View Full Version : The First Chink in the Armor - Health Care Mandate Ruled Unconstitutional
Gutshot John
12-14-10, 08:28
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017552229615230.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_3
Gutshot John
12-14-10, 08:31
http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/Health%20Care%20Memorandum%20Opinion.pdf
Quoted fromt the article linked above by GSJ:
"U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."
No shit it exceeds congressional powers/constitutional boundaries...
Good to see judges standing up against this atrocity of an unconstitutional bill.
Reading that bill, whilst my congresmen and woman didn't for some reason (When it is their effing job for chrissake, and I barely have time to read stuff that is entertaining!) was tantamount to receving a frontal lobe lobotomy while being raped by an inmate named Tiny. The fact that it passed the house and senate is beyond me, and truly proves how far removed from reality our so called "representatives" have become.
montanadave
12-14-10, 08:34
The myriad of cases working their way through the federal judiciary are merely prelude (and political kabuki theatre) to the final showdown in the Supreme Court.
Everyone might as well keep their powder dry until the SCOTUS rules.
Gutshot John
12-14-10, 08:44
The myriad of cases working their way through the federal judiciary are merely prelude (and political kabuki theatre) to the final showdown in the Supreme Court.
Everyone might as well keep their powder dry until the SCOTUS rules.
If that were true why even have district, appellate and circuit courts?
Subsequent decisions are usually made on the strength of the lower court decisions.
There is little chance that a favorable judgment could have been made without them.
rickrock305
12-14-10, 09:14
Good, get rid of this crap bill and start over. This time WITHOUT the massive giveaways to insurance and pharma companies.
montanadave
12-14-10, 09:33
"U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."
A rather weak argument given the fact that there is NO provision within the bill for enforcement of the penalty should anyone refuse the individual mandate to purchase health insurance.
Put another way, there is apparently no penalty for failing to pay the penalty for failing to purchase individual insurance.
Section 1501 of H.R. 3590 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) discusses the individual mandate and amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Chapter 48, Section 500A, paragraph (g) Administration and Procedure, (2) Special Rules) with the following language: "(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES- In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:7:./temp/~c111zbORsk:e406299:)
I don't understand how you can seek to overturn a law for imposing an individual mandate when, in essence, the mandate doesn't exist. Is a law without any penalty for violating that law enforceable?
Just another example of the smoke and mirrors contained within this health care bill and all the misconceptions surrounding it, whether promulgated by opponents or supporters. What a mess!
ForTehNguyen
12-14-10, 09:35
doesnt change the fact that you are still forced to pay for it.
Gutshot John
12-14-10, 09:47
A rather weak argument given the fact that there is NO provision within the bill for enforcement of the penalty should anyone refuse the individual mandate to purchase health insurance.
You've missed the point.
Obamacare may not have an enforcement mechanism now because enforcement without a precedent in support of an individual mandate would probably make it unconstitutional. The writers aren't stupid. It's a process of building the power up and this is only the foundation.
Obamacare as written is counting on the mandate itself being endorsed by the court first and adding enforcement later to this or other bills down the road once the precedent of an individual mandate has been established.
If the mandate itself survives the courts, than enforcement is the next logical step because you can't "mandate" behavior if you can't enforce it.
montanadave
12-14-10, 09:59
If that were true why even have district, appellate and circuit courts?
I agree with you in principle but it is hard to ignore the disparities between judicial rulings on "hot potato" issues which are ideologically based and can be directly traced to whether the judge or judges were nominated to the federal bench by Republican or Democratic administrations. Judge Hudson was appointed by George W. Bush in 2002, this particular case now moves to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, where the majority is held by judges appointed by Democratic administrations. Time will tell.
As noted in my previous post, I think Judge Hudson's basis for his decision is a trifle muddled. The more interesting challenge, in my opinion, is the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General in Florida (which has been joined by Attorneys General from 19 other states as well as the National Federation of Independent Business). This case not only seeks to nullify the H.R. 3590 on the basis of the individual mandate, but also protests the massive expansion of state Medicaid payments required from cash-strapped state governments.
