is often claimed now, but the facts don't support it. First, single-payer was removed from consideration because the there were both Democrats and Republicans that wouldn't vote for single-payer.
The reason the mandate exists in current law isn't due to Republicans, it's squarely on the Democrats shoulders, but they're now trying to deflect the blame. The mandate was directly a result of the insurance lobby paying the Democrats. The senate chairman of the committee that drafted the bill received almost $1.5 million from the insurance lobby, and many other Democrats were well paid for it as well.
Obama even struck a deal with the head of the insurance lobby that offered up the mandate in return for the lobby not paying congressman to oppose the bill. That was covered on a PBS special.
Here are a few excerpts from an article from the guardian:
"The industry and interest groups have spent $380m in recent months influencing healthcare legislation through lobbying, advertising and in direct political contributions to members of Congress. The largest contribution, totalling close to $1.5m, has gone to the chairman of the senate committee drafting the new law."
Insurance companies have done even better as the new legislation will prove a business bonanza. It is not only likely to kill off the threat of public health insurance, which threatened to siphon off customers by offering lower premiums and better coverage, but will force millions more people to take out private medical policies or face prosecution.
"It's a total victory for the health insurance industry," said Dr Steffie Woolhander, a GP, professor of medicine at Harvard University and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Programme (PNHP).
"What the bill has done is use the coercive power of the state to force people to hand their money over to a private entity which is the private insurance industry. That is not what people were promised."
I dont really care who came up with the mandate ..
Republicans or DEMS
Maybe GOP planted it as a poison pill, knowing the courts would not stand for it.
the righwing doesnt care about the consequences if the supreme court rules health care unconstitutional, why because they want all social programs ruled that way.
as for civility and CoH, i for one do not believe the rightwing cares or loves america, they just want to destroy it and remake it in thier own image...ban me if you want
The reason the GOP used the individual mandate back in the 90s was as a response to the employer mandate that Clinton was proposing. Instead of relying on the employer they claimed we are American, individuals, we believe in liberty. We should be required individually to carry that burden not our employer and weigh down small businesses... this will cripple business across the nation... sound familiar?
Here is a Boston Globe article explaining the Republican connection to the mandate:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/03/28/health_insurance_mandate_began_as_a_republican_idea/
Every time I listen to faux fox news they say "now that Obamacare has been ruled unconstitutional".
knight
Fox plays it's following as fools that don't think for themselves. Perhaps righty so as apparently they don't. Push their racist and anti-socialist buttons and they believe anything you say. The relegious right went for the same tactics.
I wonder if you have the same concern that the decision of the federal judge in California, who held that a law banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, is not being followed across the country.
To be accurate California was the only state that had indeed passed a law that banned same-sex marriages. Therefore the ruling only concerned California in that particular case, however, it is my belief that any two people who want to get married, no matter what sex they are, should be allowed to do so. IMO "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.." applies to everyone, including straight, gay and transgendered.
Luke ruling on Gay marriage was not a FEDERAL judge was a STATE JUDGE
had only to do with CA.
No, Jorge, it was a federal Judge. And California is not the only state that bans, or does not permit, gay marriages. Most take this position. The Judge determined that not permitting gay people to marry violated the Equal Protection Clause. If the Ninth Circuit affirms, then gay marriage laws in any state in that circuit are invalid. If the Supreme Court affirms, all such laws are invalid. The point is that neither the California Federal District Court Judge's decision, nor the one by the one in Florida are binding and and no one is being lawless in not accepting that one Judge's ruling and stopping implementation of a law other judges have found constitutional. The Florida Judge refuse to issue an injunction. Clearly, all of these Judges know that this case will be decided by the Supreme Court and are not going to overstep their authority. Since the only provision that allegedly makes it unconstitutional is the individual mandate and that does not go into effect unitil 2014, there is not point in forcing the issue now. It will be decided before then.
Repeal and Replace? The Neocons got the Repeal part, now where is the Replace part? Even they,Neocons/Republicans/Teabaggers, will quickly retort that the current system is unsustainable. So where is the Replace part? Short answere, there is none!
The aforementioned are only doing the bidding for the Ins Companies. "They" have utter disdain for the masses living in this country! Trickle Down is a religion to them; or as it was called in the old days,INDENTURED SERVATUDE. Anything else is SOCIALISM!!! lol...
Here is a link to the decision of the Federal Judge, Jorge, who declared the Calfornia anti gay amendment unconstitutional. In case you doubt me.
The public option was also a government program that the Republicans replaced with the mandate.
Lets not forget that the mandate to buy insurance was in fact a Republican addition opposed by the democrats. Unfortunately the Democrats compromised and replaced the public option with the republican sponsored mandate. Personally I'm all in favor of replacing the mandate with the public option.
If my memory serves me right, and I know it does, not a single Republican voted for the HCR bill when it passed. In fact, I remember a group of Democrats called "Blue Dogs" negotiating with Obama in the late hours. They agreed to vote for the HCR bill since Obama told them he would sign an executive order preventing government funds to be used to fund abortion. Funny thing is, executive orders have no impact on our laws so that was an empty excuse or promise depending how you look at it. There was so much under the table maneuvers by the administration and Congress Democrats that it disgusted America. If you remember that was when America was screaming out about transparency that Obama promised. You know, like when Obama promised every bill that crossed his desk will be on-line for 5 days prior to his signing it into law so Americans can read and understand what the bill is all about. One of many promises broken but what else is new?
So you are incorrect to say we have a mandate BECAUSE of the Republicans. Nope, you can say though that we have a mandate because of the conservative Democrats required it for their votes. Again, not a single Republican vote was for the bill. It was passed by 100% Democrat votes. So if the Republicans agreed with this mandate, why didn't they vote for the bill?
Bottomline,
Your link made me laugh. The "Link" to how current day Republicans are responsible for the mandate requires rolling back the clock to 20 to 50 years ago? You do realize, that if we did that, a lot of the voters that elected Obama wouldn't even have been born, right? You also realize that your article tries to legitimize itself by relying on Nixon's opinion, right? Nixon, a known criminal, and someone that normally a Democrat would say has no credibility.
Your link is great comedy, but it's totally irrelevant in the face of facts that relate to current politicians voting on the current law, and receiving billions of dollars to pull the wool over your eyes. Thank you Democrats, may I have another.
Executive orders have the full force and effect of law. It was not a sham. It is the law and it is being followed. Everything that was done to secure passage of the law was done in the public eye. The law was available on line for weeks. I know I read it so I could debunk the lies coming from the right every hour on the hour. And one Republican voted for it in the house. Regardless of what party members voted, the fact is that a majority of both houses voted for it and a President elected after promising to reform health care signed it. That is how a democracy works.
Executive orders have the full force and effect of law. It was not a sham. It is the law and it is being followed. Everything that was done to secure passage of the law was done in the public eye. The law was available on line for weeks. I know I read it so I could debunk the lies coming from the right every hour on the hour. And one Republican voted for it in the house. Regardless of what party members voted, the fact is that a majority of both houses voted for it and a President elected after promising to reform health care signed it. That is how a democracy works.
Executive orders DO NOT "trump" laws written and passed by our Legislature. Executive orders are intended for the Executive branch of Government ONLY since our President is in charge of the Executive branch of Government. After all, if a simply note from the President can over-ride current laws on the books, then Obama can trump the Judicial branch of Government as well. He could simply change ANYTHING our Supreme Court decides.
NO, not a single Republican voted for the HCR bill. Don't believe me? Check it out.
"The House voted 219 to 212 to approve the measure, with every Republican voting no. The measure now awaits President Obama's signature." source: Washington Post
You really do need to get your facts straight.
The law was available on line for weeks. I know I read it so I could debunk the lies coming from the right every hour on the hour.
No, the final bill was not on line for weeks. No one got to read it before it was put up for a vote. Even Nancy Pelosi said, "We will have to pass this bill to find out what is in it." So again, you are truly wrong.
Dude. You wanna argue what things i never said, go ahead. I Never said EO's trump legislative acts. They do not. But they do have full force and effect until overridden by an act of legislature. You said tat EO's have not effect and that is not true. There was nothing in the HC reform that allowed for federal funding for abortion. That was a lie. Saying that the EO that is in effect that bars that has no effect is a lie. The various versions of the bill were available as they were being debated and amended. The one they actually voted on was available. I read it. The claim that the members of the house had not read the law or did not know what was in it before they voted is also a lie. An incredibly stupid lie. Just like the lie that Nancy Pelosi said that congress had to pass the law to know what was in it. She never said that. She said that the only way that the people would know what was in the law; to know that the bull@!$%# the opponents were saying about the law was just that, bull@!$%#; was for the law to be passed and for the people to actually see what the law would do. That is what is going on now and that is why the majority of the people do not want it repealed.