Lower court decisions will all provide interesting political theatre, as various jurisdictions rule one way or the other, but neither side in this debate is likely to back off until they get to argue their appeal before the Supreme Court.
montanadave
12-14-10, 10:03
You've missed the point.
Obamacare may not have an enforcement mechanism now because enforcement without a precedent in support of an individual mandate would probably make it unconstitutional. The writers aren't stupid. It's a process of building the power up and this is only the foundation.
Obamacare as written is counting on the mandate itself being endorsed by the court first and adding enforcement later to this or other bills down the road once the precedent of an individual mandate has been established.
If the mandate itself survives the courts, than enforcement is the next logical step because you can't "mandate" behavior if you can't enforce it.
Point taken. And, once more with feeling, what a mess!
I thought we were all pissed off about Activist Judges?
Gutshot John
12-14-10, 11:07
I thought we were all pissed off about Activist Judges?
On what planet is this judicial activism?
Judicial activism is creating law by judicial fiat where none exists.
This ruled an existing law unconstitutional.
Big difference between the two.
On the same planet that every time a judge does something that doesn't jive with the Right, it is dubbed judicial activism.
CarlosDJackal
12-14-10, 11:37
A rather weak argument given the fact that there is NO provision within the bill for enforcement of the penalty should anyone refuse the individual mandate to purchase health insurance.
Put another way, there is apparently no penalty for failing to pay the penalty for failing to purchase individual insurance...
This is totally irrelevant and is more smoke and mirrors that can be added to the bill. The government CANNOT force any individual to purchase something that (a) They do not want; (b) They might not need; or (c) They may not be able to afford.
This is like forcing every American to purchase automobile insurance regardless of whether or not they even have a driver's license or a car. Especially with the threat of a fine attached to it.
The bill may not outline any provisions to enforce the fines; but that doesn't mean they can't. In some cases leaving the possible enforcement and punishment so open-ended may even be worse because while it may not specify what can be done; it also does not specify what CANNOT be done.
This ruling leads the way to possibly overturning this stupid bill and evidently, the way the Commonwealth of Virginia argued it (in terms of commerce) it must be a very well organized and presented brief because the court ruled in favor of it.
Gutshot John
12-14-10, 11:40
On the same planet that every time a judge does something that doesn't jive with the Right, it is dubbed judicial activism.
For instance? Source for your definition?
Sounds like you've read too much Huffpost/Daily Kos. Such a meaningless construct doesn't jive with any credible definition I've ever seen which calls activism "legislating from the bench."
More importantly using that definition and such broad criteria every court decision ever made would qualify as judicial activism.
Activism generally falls under 5 categories none of which apply to the District Court's decision:
The charge has been lodged when, according to the speaker, the court at issued has (1) invalidated an arguably constitutional action by another branch; (2) failed to adhere to precedent; (3) legislated from the bench; (4) departed from accepted interpretive mythology; or (5) engaged in result-oriented judging.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050617.html
1. The right of the Congress to compel participation in commerce has no legislative or judicial precedent so the court's decision can't be considered activism.
2. The law directly contradicts existing precedent especially relevant to US v. Lopez so according to Stare Decisis this decision can't be considered activism.
3. The decision doesn't create any new law so can't be considered activism.
4. The decision doesn't depart from any accepted form of interpretation and is entirely consistent with such methodology and so cannot be considered activism.
5. Didn't specify any result, only defined the powers of Congress to create statute so again cannot be considered activism.
Under all 5 accepted definitions of activism your (and as well as the left's) definition of activism fails. Nice try but don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Good, get rid of this crap bill and start over. This time WITHOUT the massive giveaways to insurance and pharma companies.
:rolleyes: Ya know, we really don't want them to "try, try again".
Belmont31R
12-14-10, 12:50
Good, get rid of this crap bill and start over. This time WITHOUT the massive giveaways to insurance and pharma companies.
How about they just leave the entire issue alone instead? I think the states are perfectly capable of managing their own insurance issues, and since the feds already made a law against interstate commerce of medical insurance why are they involved in it anyways?
Everything they do to "fix health care" has driven the cost up, and has since at least the 60's, and made worse by forcing hospitals to treat people who aren't going to pay them in the 80's.