I thought the republican for New Orleans voted for it maybe not. Who cares. The MAJORITY of our representatives voted for it. If the Republicans cared more about giving the Pres his waterloo than doing what is good for the country, that is their problem. I really do not understand why you people have to lie about the law, about how it was passed, to oppose it. I guess that is because you try to find reasons to oppose a law that will see that nearly all Americans have access to health care; that will force those who can afford for pay for their own health care to do so; that will slow down the rate of increase in health care costs and that will reduce the Republican created deficit, they come up empty, Kind of like you just did.
By the way, when you put words in quotes and the person did not say those words, that is lying. She said, "We will have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." She was not in Congress talking to her colleagues, she was at an event talking to citizens; telling them that they would find out what was really in the bill when it was passed, proving that the things that were being said to oppose it were lies. Things like it was government takeover, that it would provide federal funds for abortion; that it would cover illegal aliens; that it created death panels. All lies. All proven that now that the law is in effect. People are seeing what is really in it.
Ok, provide supportive and credible links to support your claims about the lies you talk about as I did when I showed you were wrong.
The "blue dog" Democrats wouldn't vote for the HCR bill until Obama provided an Executive Order to assure there wouldn't be any funding for abortion. Since the HCR bill allowed for funding of abortion, then all Obama did was stopped his administration from supporting any kind of funding for abortion. Basically telling America that he intends on breaking the new law before it was even signed. Obama does NOT have the power to fund or stop funding abortion. He needs an act from Congress first.
That's the whole point. You stated originally:
Executive orders have the full force and effect of law. It was not a sham. It is the law and it is being followed.
You are referring to the HCR law where Obama's executive order would directly effect the written intent of the law. That is why Obama's executive order will NEVER come up again by the Democrats. NEVER. It holds NO water. After all, funding of abortion was added in the HCR bill by the Senate before the bill went back to the House. Harry Reid was very proud of that fact too.
Generally, people look things up before they post. You need to do your own homework. The law did not provide funding for abortion. That was and remains a lie. The EO was to placate the blue dogs, but was not necessary. Keep lying. It only helps those of us who know the truth. The more people realize the lies those on the right are telling, the more they will regret putting these pricks back in power.
Paddymurph on this one is correct. The language in the bill before the talks with stupak and his "coalition" as well as the executive order are almost identical to what the GOP was attempting to push through the House last week, a new abortion bill. The bill was designed to not allow any public funding of abortion. There is none currently and was none before. What this really did was to redefine rape. The word forcible was inserted before the word rape so to exclude statutory rape, date rape, being drugged and raped, being raped in your sleep, etc. What this also does is ban anyone who has received any federal funding for anything in their entire lives from having an abortion. This is culture war politics all over again. This is what the GOP wants, and is a massive overhaul of Roe v Wade. This was what was being proposed by the right for health care but was denied and in stead an executive order put in its place. All in all paddy was correct.
One of 2 things happens with appointment to a federal judgeship. The appointee either sees the opportunity to judge politically, or the appointee has a realization of the gravity and importance of the post and begins to think along new lines, with the best interest of "The People", legal precedent, and sound jurisprudence as guides.
If anyone has not seen the movie "Amistad" I highly recomend it. It deals with a case where a totally lopsided court in terms of affiliation, does indeed rule against their own political ideologies in the interest of true justice.
I sincerely applaud this judge.
#3 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 11:49 AM ESTFrom John Adams, defender of the law, we get his son, John Quincy Adams, and others of his time, with the heart, mind and soul to see the Amistad case as one reaching into the deepest parts of our souls.
We did have some heroes in our past, didn't we.
3 to 2 in favor of the health care bill.Folks this one might go into OVERTIME!
#4 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 11:50 AM ESTBush Appointed Judge Upholds Obamacare as Constitutional
Kinda nullifies the "Right Wing Judge" Lefty argument, when a judge rules it's unconstitutional, doesn't it!
"Judges" do have a tendancy to rule fairly, unless it's in "California", then it's partisan. LMAO!
No, it just proved that anyone who looked at the law thinks that it's Consitiutional(another example of this is Reagan's solicitor general stating that it was a couple of days ago)...
Kinda nullifies the "Right Wing Judge" Lefty argument, when a judge rules it's unconstitutional, doesn't it!
Not really, just shows that one judge can actually deal with facts instead of ideology.
Congratulations, he's doing his job :/
Or, for the Lefties, "Not everybody thinks alike", or is in "Lockstep", no matter what Ideology they have!
It's not that hard to comprehend!
Or, for the Lefties, "Not everybody thinks alike", or is in "Lockstep", no matter what Ideology they have!
It's not that hard to comprehend!
If you're a judge, I don't care if we think alike. I hope you listen objectively to evidence and weigh that against precedent. That is your job.
Or, they could "Read the Laws as written", and "Stop" interpreting them to their liking.
What a concept!
This "I Feel" crap in the courts, has gotten way out of hand!
Might not be hard to comprehend greg, but it sure is hard to find that, given the actions of the Republicans lately.
For instance, how many Republicans admit the reality of climate change exacerbated by human activity and then go forward to make addressing it a priority? The Senate minority just introduced their "study" stating that all the scientists are lying.
What the hell is up with that?
greg
The ruling also nullifies the "Left Wing Judge" Righty argument doesn't it?
The ruling also nullifies the "Left Wing Judge" Righty argument doesn't it?
Not if you watch California. Now that's an "I feel" court. "Voters be damned".
@ clarke:
What does climate change have to do with this article?
By the way, how do you explain Global Warming/Cooling before "Man"?
We're not concerned with global warming/cooling before man greg. We're concerned with man's part in global warming NOW. You can cling to your belief that you can start up 800,000,000 cars everyday without having any effect if you want to.
And I was responding to your assertion that republicans don't march in lockstep, then supplying you with a relevant scenario playing out right now.
Like I said, what the hell is up with that?
Us conservatives, don't run lockstep with those in congress. Hello!
All Liberal opinions on conservatives are based on "Those Folks" in congress. (Blanket disapproval)
To bad Liberals only base themselves on those in congress.
You miss out on so many adventures, when you do that.
As far as Climate Change, anybody that feel's this only happened after "man", is, well, you know!
Greg - The CA courts are often compared to many courts down in the south such as VA or GA or even TX. These courts are considered hard core politically conservative courts.
Both sides have activist judges, activist districts, and activist states. To state or suggest anything otherwise is completely errant of the facts, or manipulating/ignoring reality.
Does anybody believe climate change only happened after man?
See greg, you don't even understand the issue.
How many of my fellow liberals believe climate change can only be caused by human activity?
You don't even understand what liberals are saying on the issue greg.
How many of my fellow liberals believe climate change can only be caused by human activity?
Ummm, All here on Newsvine and the leader, "Al (manbearpig) Gore".
As far as the CA courts go, Who compares the CA courts to VA or GE or TX ?
I'll bet it's the "Liberals" dontchyaknow!
Someone better alert the seasons. They seem to come and go without our permission.
((((((((((everyone)))))))) Brought to you by the G.H.I.C
Is that what you really believe greg?
I not only suspect your ideology, I now suspect your integrity as well.
Tesla
Thank you for the supporting example, and for marching lockstep with greg, boldly and in the face of all scientific evidence.
The 9th circuit hasn't been that liberal in recent years. The makeup is 59% apointees by Democratic presidents. Compare that with 82% of apointees on the 8th circuit having been placed by Republican administrations and it becomes clear it's hardly the most partisan appeals court.
@ clarke;
Not hard to figure out my ideology, although, I didn't care this judge was appointed by Bush, unlike you! See comment #5.
I now suspect your integrity as well
Because I disagree with you?
Liberalize Much!
Clarke, as for being in lock step with anyone you ever heard a story about living in a glass house? As for your scientific evidence, this has been debated to death here on the vine. For all the "proof" you have the other side has the same amount of "proof" supporting their notion. And in my eyes that constitutes NO "proof" for either side. The entire issue is about who has the most expensive "facts" and nothing more. And as far as I can tell from the science I have read, those whose opinons have not been purchased and paid for by the highest bidder, those scientists are not sure what is the cause or if it is even happening and if it is that it may simply be a natural event or due to many factors.