More importantly using that definition and such broad criteria every court decision ever made would qualify as judicial activism.
My point exactly. Remember that the next time a court goes against your political beliefs and you're quick to judge their action as Judicial Activism.
I agree with this judges ruling, I just really enjoy using the same knee jerk reactions I see in the media in order to point out contradictions and hypocrisy on both the extreme Right and Left.
You could look up any federal court decision that was made against the right in the archives of Fox News, Glen Beck, and Hannity, and Rush and see the same logic used that I applied to this statement. That is my only point.
As for the ruling, I'm glad it happened. I just hope now we can get REAL health care reform, and not some back room deal that was written by a Right Wing Think Tank in the mid 1990's.
GermanSynergy
12-14-10, 13:18
This is an important step on the road to eventually repeal Obamacare. The Repubs need to defund it, and any efforts to appease/compromise with the Left should be stifled. We voted them in, time to hold them to their promises.
"By the way, we won." :sarcastic:
Gutshot John
12-14-10, 13:45
My point exactly. Remember that the next time a court goes against your political beliefs and you're quick to judge their action as Judicial Activism.
Your statement is a giant assumption without understanding. If you wish to give me a specific example of a decision which you think goes against my political beliefs that I've subsequently called activism, I'd be happy to address it. Better yet give me some cases which the left calls conservative activism and I'll either point out where most don't fit the above definition or agree.
There are lots of court decisions I disagree with ideologically that I don't call judicial activism. In general activism was a characteristic of the Warren court (one which he heartily endorsed) but almost never of the Rehnquist/Roberts court which has pushed back against that tendency. Conservatives rarely engage in activism, even when it doesn't suit their ideological preferences, activism tends to be a liberal disease no matter what Huff Post would have you believe.
The problem with activism is that politicians and judges use the courts to create law that would fail during the regular legislative process. For instance Roe v. Wade, while I do agree in a constitutional right to privacy that isn't explicitly spelled out, the issue of abortion is one that needs to be made through a legislative process. While Democrats scream and cry about "protecting Roe against the extreme wing of the GOP" they've done nothing to either enshrine abortion in law or through Constitutional amendment.
Conflating disagreement with activism is a false choice.
rickrock305
12-14-10, 15:39
How about they just leave the entire issue alone instead? I think the states are perfectly capable of managing their own insurance issues, and since the feds already made a law against interstate commerce of medical insurance why are they involved in it anyways?
Everything they do to "fix health care" has driven the cost up, and has since at least the 60's, and made worse by forcing hospitals to treat people who aren't going to pay them in the 80's.
We have the most expensive, most inefficient healthcare system in the world. I'm not happy with wasting my money on it and being robbed blind at every doctor or hospital visit. I'm not happy getting raped by insurance companies.
Do I think our government will do much about it? Nope. Unfortunately the healthcare, pharma, and insurance industries spend far too much lobbying money making sure that we the people will continue to get f*cked.
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank God!
GermanSynergy
12-14-10, 15:42
Really? What about the health care systems in Cuba, China, North Korea? How would you rate them as far as efficiency goes?
If our system is so horrible, why are foreign heads of state coming over here for medical treatment, instead of Havana or Harbin?
We have the most expensive, most inefficient healthcare system in the world. I'm not happy with wasting my money on it and being robbed blind at every doctor or hospital visit. I'm not happy getting raped by insurance companies.
Do I think our government will do much about it? Nope. Unfortunately the healthcare, pharma, and insurance industries spend far too much lobbying money making sure that we the people will continue to get f*cked.
Gutshot John
12-14-10, 15:46
Really? What about the health care systems in Cuba, China, North Korea?
If our system is so horrible, why are foreign heads of state coming over here for medical treatment, instead of Havana?
Ignore him, his goal is to become so annoying that the ops will have no choice but to shut a thread down. It's already happened once today.
He's not interested in honest debate and he can't actually believe the nonsense he spouts so it's obvious that his way that he silences those he disagrees with.
Don't play his game. Just put him on ignore, no one here agrees with him anyway.