Debate on the Vine has nothing to do with the overwhelming consensus (97%) among active climatologists.
And no, the other side has no "proof" that is accepted in the common meaning of "proof" at all.
If you disagree, then I challenge you to bring ONE Alternative theory that is univerally accepted as a valid and peer reviewed scientific study.
As far as anyone can tell, your alternative is tantamount to claiming that because rivers exist naturally, then there are no such thing as man made canals.
And no, the other side has no "proof" that is accepted in the common meaning of "proof" at all.
Really?
By "universally accepted alternative", you mean, what a Liberal will accept !
Would you accept this:
http://www.physorg.com/news102864888.html
The research results are the first direct proof that there was forest in southern Greenland. Furthermore Willerslev found genetic traces of insects such as butterflies, moths, flies and beetles. But when was that" According to most scientific theories to date, all of southern Greenland and most of the northern part were ice-free during the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when the climate was 5 degrees warmer than the interglacial period we currently live in.
Although it has nothing to do with the article at all, I'll indulge you!
I'll accept that as proof that greenland has experienced climate change in the past. Not that greehouse gasses don't affect climate, which your little snippet does not address at all, does it?
And no greg, I mean evidence that is accepted by ANY National Academies of Science on the entire planet, regardless of the country's political orientation.
Bring it on. Let's see ONE theory, accepted by ONE national Academy of science in ONE country, that denies human activity is changing our climate.
Bring it on.
Like these folks:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
While I always do love the climate change debate... I think we are getting a bit off topic. This is about the health care debate and the current legal ruling.
Thats a petition, not a peer reviewed scientific paper, or even a theory.
I'm done.
I'm just being funny here but this seems to have all the makings for a new TV game show...The Battle of the Judges.
Who's right and who's wrong? I guess the Supreme Court will be the judge of that.
#6 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 11:56 AM EST"Constitutional Idol"
Thomas what do you say "I don't like it, no beat, can't dance to it"
Kagan? "I say yes, you're going to Hollywood!"
A judge who remains impartial. What a concept!
Kudos to this judge.
#7 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 11:59 AM ESTHe does honor to the idea and profession of what being a judge is supposed to be or represent.
without fear or favor, impartial and dispassionate
#8 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:08 PM ESTNow this man will be forever know as a liberal activist judge...:)
Good to see a Bush judge stand up and do the right thing.
#9 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:13 PM ESTYou are wrong he will be seen as doing what was called for by the law, all of those Republican Atty Generals that filed the law suits, and the Republican politicians that egged them on are what is wrong with this country.
A judge is supposed to be impartial making decisions and rulings based upon the law not partisan grand standing for the news like some kind of political hack.
I of course understand that Fed up.... I was describing what the tea-publicans will be calling him.
A judge is supposed to be impartial making decisions and rulings based upon the law not partisan grand standing for the news like some kind of political hack.
Hmm, then wht do all the liberal judges out there do exactly that? Interesting...
Luke, do you at least admit that conservative judges do it and that it happens on both sides of the aisle?
Luke, do you at least admit that conservative judges do it and that it happens on both sides of the aisle?
Yes.
Koch brothers are pissed now. Dick Army will have a seizure and Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity just might implode... what a great Friday
#10 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:16 PM ESTYOU ARE NOT THE BIG LEBOWSKI...The Dude Abides and I am glad he's out there for us....YOU ARE NOT THE DUDE...so what's new, telling the truth may help you.
finally we get a judge who doesn't have a political axe to grind !!!
#11 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:21 PM ESTIt is constitutional. We have many types of mandated insurance requirements.
If states think they can do this state by state then there will be legal challenges to carrying mandated car insurance.
There will be legal challenges to mandated mortgage insurance.
Any mandated insurance can be challenged.
Car insurance will be especially targeted for legal challenges since many car insurance policies mandated by states require medical coverage for injuries.
If they overturn this in any state then any insurance policy requiring medical coverage attached to the insurance of a car can be found also to be void.
I will never understand why there was never a protest about mandating and forcing car insurance coverage but they protest mandating coverage for human beings and children.
#12 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:24 PM ESTtrue and if healthcare is deemed unconstituonal, i aint paying for no more insurance for anything...jebuz it cost lots for all the insurances
Oh well, we all know this judge is a secret liberal, and involved in a worldwide conspiracy that cuts across every political system in the world, to usher in a new era of Marxist rule through the insidious impementation of healthcare and environmental responsibility, all planned out by Woodrow Wilson and funded by ONE man, George Soros.
Proven true by a piece of chalk making lines on a chalboard, and all the lines are CONNECTED!
#14 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:29 PM ESTI have them all on DVD. I keep them between Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and Lord of The Rings, because they seem like such an appropriate bridge. But I won't even let them come in contact with my National Geographic stuff.
Well this should cause a pause. Not really it will merely prove the lefts accusation of right wing conspiracy. However my woman and I were talking about this the other night. Health Care Reform. What is your definition of "health care?" My definition starts with a stethoscope on my chest not a bill in the mail or forms you fill out, that's health coverage. Health care is my being treated not being qualified to receive treatment. I wish those who want this thing to move ahead would simply be honest and call it what it is. And as far as I can tell it is not health care reform it is health coverage reform.
#15 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:35 PM ESTBecause in order to receive care you need to have coverage they are synonymous. You cannot get health care without coverage thus why health care is health care coverage. Because health care is so expensive you need this coverage in order to pay for it. Thus they are all connected and in a symbiotic relationship with one another.
I understand the point you are making, but it really is splitting hairs due to their inter-connectivity. Do you think this changes any thing....? I guess my question is why are you bringing it up... personal annoyance or substantive point to move it forward, or something random that crossed your mind last night and wanted to bring it up here... I am just curious where it came from etc considering it is on topic but a bit divergent if you will.
Because "health care" reform just sounds so much better than "health insurance reform".
You cannot get health care without coverage
Yes, actually...you can. I have, so I know.
Well no not really. I have been around the "industry" a long time. My ex is a nurse I have been in and out of "None ya" I worked as a transport driver for elderly and immobile folks I have been around it a lot. And what I have seen is a continual downward slide in quality of care because of the concern for coverage at the care level. I know they have sliding scales for care based on the amount of coverage I know this. Another problem is a lack of professionalism in the industry from the janitor on up. To many are now getting involved in the industry because of money not concern for anyones well being. And simply providing folks with more insurance does not necessarily mean better care or more care or any care just means for sure that you have yet another payment to make. And I think masquerading this bill as health care is confusing and misleading for many. My other strong opinion is that the government has NO right to force me to Buy anything I do not care what the stated purpose is or if it will save the universe.
i agree, this is health insurance not health care.
health care is what happens when you see a doctor, this is how you will pay for it. you either use the government plan, your private plan, or something new called self pay where you pay your own bills
Tesla -
"To many are now getting involved in the industry because of money not concern for anyones well being. And simply providing folks with more insurance does not necessarily mean better care or more care or any care just means for sure that you have yet another payment to make."
I think this is one of the main problems that we need to fix. It is an incentive problem. We need to fix the carrots and sticks in order to ensure that people are able to get care.
The issue of the mandate is touchy. I understand both sides. I am not a huge fan of it myself. However there must be a way in which we can cover anyone who wants to. We all have a right to access to the health care system. Right now that is not possible.
On the government making you buy something... what about social security and medicare? You are paying into those systems, buying coverage, for later in life are you not... which is something the government mandates...
I personally think its ok if the government mandates something to save the universe literally... however any shorter of that I am going to be doing my homework and making up my mind on a case by case basis. There should be no precedent set and if it can be avoided it should be. However, there are always exceptions to the rule.
SS and medicare they gave me no choice in those two. I am content with them except for not being able to request that you be handed your damn money from SS if you want it. And yea if the Government could save the universe I suppose I would be all for it. However the have yet to solve hunger yet so I am not holding my breath. My biggest problem with the whole thing is to many people are trying to inform me of the benefits of this bill from a political standpoint. Everytime I try and listen to it described I swear I am listening to two competing used car salesmen. And it is the same with what I read. Add my government trust issues to the mix and I simply do not have the information to make a good choice.
Even Bush can make a mistake.
This Judge is OBVIOUSLY wrong!
Pretty telling, that when people get in a place of power, what happens to them.
#16 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:40 PM ESTBush made many mistakes... stating that "even Bush can make a mistake" is presuming that he did not make a lot of mistakes... which is can be subjective... but there are more cases than not where the public knows he was dead wrong and made mistakes... the first and most obvious... WMD in Iraq and the "missing link" between Iraq, Saddam, and Al-Qaeda... Stating Even Bush can make a mistake, is not a strong way to start an argument...
Why is the judge wrong? Anyone can make a statement that something is wrong or right and put it in caps... why is the judge wrong?
Your last sentence doesn't make any sense. I believe you meant to drop the "that" right after telling... but it is just very garbled.
As of right now 3 federal judges have ruled that the law is constitutional and 2 have not. They have split along party lines until this one judge. However, I do not wish to put words in your mouth about why this judge is wrong so if you could please address why you believe he is wrong in detail I would appreciate it. Then we can discuss the topic. Until then however, we would just be arguing opinions backed up with nothing more than hot air, and that is a waste of time in my opinion.
Even Bush can make a mistake
Jerry, if you're just coming out of a coma that you must have slipped into around November of 2000, Bush basically ONLY made mistakes. Look it up.
Brian or as you like to think BRAIN.....made any mistakes lately? Brain.......and you didn't have to put up with Congress or yourself or we the people......made any mistakes?
Let's see...one judge says that it is unconstitutional, and the leftists scream ACTIVIST!
Another judge says that it is constitutional...and he is hailed by the leftists as impartial, honest, etc...
So...definition of an "activist judge" is one whose rulings you disagree with?
#17 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:44 PM ESTAnd the right doesn't do the exact same thing?
Look the GOP and Democrats are wearing the same hypocrisy sweater!! They are twins!! How cute...
Our definition of activist is a judge who wipes out 200 years of accepted law and jurisprudence, to say that corporations can spend unlimited money on political candidates without any disclosure.
And the right doesn't do the exact same thing?
Where did I say that?
Look the GOP and Democrats are wearing the same hypocrisy sweater!! They are twins!! How cute...
NOW you are starting to understand...good for you!
merleliz, you may want to be careful with that. The "activist" label is typically used by the right (ie. abortion, gay marriage, etc.) It is just recently that the left has caught on to that trick.
sendlo, I am pro-choice and I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage. And yet because I want to see controls on government spending and the debt, feel that Obamacare is unconstitutional, want to see an end to the corruption and bribery in Congress, want controls and reform on illegal immigration and many other issues facing us today...I am a Conservative.
There are more of us out there than you know.
So, all things considered, the thoughts of a judge are opinion which could be right or wrong. So what has changed.
Nothing...and he didn't uphold the law as constitutional. He simply dismissed the case because the plaintiffs worded their complaint wrongly.
merleliz - your statement was going fine... until the last word and I could not ignore the irony...
You stated that the judge dismissed the case because of the wording.
Your own statement had faulty wording of its own. "Wrongly" is in the incorrect tense. It should be "He simply dismissed the case because the plaintiffs worded their complaint wrong." You could have used wrongly if the sentence read, "The plaintiffs wrongly worded their complaint, so the judge dismissed the case."
I couldn't help but note the irony... plus when there are grammatical errors it sticks out like a sore thumb to me... I mean no offense and I am sorry if you took any. It is just a personal thing of mine... the teacher in me.
The complaint was not dismissed because they used the wrong words; it was dismissed because their factual allegations, even if true, did not confer standing on them. Simply put, they have not yet suffered any harm so they cannot sue the federal government to strike down a law that has had absolutely no effect on them. They cannot reword their complaint to change the facts they already plead. This is really pretty silly. There is one lead case, the one in Florida, brought by more than a dozen states, that shoudl get the matter to the Supreme Court. All of these other cases are a ridiculous waste of time, brought by conservative legal organizations with straw plaintiffs. The case was brought in a District where they thought they had a pretty good chance of prevailing and that case, and, perhaps the one in Virginia, will work their way to the Supreme Court. Although I suppor the law and beleive it is constitutional, I have no problem with the governors (including mine) brought this lawsuit because this issue has to be resolved, one way or the other.
Onevoice...no offense taken...I was typing while talking on the phone to a client and revised my sentence without proofing before I hit "post comment". Darn. I hate it when I do that.
I catch spelling errors in books and on TV all the time, and grammatical errors, and sentences that don't make sense because the spelling is correct but the word is wrong, as in "The whether outside was stormy"...that sort of thing.
merleliz, I was referring to your concern over the term "activist judges". That has been the typical right-wing term used in their propaganda whenever they disagree with a decision. They have been using it for years before the left decided to try it.
Oh, and I am fiscally conservative myself. That is one of the reasons why I am for the health care act. If the GOP wants to repeal it, they better offer a better alternative if they want my support.
I think that doctors, nurses and hospital staffs all are entitled to be paid and because of what they do, they should be paid well.
But when their combined cost begins to adversely affect the whole village ( United States ) and all of our lives and ability to seek care when we are sick or injured something has got to give.
Some people pay more per month for medicine than they pay for their mortgage.
#18 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:48 PM ESTIf this law is repealed some will not even have a chance to have health care due to pre-existing conditions that are no fault of their own. Newborns with a cleft pallet will not be covered because it is a pre-existing condition. Without coverage you do not have health care and without health care you have your right to life infringed upon. It is a basic rights and moral issue to me. But that's my opinion.
Eliminate the profits taken by insurance companies, and we can pay the doctors MORE if required, and STILL make medicine more affordable.
Eliminate the profits taken by insurance companies, and we can pay the doctors MORE if required, and STILL make medicine more affordable.
Hallelujah! You get it! INSURANCE DRIVES UP THE COST OF HEALTH CARE. So please, please, please explain to me why we are mandating that everyone purchase it?
Insurance companies make profits. So instead of the taxpayer covering the cost of providing health care to the indigent, we are going to pay the insurance companies a PROFIT on top of covering their health care and we expect this to somehow save us money?
Maybe if people had to do as I do, and whip out their checkbook every time they go to the doctor, they wouldn't be running to the doctor every time they have a back ache, a hang nail or a common cold. Most doctors will charge you less if you are paying cash anyway...because they don't need to fight for months to get payment from the insurance companies.
Not exactly.
Insurance PROFITS drive up the cost of healthcare. Insurance itself keeps costs in check through the bargaining power of mass. You know, like the way Walmart gets great pricing because they buy so much?
Economies of scale, they call it.
And the Bill begins to deal with this problem in that it sets a requirement for how much of it's intake an insurer must apply to actual care costs.
Did you not know this?
And the Bill begins to deal with this problem in that it sets a requirement for how much of it's intake an insurer must apply to actual care costs.
Satisfy my curiousity...if, for example, the insurance company charges me $1,200 per month (which they would if I could still afford it) and I don't have any claims...then they can't apply that intake to actual care costs...do I get my money back? I know, that's facietious...but how can they require them to apply the intake to actual care costs if there ARE no care costs? In the 25 years my company paid for my health insurance, I had one claim that cost about two months premiums.
sweet so now whe should mandate everyone shops at walmart to help keep the costs low..
i like that idea
You're finally getting the picture that insurance is SUBSIDIZED healthcare. Yep, your insurer (could you afford one, and the bill would help you there) is using YOUR premium dollars to pay for OTHER PEOPLES HEALTHCARE. Sorry to inform you that your premiums are not held in an account with your name on it.
Yes merleliz, I am sorry to inform you that you are participating in SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.
Damned Marxist Insurance companies..........
Yes merleliz, I am sorry to inform you that you are participating in SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
No, actually I am not. I'm not participating.
Yep, your insurer (could you afford one, and the bill would help you there)
No, actually it won't. The bill says I have to purchase health insurance or pay a fine/tax/whatever they are calling it this week...but it does not limit the amount that the insurance company can charge me for that insurance. So...no, all this bill does for me and people like me is to raise our taxes...but we will STILL have no insurance.
The only thing I could "do without" that would equal the amount of my insurance premium would be my house...and I'm not sleeping in my car...no, wait...I'd have to give up the car too.
Well, the bill actually says that the insurer cannot charge you more than anyone else, even if you have a pre-existing condition.
It also says that people who fall below a certain income level will be exempted, and that for those that are close to the level of affordability, there will be subsidies available to help.
Plus, there are exchanges which will help you shop for the most affordable policies, and which will create competition between the insurers for your business.