ForTehNguyen
12-14-10, 15:47
We have the most expensive, most inefficient healthcare system in the world. I'm not happy with wasting my money on it and being robbed blind at every doctor or hospital visit. I'm not happy getting raped by insurance companies.
US has: most Nobel prizes in Medicine for many decades, huge majority of the major medical innovations of the past several decades, many times more R&D money spent than the entire European continents R&D. If the US system was truly junk why do people from all over the world come here to get advanced surgery? A lot of things need to be fixed but we are far from the worst. Mexico spends a lot less than us, therefore its better?
this stuff isnt free, and the rest of the world gets to benefit from it without fronting all the money for it. What a deal. Dont even try to argue this "most spending per capita" stuff, at least we have something to show for it from what I listed above. All the universal healthcare countries don't innovate crap yet they get to use the innovations and tech WE pioneered, without spending a freaking dime.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
Tell me which out of all the worlds country would you rather be sick in?
We have the most expensive, most inefficient healthcare system in the world. I'm not happy with wasting my money on it and being robbed blind at every doctor or hospital visit. I'm not happy getting raped by insurance companies.
Do I think our government will do much about it? Nope. Unfortunately the healthcare, pharma, and insurance industries spend far too much lobbying money making sure that we the people will continue to get f*cked.
I get so sick of hearing this BS. Our care, our doctors, our system is the best in the world by leaps and effing bounds. Not perfect by any stretch of the word, but come on.
Why do affluent people from every single country in the world, choose to flocke here and utilize our health care system at a MUCH higher cost to them (Not to mention being displaced from ones country)?
Gutshot John
12-14-10, 15:49
Please people don't feed the troll.
This thread is to discuss the District court's decision not debating the virtues of the American health care system which no one legitimately disputes as the best in the world.
rickrock305
12-14-10, 15:51
Really? What about the health care systems in Cuba, China, North Korea? How would you rate them as far as efficiency goes?
If our system is so horrible, why are foreign heads of state coming over here for medical treatment, instead of Havana or Harbin?
If you're a wealthy head of state, we have great healthcare. Problem is, most Americans simply can't afford it.
About half of the bankruptcy filings in the United States are due to medical expenses. Source: Health Affairs Journal 2005
The United States spends twice as much on health care per capita ($7,129) than any other country . . . and spending continues to increase. In 2005, the national health care expenditures totaled $2 trillion. Source: National Center for Health Statistics
From 2000 to 2006, overall inflation has increased 3.5%, wages have increased 3.8%, and health care premiums have increased 87%. Source: Kaiser Family Foundation
More than 40 million adults stated that they needed but did not receive one or more of these health services (medical care, prescription medicines, mental health care, dental care, or eyeglasses) in 2005 because they could not afford it. Source: National Center for Health Statistics
rickrock305
12-14-10, 15:53
Ignore him, his goal is to become so annoying that the ops will have no choice but to shut a thread down. It's already happened once today.
He's not interested in honest debate and he can't actually believe the nonsense he spouts so it's obvious that his way that he silences those he disagrees with.
Don't play his game. Just put him on ignore, no one here agrees with him anyway.
If you're ignoring me, you're doing a pretty piss poor job. At least have a LITTLE bit of a spine to stand behind your own convictions. Nah, you can't even do that. Just take cheap personal shots at me because I dared to prove you wrong and you just couldn't keep up.
STOP PROJECTING!
On the same planet that every time a judge does something that doesn't jive with the Right, it is dubbed judicial activism.
So in essence you are taking this opportunity to simply take an off-topic pot shot at people (who exactly, by the way? Everyone but you on this forum? Particular members?) who you perceive as hypocritical?
rickrock305
12-14-10, 16:01
US has: most Nobel prizes in Medicine for many decades, huge majority of the major medical innovations of the past several decades, many times more R&D money spent than the entire European continents R&D. If the US system was truly junk why do people from all over the world come here to get advanced surgery? A lot of things need to be fixed but we are far from the worst. Mexico spends a lot less than us, therefore its better?
this stuff isnt free, and the rest of the world gets to benefit from it without fronting all the money for it. What a deal. Dont even try to argue this "most spending per capita" stuff, at least we have something to show for it from what I listed above. All the universal healthcare countries don't innovate crap yet they get to use the innovations and tech WE pioneered, without spending a freaking dime.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
Tell me which out of all the worlds country would you rather be sick in?