If you are an employer you will love Obamacare. For a small sum of money you can dump your workers that have health care plans in your company. For a mere 750 dollars you will pay the US government compare to the thousands of dollars that you pay an insurance company to insure your employees. Your employee now is cover by a company insurance plan it also covers the spouse as well as the children. If he or she never files a claim then you lose, but if he/she does file a claim it can and usually does cost more than $750.00. More people file the high it cost the company. Then you have the special ( premature baby) needs child that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars that just keeps on coming. If an employer has a 1000 employees and only a couple need special care for one of their children it cost. It is better to let that child fall under Obamacare and its corruption (lots of it) then have to worried about having a parent who keeps complaining. Let him complain to the government.
If people want to see what Obamacare is on a scale that is currently going on just look toward the VA or Social Security. What a mess. It will only get worst.
Prase Obama. Prase Obama.
#19 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:56 PM ESTThat sounds exactly like the tack a Republican businessman would take. Always looking for a way to eliminate the dastardly benefits his employees steal from him.
By gosh Horseman, I think you're really onto something here.
You should spread the word.
And, oh........."praise"
That is not necessarily so. I visited with my husbands employer and he told me the healthcare reform will do him good. Because we live in an area where the salaries are not high that the subsidies would cover about 60% of his healthcare premium debt that he pays out of his payroll for employees benefits. He is however against the healthcare because of government involvment. Not every area of this country lives big. The average great salary in our neck of the woods is about $60,000 a year. You are sh%#&%#g in tall cotton if you make that kind of money here.
ITs procedural decision nothing else.
#20 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 1:15 PM ESTWhich means "you have no legal standing to declare this unconstitutional"
Burden of proof is always on the prosecution Jorge.
ckarje
no it just means the PLAINTIFFS cant show injury yet
thats what STANDING is .. a right to sue...nothing else.
Thanks for that clarification.
So, the plaintiffs have no right to sue for unconstitutionality., ie. they could not adequately support their argument that the Bill is unconstitutional.
Clarke
nice spin..
but no.
since they hav not been FINED for not buying health insurance they can not sue
when they refuse to buy health insurance and they are fined.....then they can sue.
once aain JUDGE DID NOT RULE ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY of the law..
what part of this fact dont you get?
Bush Appointed Judge Upholds Obamacare as Constitutional
Bush Appointed Judge would be wise to get himself a lot of extra bodyguards!
Those deep southern rabid Obama haters won't be taking too kindly to this sort of "betrayal".
How dare this RINO side with "that one", that Marxist, Socialist, Fascist, Communist, radical, Kenyan-born usurper who's taking away their freedoms and their liberty's!
Yep, more security would be a good idea Judge Starrett - just sayin~!
#21 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 1:40 PM ESTProbelm is your entire post is based on misinformation..
he didnt rule the law constituional
so inform your self
Nobody needs to rule the law constitutional. Someone just has to prove it unconstitutional.
Burden of proof is by plaintiff.
Misinformation is the stock and trade of those against ...anything... proposed by the present administration.
That has been their mission since losing the election, and continues in every venue which is presented. The true shame of their obstinacy, is their refusal is not actually based on whether this nor any of the other proposals were "Good for America", "Based on philosophical differences" or even actually about "cost-based concerns. If it were, then saying the cost is too great for the Government to bear ... then how can they think any individual can afford Health care when it rises faster than wages and benefits year after year. There are NO dampening regulations either, so essentially health care cost are designed to force bankruptcy on the the very people who are its customers.
In cases where The present administration has offered a compromise, even incorporating ideas against his own proposal - trying to find common ground - the other side of the aisle has changed sides on the debate just so they won't be in agreement.
The great indignity of all - is there is no longer a true 3rd column. An independent and unbiased news voice has traditionally been the saving grace of the Uninformed or ill informed. Today, no matter what the subject - there is no voice on the major networks, Major new papers or even radio ... who are not attacked by the strident voices of the "Trash Media" or their minions.
News ... as entertainment is or will eventually be ... the final straw to break the true exercise of Democracy in this country. Our forefathers knew and provided for Freedom of the press, Our recent courts have nullified that freedom by allowing the consolidation of mass media channels into the hands of single individuals or mega corporations. That was not supposed to happen.
he didnt rule the law constituional
Stop typing that - because it has nothing to do with this ruling. IT IS LAW! You don't like it, rule it UNconsititutional. The burden off proof is not on those who believe the law is just. It doesn't need to be, the law is the law. The burden is on those who disagree and want the Court to find it unconstitutional.
Can you grasp that, Jorge?
Clarke
he made no constiutionally ruling either way!
whats so hard to understand?
Clarke
he made no constiutionally ruling either way!
whats so hard to understand?
Jorge, I don't know if you're purposefully not understanding the situation here, or are truly incapable of getting it. Either way, you're putting forth false information.
The judge has no obligation to make a ruling of the current law's constitutionality. His job is to assess the case being made against the law and judge whether or not there is sufficient evidence to move forward with a trial. He did just that.
He stated that "The Court finds that the allegations of Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition, as stated therein, are insufficient to show that they have standing to challenge the minimum essential coverage provision of the PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]. Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition without prejudice."
His job is not to rule on the constitutionality of this law (just saying it again in hopes that it sinks in).
Brian this is about
PRE TRIAL PROCEDURE...
nothing more
One of the First thing judges rule in civil suits is whether those sueing, the plaintiffs, have standing to sue..
all this judge ruled is they didnt have standing..
and in his ruling he gave them 30 days to AMEND their case and refile..
That's exactly what I just said.
Are you kidding me, really?
Jorge - The question is why did they not have standing. You are claiming that it is solely based on that no injury has yet to be incurred by the plaintiff. This is absolutely true. The judge stated that they may indeed be exempt under one of the provisions and did not provide evidence that this will directly effect them. In other words, it is pure speculation as to how this will effect them individually.
The point that the judge makes is this.
It is not this Court’s “task or duty to wade into the thicket of conflicting opinion” on any of the public policy matters implicated by this case. Florida v. United States Dep’t of HHS, 716 F.Supp. 2d 1120, 1128 (N.D. Fla. 2010). A case which presents a Constitutional challenge is “not alicense for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” Cantu-Delgadillov. Holder, 584 F.3d 682, 688-89 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307,313, 113 S. Ct. 2096, 124 L. Ed. 2d 211 (1993)); see also Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 9, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2005) (question before the Court was not whether enforcement of statutewas wise, but, rather, whether Congress had the power to regulate the market in question). The Court shall not address the merits of Plaintiffs’ case here. Rather, its present task is solely to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this matter.
From what I read into this, the judge is making the case, it is not the courts role to decide whether health care reform was a good idea or not, whether it is logical or fair, just the matter that is being presented.
In other words, what the judge in FL did was express his opinion on whether health care reform was a good idea or not and thus was out of line. I will not put words into the judges mouth but this seems to be a direct call out to the judge in FL who deemed the whole law unconstitutional because he expressed his opinion on the merits, in which is not his position to do so.
The judge in VA from my understanding however did follow precedent and simply ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. While I disagree within some varying degree, I at least respect him as a judge more so because he followed precedent and procedure.
The judge said "The Court shall not address the merits of Plaintiffs’ "case here.
enough said
he made no ruling.
That is like reading part of the instructions to a test and just stopping when you are a quarter of the way through.
He makes note on pages 6-12 to the other cases that have challenged the health care law and showed how each judge ruled differently on this same premise of standing. What he is doing is literally showing why he choose the way he did and then those that disagreed. He made special note of why the judges ruled against what he did in an attempt to show where they were wrong in accordance with legal precedent. He then goes into the present case and shows why they had no legal standing and why that this case cannot be ruled upon by anyone until there is legal standing and that any judge that does rule on this, in all but one or two cases from what I can tell are going against legal precedent. This is the point he is making. This is why it's important. That is what you are missing by only reading that small portion.
I am reading what he said
your interpreting what he said..
BTW already have 2 fed judges ruling its illegal...
all that is needed is 1.
SCOTUS going to settle it .
ANd I cant see this court that ruled MCAIN FEINGOLD illegal not ruling this illegal
First of all, it is a different court. Second of all, McCain Feingold dealt with the first amendment. The issue here is the scope of the commerce clause. Not even remotely related.
As I stated, he used 6 pages showing all of the cases, not just the 2 ones in which it was ruled unconstitutional.
On a side note... if you are going to write in all caps to draw attention to it... you should probably spell a name correctly.
Also it is not ruled illegal, it is ruled unconstitutional.
I am reading all of what the judge said, you are reading part of it.
Also they never ruled McCain Feingold illegal/unconstitutional. They ruled in favor of Citizens United thus overruling any precedent including McCain Feingold.