I don't disagree with you. I'm not saying we're the worst healthcare system at all. I'm saying we are highly inefficient and way expensive. We spend so much money on healthcare yet are way down the list on many measures of health like infant mortality rate. We need to do something about that. Get a better return on our investment if you will. And hey, maybe some of that money we don't spend on healthcare can be spent on things like paying down our ridiculous deficit.
I get so sick of hearing this BS. Our care, our doctors, our system is the best in the world by leaps and effing bounds. Not perfect by any stretch of the word, but come on.
I don't disagree at all about our doctors and care. But with the amount of money spent, we are getting a pretty sh*tty ROI. We spend by far the most amount of money on healthcare than any other nation, yet we are far from the top of the list in many categories pertaining to the health of our citizens. We need to figure out why that is and fix it.
Why do affluent people from every single country in the world, choose to flocke here and utilize our health care system at a MUCH higher cost to them (Not to mention being displaced from ones country)?
Exactly. Healthcare in this country has become unaffordable for the average American. While the rich from other countries are coming here, the middle class from our own country are going elsewhere.
We have the most expensive, most inefficient healthcare system in the world. I'm not happy with wasting my money on it and being robbed blind at every doctor or hospital visit. I'm not happy getting raped by insurance companies.
Do I think our government will do much about it? Nope. Unfortunately the healthcare, pharma, and insurance industries spend far too much lobbying money making sure that we the people will continue to get f*cked.
Our healthcare is commercialized... and that's the only reason it's as good as it is. Once healthcare is "forced" on people, there's no more incentive to improve it because there are no longer any profit margins... and you end up with most healthcare companies downsizing, moving out of country, or simply closing permanently. It's a necessary evil (and even then, it's not really an evil, it's a fact of life).
Our commercialism is why our healthcare is so advanced, because people MUST improve it to make money - the manufacturers shoulder the costs of R&D because they know if they succeed, that they'll get a return on that investment. If the government says that we MUST have free healthcare, then what motivation is there to improve it? There's no commercial incentive, because people aren't paying for what they perceive as the best anymore. Instead, the government pays the lowest bidder.
This is the exact equivalent of mandating that every American be given a car. If everyone gets a free car, there 90% of people won't need to shop for a new one. You end up closing all of the mid-level consumer manufacturers, leaving only those that cater to the ultra-rich, who never had an issue before the mandate. It only hurts the average person. The ONLY people that benefit are the poorest of the poorest of the poor (and anyone that can post here does not qualify in that category).
John_Wayne777
12-14-10, 16:13
Please stick to discussing the topic and leave the personal bickering out of it.
Thank you.
rickrock305
12-14-10, 16:15
Our healthcare is commercialized... and that's the only reason it's as good as it is. Once healthcare is "forced" on people, there's no more incentive to improve it because there are no longer any profit margins... and you end up with most healthcare companies downsizing, moving out of country, or simply closing permanently. It's a necessary evil (and even then, it's not really an evil, it's a fact of life).
I agree, its a double edged sword. I don't think healthcare should be forced on people at all. That was one of the major issues I had with this bill. It was a straight giveaway to insurance companies. But I think there should be some type of option for people who cannot afford healthcare as well. Yes, we do have Medicaid already, but very few people qualify. And both Medicaid and Medicare have created some of the problems we face as well. And then we have insurance companies really f*cking people over on a daily basis. Its amazing the sh*t they pull and get away with it. I'm speaking from first hand experience here. Its straight up criminal.
Its a complicated problem with no easy answers. I'm certainly not going to sit here and pretend I have the answers. I have a few ideas but our government will never implement them due to the lobbying dollars spent by the healthcare and insurance industries to protect their piece of the pie. Its unconscionable that half of bankruptcies in our country are due to medical expenses. Ruining people's lives over basic necessities.
Please people don't feed the troll.
This thread is to discuss the District court's decision not debating the virtues of the American health care system which no one legitimately disputes as the best in the world.
And I find myself in total agreement with you on my 2nd post! On the one hand it's amusing, but tossing food to the trolls will only result in more locked threads.
rickrock305
12-14-10, 16:26
Please stick to discussing the topic and leave the personal bickering out of it.
Thank you.
Yes, please.
Someone who happens to disagree with you is not a troll.
Gutshot John
12-14-10, 16:30
And I find myself in total agreement with you on my 2nd post! On the one hand it's amusing, but tossing food to the trolls will only result in more locked threads.
Sadly it's par for the course. I have many liberal friends that I debate quite frequently but we all enjoy it and its good fun because they debate in good faith. Once a person shows that they're incapable of that, they go on my ignore list. It's much better for all involved.
Back on topic, this ruling is the first "chink" in the armor. Other decisions will have to be made demonstrating that Congress has no ability to compel individuals to buy a product that they don't want. I especially loved how the Judge blew up the notion that you can't argue the commerce clause while pushing the bill through congress than turn around and argue its taxation when pushing it through the courts.
I agree, its a double edged sword. I don't think healthcare should be forced on people at all. That was one of the major issues I had with this bill. It was a straight giveaway to insurance companies.
And how is that a straight giveaway to the insurance companies? You do realize that the insurance companies costs and obligations were going way up with all the new mandates, etc? The mandate was an attempt to try and pay for that.
rickrock305
12-14-10, 17:00
And how is that a straight giveaway to the insurance companies? You do realize that the insurance companies costs and obligations were going way up with all the new mandates, etc? The mandate was an attempt to try and pay for that.
Mandating everyone have insurance, and therefore increasing their customers by the millions, is a giveaway to the insurance companies. Yes, their costs and obligations would go up, but the amount of profit they would have made due to the millions more customers (approx. 32 million) would EASILY cover that.
Heavy Metal
12-14-10, 17:01
yet are way down the list on many measures of health like infant mortality rate.
Yes, because we actually ATTEMPT to save premies others refuse to touch and write-off as stillborn. This is playing games with statistics, not an indicator of an actual shortcoming.
If you are a premature infant, you are blessed by God to be born in the United States.
Belmont31R
12-14-10, 17:13
Yes, because we actually ATTEMPT to save premies others refuse to touch and write-off as stillborn. This is playing games with statistics, not an indicator of an actual shortcoming.
If you are a premature infant, you are blessed by God to be born in the United States.
Its always about playing with the numbers to get the result you want.
For instance on that dumb ass UN/WHO list they ranked us like 35th. However if you dig a deeper they have a little footnote I read on their website that the US has the best medical care but we are ranked lower because we don't have socialized medical care/insurance.
The same thing with the "most expensive health care system"....thats because here we do all we can to save someones life so their cost of care is much higher. In most other countries elderly people are basically left to die instead of spending 10's of thousands to prolong their life another year.
Again Id rather just have the feds butt out of health care entirely, and only enforce normal contract/business laws. So if XYZ insurance company doesn't want to pay for something in the contract then they can deal with the states AG. I don't think we need to be mandating minimum insurance levels for each contract when lots of times they cover things most people don't even want. All I want is insurance for something above my means to pay for, and not all the extra shit that probably doubles what Id be paying if it only included what I want.
Gutshot John
12-14-10, 17:13
We all understand and accept that Obamacare is deeply flawed in that it essentially throws the baby out with the bathwater - i.e. sabotage the virtues of our system in a misguided attempt to transfer costs to taxpayers. Shortcomings could have been addressed had that been the actual goal. The actual goal was to add another ill conceived entitlement irrespective of whether or not it could actually do what proponents claim.
Obamacare cannot reduce health care costs because you cannot simultaneously add more demand while decreasing supply and expect costs to go down. The number of waivers granted by the Obama administration to companies like McDonald's is more than enough proof of this principle.
When health care needs exceed health care resources, health care costs will rise while health care quality will fall and in the end the rich will still get the best care possible while the poor will be forced to deal with lowest possible denominator care where bureaucrats will decide who gets what. Rationing will be the inevitable result. In mass casualty situations this is necessary and is called triage. When done by bureaucrats it will become a nightmare.