This is probably an old question, but as I am old and a little memory deficient; how did the opponents of health care reform defend the requirement that I have to have auto insurance if I want to drive? If it was because I have a choice not to drive, then do I not have a right not to live? (not a personal choice, but there are people in the country who wish for euthanasia and are denied).
putman,
let me see if i can help with this.
ok auto insurance is mandated by the state not the fed.
auto insurance is to protect others from you, not to protect you from you.
auto insurance doesn't cover basic maintenance but accidents
yes you can purchase bigger policies that covers more, but the state mandated coverage is very basic and designed to protect other peoples property in case of an accident.
and no you don't have to have it. you can go for years with out needing it or even getting caught. they don't come to you once a year and fine you for not having it. yes you would be breaking the law and could lose your licence.
basically what i am saying is the health care demands you buy a product. on a federal level. states set their own requirements for letting you use their roads.
you can get medical care with out insurance. the states licence you to drive not to live.
you have no rights to drive its a privilege. the need to drive does not make it a right.
would you be against a law that required anyone over the age of 18 and legally able to own a gun to have to buy one for self defence?
Mandatory health insurance is there to protect the doctors and other insured people from financial harm put on them by people who cannot pay for their own healthcare.
It is in effect Medical Liability Insurance.
You being required to carry your own Medical Insurance protects ME from having to foot your bill. It protects ME from financial harm caused by YOU.
There is no difference.
if and yes its still a if i use medical services and dont pay for them.
i dont care if you say everyone might need it. does not mean that everyone does need it.
so no i do not harm you nor run the risk of harming you so no you dont deserve to use my money to lower your costs
Well, thats kind of like driving, where as the several states have determined, you MIGHT harm me.
Just like healthcare. You might walk down the street and get hit in the head with a brick and taken to the hospital and treated. Then I get to pay for your accident.
See how easy that is?
King: So let me understand this- if the states all mandated individual insurance coverage, then all would be well? It is only because the federal government is mandating it it is unconstitutional?
As far as taking a chance without auto insurance? In my state, if auto insurance lapses the company notifies the state, who then suspends your license and registration. There is no drive around until and if you get caught. You will have your license and registration suspended, you can not drive legally without auto insurance.
Putman,
Owning a car is a luxury, not a requirement. If you choose to own one, you have to have coverage. I don't know what state you live in, but in every state I've lived in you didn't have to have insurance, but if you didn't, you had to post a bond for a a certain amount of money.
What state do you live in?
Owning a car is a luxury, not a requirement. If you choose to own one, you have to have coverage. I don't know what state you live in, but in every state I've lived in you didn't have to have insurance, but if you didn't, you had to post a bond for a a certain amount of money.
That may have been true when the law was first instituted, but today - a car is not a luxury, a necessity, a requirement for work, entertainment - even access to medical care, education.
In the past, a decision was made to base our transportation, especially in our Metro/city areas, on individual occupancy vehicles. Collectively, we struck down the existing infrastructure of Trolleys, ferry's,intercity trains, Buses - then started a road building binge. That led to suburbs, and regionalization which continues to this day. We are once again looking at trains, trams, trolleys, buses - but with the existing infrastructure - roads, bridges, needing maintenance or more likely needing replacement.... there is vary little large capital, nor interest in financing people-mover projects. They are worker intensive and costly to maintain.
So, you can drop the propaganda that driving is privilege. Its no more a privilege as having running water, sanitary sewer systems, utilities or regular trash pickup. Don't pay your sewer fees, don't have access to running water, don't have a subscription for trash pickup and you will be find your abode is red tagged as being unsuitable for human habitation. In many cases, even if the property is vacant, cities will continue billing for the service - and you must pay for service whether you use it or not. The "shared" billing is built into the contract they have with "private business" to perform the service. So much for the economy of turning over Municipal services to private businesses. Every year there will be a rate increase and likely a reduction in services to go along with the rate increase.
So, you can drop the propaganda that driving is privilege.
Agreed I have laugh at people claiming driving is a luxury and/or privilege. I know as far as the LAW is concerned driving is considered a privilege. But in the real world for the vast majority of Americans driving is a modern necessity.
People who actually believe driving is a luxury and or privilege are living in a fantasy land.
sorry but yes driving is a luxury, just because you have decided you need it doesnt make it anything more special.
try living in New York City, no one there drives anywhere, they cant.
and alot of americans dont have need or use a car or are licenced drivers.
its still a luxury, if it was anything more than that i would say give all of the homeless, poor, well fair people a free car.
but yes you can live and survive with out a car.. its really no that hard. exept for lazy people
but yes you can live and survive with out a car.. its really no that hard. exept for lazy people
Thats an absolute crock of unadulterated BS. I will agree that if you are one of the few who live and work in a big city then you can possibly get by without a car. But if are like the vast majority who don't live in the city then a car is a basic necessity of life. Denying someone the right to drive is virtually condemning them to a life of poverty with little chance of escape.
so we should let anyone have a car and a licence?
so drunks should have a car and a licence also since its wrong to take way this "right"?
there are millions of people that do not have need or use a car. are you saying they are less than others with a car?
Ask any elderly person who does not have family nearby, if driving is a Luxury? They may be able to enlighten you. As the welfare, single mother who has to catch a 3 hours, bus ride/transfer and still a 2 mile walk to get to a job, as she is trying to work her way out of a bad divorce. By the time she does get home - any madness her, unsupervised children have gotten into ... its too late to prevent.
Getting a car is the first, biggest step for any adult. Most job interviews will ask - do you drive, do you have reliable transportation? If not, you don't get the job.
Any city of any size has Meals-on-wheels, Outreach programs, paid or volunteer drivers to take pensioners to Doctor appointments, shopping for food or bringing food to them, take them to Senior centers so they can talk to people. Our city has drivers that offer low-coast or no-cost transportation for Seniors. Otherwise they have to take a Taxi, if they can...many Taxi drivers are reluctant to pick up Senior fares ... its too much work. They may need you to wait, need help getting in and out of the vehicle ... not to mention many of the fares are short - just down to the pharmacy and and back, grocery store and back. It'll cost the driver more, in lost, potential fares than he makes.
The point is, if you do not have a car or access to a car/driver, city services to get about... you will end up spending all day to get to and back from facilities which a driving person can get to without any trouble. The worse day of the average Senior is the day they realize they are no longer able to be mobile. Its like being a kid again.
This is just another of the fallacy of the Conservative penchant for ignoring reality, attempting to absolve society of any responsibility for the people who built this country. Maybe your 80 - 90 year old Gran should get a bicycle when she is too old to sit in a car and drive herself to the grocery store.
Oops, forgot - that would mean she would be on the streets... if they can ticket a person for riding a horse, then bicyclist may need to be of sound, life and limb to travel city streets too?
Just how good are Granny's reflexes, eye sight - any thugs in the area?
so we should let anyone have a car and a licence?
so drunks should have a car and a licence also since its wrong to take way this "right"?
there are millions of people that do not have need or use a car. are you saying they are less than others with a car?
You are really living in a fantasy world and supporting your arguments with straw man scenarios and circular logic. I never once advocated giving drunks the right to drive. Unlike you though, I do live in the real world and I fully realize that for the vast majority of Americans the right to drive is a basic necessity of survival. To arbitrarily deny that right to someone who needs it to survive is virtually condemning them to a life of poverty.
An individuals should only be deprived of the right to drive under the strictest of guidelines and it should never be done arbitrarily as it is today.
There are millions of people that do not have need or use a car. are you saying they are less than others with a car?
Thank you for proving my point for me. As you said "people that do not have need" My point is denying the right to drive to an individual who does have a need is virtually condemning them to a life of poverty.
40 years ago it was possible for a young man starting out in life to succeed without a car, today it's virtually imposable.
wel yes my grand parents do have bicycles, they are 3 wheeled ones, they ride them along the florida coast, and very happy with it.
you may feel its more than a luxury but not everyone does. cable tv is another luxury, cell phones are all luxuries.
if you had to live with out them, you could and you would find a way its really not that hard. yes an application askes if you have reliable transportaion to a job, they want to make sure you can get there, but they dont ask, do you drive. they dont care if you do or not, they just want to know you can get up off the couch and come into work.
but if i agree its more than a luxury, then you have to support a law demanding/mandating we all buy and own a car, it must be a GM car to help our country.
Larry, I live in New York and ever since I started driving back in 1973 you were required to have auto insurance, no ifs ands buts or whys.
King, many people do drive in New York City, residents of NYC. Mass transit is good for most, but not all. Then there are those times that people in NYC actually wish to go elsewhere, and the only convenient and reliable way is to drive.
You do not believe we should give drivers license to anyone? What is your opinion on guns? Should we give a gun to anyone? At least drivers theoretically have to take a test and demonstrate some degree of competency; guns do not. Should states or the federal government have the right to do these actions?
If government is to provide for the general welfare of ALL Americans, health insurance, car insurance, guns etc ought to have some governmental oversight. After all, WE elected them to represent us. The fact that the system has been taken over by big money is another issue.
What is at stake is not that Public insurance is problem free, that can and will be worked out - incrementally - over time.
What is obvious is Private insurance has had at least 30 - 40 years to respond to the problems they have created with usury rates, unsavory practices and deceptive advertising. The Government Health insurance proposal does not prevent you or anyone else from getting private insurance. What it does do is establish a minimum level of insurance for the public.
In many ways it recognizes that .... much like minimum wages ... there is necessity for health care, it also recognises that The current model - Private Health insurance has squandered any rights, mandate to claim exemption from Government based competition while relying on Government subsidies and regulations to sustain it predatory business practices.
That in a nut shell is the whole basis for Public Health care. To recognize that people get sick, ill or injured and that its best to care for them rather than to ignore the problem. We already have CDC, center for disease control - to handle outbreaks of contagious diseases, epidemics and spot trends, clusters of diseases. The Government does not charge for those services, because they are looking out for the welfare of the Nation. We found out the hard way about diseases like Polio, dysentery, small pox, Plague, STD's - allowing them to run unchecked through the general population ... based on some philosophical argument that no one gets anything for free is patently ridiculous. We tried for much too long to put the burden on employers, but - the fall out from lay-offs, downsizing and runaway costs shows that the health industry used their corporate consolidation of the market to become a virtual monopoly, Health cartel - they have dictated prices, policies - to the detriment of the public for too long. Te only Public entity which has the resources to counter their tyranny is Big Uncle Sam.
If I had to say this is the best solution, I would be lying. But given the situation - it IS the most workable solution and the only one which can rein in these merchants of privilege.
The Big lie was "The government was proposing Death Panels". The reality is Big Health Care industry has been doing this and is actually fighting for the right to continue doing it! Every citizen who has faithfully paid his health insurance for years, then gets cut off as soon as he or she get ill is proof that the HCI needs regulation, which was stripped away recently and needs competition to keep them honest, an emotion they haven't had to deal with in a long. long time.
They are not guaranteed a 30% - 40% yearly profit, they need to compete for business, just as any other real business does. The Government program is - as Mentioned above, no different than minimum wages ... you can pay more to get more services, you can buy a "Cadillac policy" - if that is your desire. But there needs to be a minimum level, basic policy which covers the least of us, without stigma or medical bias. Teh government is advocating a no-frills, health insurance which a wage earning worker, "should" be able to afford. The risks are then spread out over the rest of the population on a scale large enough to sustain the inevitable, expected payouts.
As far as being forced to pay someone else's bills? maybe we need to take a look at what insurance is about in its basic form. Insurance is nothing more or less than "Shared risk vs. actuarial probability". Even Private HCI is charging you for the possible care of other people, if you never have need for any of the services provided by your Health Insurance, you loose all your premiums. If some other person has illness, after illness, after injury - they win... they get more than their money back. Except for the pain, quality of life, etc - they make out like bandits. But, if the HCI did its homework, the "pool", as a function of its previous and potential future profits should be enough to make up the difference and still offer a reasonable profit, making it a viable business - over the long term.
No where in any business model is there a guarantee they should make a set profit, every year. Bluntly put - Crap happens, if you are in the insurance business - its one of those things that makes it a business, not just a easy, fool-proof way to separate the suckers from their hard earned wages.
Beowolf said:
That may have been true when the law was first instituted, but today - a car is not a luxury, a necessity, a requirement for work, entertainment - even access to medical care, education.
So, you can drop the propaganda that driving is privilege. Its no more a privilege as having running water...."
Driving is a privilege, which is why you have to pass a test to get a license and when your license is revoked, it's referred to as losing your driving privilege. Did you have to pass a test in order to have running water? I didn't think so.
For the first 5 years of my working life, I walked to work, to the store, to the gym, and anywhere else I wanted to go. So long as you're smart enough to live close to work, it's possible to walk or ride to work. If you want to live farther away, that's your choice, and you can take public transportation (if available), carpool with co-workers or take a taxi.
My ex-wife's grandmother died in 2003 at the age of 91, and she never learned to drive. From 1998 through 2004, I worked with a network admin that had lost his privilege to drive for 10 years due to back to back DUIs. He managed to live from the age of 21 to 31 without a car, and during that time, he improved his career from being a bouncer at clubs to being a network admin that made more than $100K a year.
Life or success don't require a car, sorry. There are too many people that don't have them or lost their DL to even begin to claim that it's anything other than a luxury.
By the way, did either you or Blaze notice that because you want something to make your life easier, you feel it's your right to have it, in spite of what the law says? That seems to be a common theme among some people.
I can't get a driver's license because I have epilepsy that isn't 100% controlled by medication. I live in a moderate-sized, suburban city with no mass transit. I went to college in a big city; I loved being able to get anywhere I wanted without having to find somebody to give me a ride. Mass transit rocks. Plus it's better for the environment. The suburban infrastructure really sucks in this way.
As far as the driving is a luxury vs. a necessity debate, I think both claims are exaggerations. A car isn't an absolute necessity for everyone, but for a lot of people, it's pretty close. If it weren't for my wonderful loving family and friends who are willing (and able!) to drive me to work and other places I need to get, I'd be basically screwed. There are services for people who are handicapped or elderly, but they're very limited.
As for taxis...what a laugh. They're obscenely expensive. I could afford to take a taxi everywhere I need to get, but only because I have a fairly high-paying job. Most people don't. My employer (a university) might be able to provide transportation if I couldn't get to work, but for a lot of employers, that would be prohibitively expensive. (The Americans With Disabilities Act definitely improved the outlook for people like me, but it may also make some employers, particularly small businesses, reluctant to hire someone who needs potentially expensive accommodations.)
A bike is nice if you live in flat terrain, but in a mountainous or piedmont area, they aren't really workable. Also, my experience, having lived in several moderate-sized suburban cities like this one over the course of my life, my experience is that while there are exceptions, major roads in such areas don't usually have bike paths or sidewalks or indeed anywhere suitable for a bike. And you try walking home with four bags full of groceries.
Oh and don't call me lazy just because I live in the suburbs. That's just plain obnoxious. (Much as I'd prefer a big city, the job market doesn't allow most people to just get up and move wherever they'd like. This is true for me even in better economic times, since I work in the competitive world of academia. Yeah, people with Ph.D.'s are so lazy.)
Actually Jorge I don't believe that the article is based on mis-information, more like it is based on a twisted and incomplete interpretation.
A Federal Judge can not make rulings based upon events that have not yet happened. Very simply the protagonists in this case worded their complaint wrong. The judge has given them thirty days to re-submit their briefs. The judge has only ruled that the complaint itself is not worthy of review as worded. He has not ruled on the Constitutionality of the law itself. This case has simply been taken out of the batter;s box and put back into the on-deck circle. So throw away that 3-2 score your flashing around and stick to reality.
#23 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 2:10 PM ESTMSNBC > Missing Some iNformation BeCause > it makes better headlines form our fellow libs.
The Judge did NOT rule Obie's Joke unconstitutional > he ruled 'no standing'. jeez
#24 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 2:24 PM ESTit ain't over till the fat lady sings. She'll sing in the Supreme Court. this part of this healthcare law is Just Stupid. you can not force people to buy anything.Just Stupid , i hope to god they strike down that part of the STUPIDITY!these people are unfricken believable!
you can not force people to buy anything.Just Stupid
Yet you can force people to pay for your uninsured catastrophic medical expenses.
And yes the government can force you to buy something. They already force you to buy SS insurance, Government run program or private program it doesn't matter the government is still forcing you to buy something end of story!
Blaze yes it does matter.
cite another example of the FED govt forcing citizens to buy a product from a private company?
Merchant Marines were required by law to purchase liability insurance in the early 1800's by Federal Mandate.
Militia were required to purchase their own firearms by federal mandate.
There may be other incidents, but these 2 I know are factual.
Blaze yes it does matter.
It only matters to those desperately grasping at straws
so everyone should be required to buy a firearm?
ok i am good with that
everyone should be required to do all of thier shopping at walmart?