The only real hope we have at this point is that the courts will upend the individual mandate. Without the mandate the whole thing falls apart.
We should be very happy with the decision. It's the first step in undoing this liberal travesty.
rickrock305
12-14-10, 17:19
We all understand and accept that Obamacare is deeply flawed in that it essentially throws the baby out with the bathwater - i.e. sabotage the virtues of our system in a misguided attempt to transfer costs to taxpayers. Shortcomings could have been addressed had that been the actual goal. The actual goal was to add another ill conceived entitlement irrespective of whether or not it could actually do what proponents claim.
Obamacare cannot reduce health care costs because you cannot simultaneously add more demand while decreasing supply and expect costs to go down. The number of waivers granted by the Obama administration to companies like McDonald's is more than enough proof of this principle.
When health care needs exceed health care resources, health care costs will rise while health care quality will fall and in the end the rich will still get the best care possible while the poor will be forced to deal with lowest possible denominator care where bureaucrats will decide who gets what. Rationing will be the inevitable result. In mass casualty situations this is necessary and is called triage. When done by bureaucrats it will become a nightmare.
The only real hope we have at this point is that the courts will upend the individual mandate. Without the mandate the whole thing falls apart.
We should be very happy with the decision. It's the first step in undoing this liberal travesty.
The funniest part about this thread is I actually agree with you.
We should be very happy with the decision. It's the first step in undoing this liberal travesty.
Are you aware of the fact that Obama's health care plan was originally written up as a good conservative solution to the health care problem in the United States? That it was written up, submitted to congress, and approved by several members during the Gingrich "revolution"? Are you aware that it was written by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, as a way to insure increased profits for Insurance Companies under the guise of "health care reform?", and was considered a last resort against Clinton?
With all of this FACT in mind, how is this bill "liberal"?
Really what it is is an example of is how the entire federal government no longer has the interests of the American people in mind. I for one am very happy that this judge had the guts to stand up to the other two branches of government.
Gutshot John
12-14-10, 17:33
Are you aware of the fact that Obama's health care plan was originally written up as a good conservative solution to the health care problem in the United States? That it was written up, submitted to congress, and approved by several members during the Gingrich "revolution"? Are you aware that it was written by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, as a way to insure increased profits for Insurance Companies under the guise of "health care reform?", and was considered a last resort against Clinton?
With all of this FACT in mind, how is this bill "liberal"?
Really what it is is an example of is how the entire federal government no longer has the interests of the American people in mind. I for one am very happy that this judge had the guts to stand up to the other two branches of government.
This is as incorrect as your previous statement regarding activism. But by all means please provide a credible source for all those claims.
I'm aware that the individual mandate was also proposed by people that have been labelled as "conservative" by the left but I don't have to agree that it's not a liberal construct.
I've not (nor does any other conservative I know of) disputed that some form of health care reform was necessary. Only that adding it as a new entitlement when we can't afford the existing ones is misguided at best and dangerously dishonest at worst.
The popular and necessary provisions of the health care law (preexisting conditions) could have been added overnight had liberals decided that they wanted to actually find a solution to the problem rather than cramming one down our throats.
Gutshot John
12-14-10, 17:36
From the Heritage Foundation website. Please highlight where they wrote this bill.
http://www.heritage.org/issues/health-care/health-care-reform
Heritage also disputes your claims here...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041802727.html
Are you aware of the fact that Obama's health care plan was originally written up as a good conservative solution to the health care problem in the United States? That it was written up, submitted to congress, and approved by several members during the Gingrich "revolution"? Are you aware that it was written by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, as a way to insure increased profits for Insurance Companies under the guise of "health care reform?", and was considered a last resort against Clinton?
With all of this FACT in mind, how is this bill "liberal"?
The question of whether or not a particular piece of legislation is liberal, conservative, whatever stands independently of who authors it, or what letter follows their name and what political philosophy that letter generally carries a connotation of. Republican doesn't necessarily (and maybe in the majority of cases doesn't at all) imply conservative.