Merchant Marines ?
once again it would be a choice to join the merchant marines so isnt applicable.
Militia? what militia? state militia? since there is no federal militia would have to be the states militia.
nice try..
Right on Jorge! Requiring participation in a federal program is not the same thing as requiring one to purchase something from a private co. This is a really dangerous precident if it should be upheld. If the Feds can require one to purchase something from a private Co. there is virtually nothing they cannot do. If they had made this the single payor program the SS analogy would be accurate. Some people try to use the requirement for auto insurance here but that is not the same either. You are required to have auto insurance to protect the other driver. You are not required to have it to protect yourself. Additionally, auto insurance requirements are a state issue.
Boomer
and requirment for car insurance comes from STATES not the federal govt.
onevoicemany
what about it?
has nothing to do with govt mandate to purchase a product from a private company.
Its a tax paid to the FED govt which is then returned when a person retires.
not exactly applicable to FED MANDATE to pruchase insurance from private companies.
You are required to pay into it, thus buy the product the government is selling. The same is true about medicare. You are buying into a system.
onevoicemany
a govt system .
not being mandating to buy a product from a private company..
totally different
requiring everyone to join MEDACARE would have been constitutional rather then mandating citizens purchase something from private company.
Cant force an AMERICAN CITIZEN to purchase a product from a private company that the citizen doesnt want to purchase.
simple illegal on its face..
So let me get this straight. You don't care about if the government makes you buy something the government is selling? If that is the case then you would be propagating socialism over the free market, which the government would be mandating you to do. The concept that I have the biggest problem with is the government telling you what to do period, not which sector you must buy it from. If you must buy it from the gov or the private sector I would think that someone from the right would rather you have them buy it from the private sector considering that is at least capitalist.
Not simply illegal. There are plenty of constitutional scholars who beleive that this is clearly allowed under the Commerce clause. Find me the language in the constitution that prohibts the government from requiring that you purchase something or possess something. You seem to be an originalist. Where is that prohibition? It does not exist. This case will be decided on the question of whether Congress, the elected representatives of the people, can enact legislation to regulate 1/6 of the national economy by requiring that every citizen be covered by health insurance. I find if funny that the government can compel me or my son to take up arms and fight anywhere in the world they say but then cannot make irresponsible jackasses pay for health insurance so I do not have to contribute to their medical care. Why are the republicans so supportive of irresponsibility?
gatoralum - that is basically my position as well. I don't exactly like the individual mandate. But is it constitutional, I believe so. I wish we had a public option, or medicare for all, instead.
gatoralum, how can the government make you take up arms and go fight?
there is no law mandating this.
and i believe this health insurance law is unconstitutional
i do not believe it is the governments job or place to force me to enter into a contractual relationship with a 3rd party when i do not desire, wish, or need their product no matter what that product is.
you might as well say for the protection of the country and the people and the well fair and safety of everyone that anyone over the age of 18 that is legally able to must buy a hand gun.
this is the same senerio just a different product
You registered for selective service when you were 18. The draft existed for years, and can be reinstated at any time.
gator
not purchasing something is not COMMERCE its the OPPOSITE of commerce
Just strip it down the the basics.
The federal govt is mandating you purchase a product from a private company. Mandating you enter into a contract agasinst your will.
not going to stand .
Not purchasing HEALTH INSURANCE is not commerce its the opposite of commerce.
If your going to STRETCH the commerce clause to include inactivity then you there is nothing the FED govt cant regulate.
This reminds me of the LOPEZ case where the CONGRESS made gun possession near a school a federal crime based on the commerce clause
Based on the weak premise that crime effects commerce.
SCOTUS ruled that lthe law unconstitutional. Because claiming CRIME effecting commerce was such a stretch.
It has to "affect" interstate commerce. Very little in this country affect commerce more than health care. People who refuse to take responsibility for their health care affect commerce every day. They drive up the cost of health care and health insurance for all of us. I realize that you do not think it is constitutional. That is not an unreasonable position to take, although it is a minority position among constitutional scholars. Your insistence that it is so obvious that it is not constitutional is, however, asinine. You may have read a couple of blogs about con law. but you have never studied it. You have never had to make a legal argument to a court on constitutional law issues. Have you read all of Lopez. What about the other commerce clause cases decided since 1937? I doubt it. I have. Lopez was correct because there is not direct relationship between gun violence and commerce. Police power has traditionally rested with the states. The manner in which we pay for health care does, unquestionably, affect interstate commerce. You have this misconception that because there is a private party involved, instead of the government providing the insurance, that means something. It does not. If the government can require that you participate in medicare by paying medicare tax, it can require that you either have health insurance or pay a tax if you don't. I know it is fun to comment on matters about which you have little knowledge, but it does not make you right. Here, you are wrong, Not only about it being a valid exercise of power, but about there being some clear violation.
So all you geniuses in support of this bill who do you think is suppose to pay for it? i've yet to get a straight answer. you're yammering and moaning about the uninsured and you people paying for it and on and on and on.you go on and on and on about how it should be mandated.Really?
you people think you're paying alot now for the uninsured?well people think again.what the hell are you going to be paying when they are insured?i'd say a hell of alot more that you are now.
the tooth fairy for it,thats for sure. so again tell me whose paying for all this?
Gloria,
If you ask them it's free. The "government" is paying for it. Forget the fact the government doesn't have any money of its own.
When I explain to them the things my children may have to go without, or potential consequences to me, just so they can extract money from my wallet, none of that matters.
There's a reason why Conservatives give the most to charity, but the Liberals claim to be the most concerned, and it's because only half of us are actually concerned and we don't need to thump our chest to proclaim it.
Since it saves money over time, I not sure what you think you will be paying for that you don't already pay for.
gatoralum
yep because adding 40 milloin people to a govt progam always "saves money" over time.
Please cite what major govt social program has ever cost what was projected?
What you dont seem to get is the Human factor.
Most of these people who use ER's instead of using a DOCTOR have medacare....they are not goin to stop using ERs j.
Many of these 40 million have no insurance because they are not the most responsible members of society. they have made poor choices.
This program is not going to stop them from making poor choices, which drives up costs of health care for everyone.
I know a person who has lived a very transient lifestyle, moving from job to job, traveling a lot never staying in one place to long. THey have lived a very intersting life. One I wish I could lead
But now they are sick and need medical care and have no insurance. They have no isurance because of CHOICES they made.
Many of the uninsured are uninsured becaue of choices they make.
there is no proof it will save money.
they said it will save money, but when does the governement ever do anything that saves money.
plus they dont even know what all is in the law yet so how can they be sure it will save money.
i know its costing me more money, so in the long run.... ya you do the math it will only get more costly
Medacare is hundreds of times over the projected long term budget from when it was passed in the 1960's
No @!$%#, Jorge. People live longer. They had no way of knowing the medical advances that would be made. Do you have a problem with Medicare? Are you one of those who consider medicare and social security socialism and a mistake? Did the government accurately predict the growth of the cost of military defense? Should we scrap that? Health care is a necessity. Tens of millions of Americans do not have access to it. That is a disgrace and people who oppose providing it to them are a disgrace to this country. They do not have the first clue about what makes this country great and are the biggest obstacles to our continued greatness. They lost this battle, just as they lost all battles between those who want to see this nation progress and those who want to hold it back. They lost in the depression when they tried to stop the great reforms of FDR; they lost in the 1950s and 60s trying to stop the civil rights movement and the social reforms of LBJ and they lost this time. It is not going to be repealed and concerted efforts to do so will simply make Obama's reelection even more likely than it already is.
Let's try to keep the expletives to a minimum please. It does not help an argument at all, imo. I agree with your points but let's try to curb the language if ya can please.
What kind of human beings would be against health care for all as well as medicare and social security?
It's simple - there are 3 kinds:
#26 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 2:31 PM ESTyou forgot the 4th kind
the ones that don't want the government in charge of their health care or telling them what type of health care they are entitled to.
Coral atlas
so easy to be generous with others money
thats the problem with liberalism eventually the govt runs out of other peoples money
Jorge
If you carry private insurance, they are being generous (maybe not exactly "generous though") with your money. Using it to Socialize healthcare for others.
But your argument is that you don't want to pay for anyone elses care, and the fact is that you are.
Clarke
Whether I pay for others health care or not is policy issue not a legal one.
not a constitutional matter.
Just because something is "good policy" doesnt make it constitutional.
WHats legal and whats the correct policy have nothing to do with each other.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