If you insist on using the "well they voted for it, and they (ostensibly) have this political view, ergo what they voted for is consistent with that political view", I'd direct you to the roll call votes for the bill that was signed into law this year and tell me the political persuasion of those who passed this bill into law.
You can't sit here and play this game of "Republicans wrote it 15 years ago so it's not liberal" and simultaneously ignore the fact that every single person (if I'm not mistaken) who voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a Democrat.
Even still, it's not liberal because of that. It's liberal because it is a big-government, nanny-state piece of legislation.
Mandating everyone have insurance, and therefore increasing their customers by the millions, is a giveaway to the insurance companies. Yes, their costs and obligations would go up, but the amount of profit they would have made due to the millions more customers (approx. 32 million) would EASILY cover that.
Really? The whole reason for the mandate that everyone have insurance was to provide a base to pay for it all including all the additional mandated coverage.
The increases in mandated coverage makes per customer costs go up dramatically.
This was no giveaway to the insurance companies. It was an attempt to keep the system afloat.
Really? The whole reason for the mandate that everyone have insurance was to provide a base to pay for it all including all the additional mandated coverage.
The increases in mandated coverage makes per customer costs go up dramatically.
This was no giveaway to the insurance companies. It was an attempt to keep the system afloat.
It was done to buy the insurance companies' support however. That I will grant you. The insurance companies realized they would sink without a larger insurance base to spread costs across as the costs to provide coverage/care would skyrocket.
It was not about lining the insurance companies pockets. It ain't going to do that.
Gutshot John
12-14-10, 17:54
Did you mean to quote yourself?
Did you mean to quote yourself?
Yes, as a further clarification. I probably should have just edited but did not want to screw up people who had already read what I wrote at first and have them miss the clarification.
I have to ask (And let me preface this by saying this does have a bit to do with our back and forth regarding the constitutionality of the FED/Central Banks; in so far as further debating the "necessary and proper" "all laws" aspect of our past debate...)
So; lets start here: "Necessary and proper". Congress' argument for the inclusion of forcing us to buy health care into the Obamacare bill, is that it is necessary and proper. And "All laws" "necessary and proper" clause would make this consitutional, no?
How do you see this one playing out? How can one argue what is "necessary and proper", if we all have a different idea of what is "necessary and proper" (Can be interpreted in many ways). I bet there are more than a few Americans that think this bill is not only necessary and proper, but it is their entitlement. Obviously congress finds it necessary and proper or they wouldn't have included it in the bill.
How can anyone say just about anything isn't necessary and proper, and ALL LAWS being all-encompassing? Seeing as how you are for the FED and Central banking based on SCOTUS (NEcessary and proper, all laws), Why would you argue against this inclusion in the bill? If SCOTUS finds it is constitutional in the end, will that sit well with you; will you just accept that it is "constituional" because SCOTUS and Congress say so?
Got me thinking of Maryland Vs. McCulloch; by all necessary and proper means a central bank and the fed are not needed to collect taxes, yet SCOTUS finds them constitutional none the less. Well IMO health insurance is not "necessary and proper" to force onto people; so keeping in mind the "elasticity" and "necessary and proper" "All Laws" crap; do you really think this is going to be shot down by SCOTUS?
How can one argue what is necessary and proper, and what is not?
What would your argument be as to why this is NOT "necessary and proper"? And why it does not fall under "All laws"; specifically as to why it doesn't and the FED and Centralized/National banking does?
Not trying to further debate the FED/Central/National banking thing here; I just see parallels and wanted to know what everyone thought. Specifically why one is "necessary and proper, all laws; etc..." and the other is not...
Gutshot John
12-16-10, 12:30
I have to ask (And let me preface this by saying this does have a bit to do with our back and forth regarding the constitutionality of the FED/Central Banks; in so far as further debating the "necessary and proper" "all laws" aspect of our past debate...)
So; lets start here: "Necessary and proper". Congress' argument for the inclusion of forcing us to buy health care into the Obamacare bill, is that it is necessary and proper. And "All laws" "necessary and proper" clause would make this consitutional, no?
How do you see this one playing out? How can one argue what is "necessary and proper", if we all have a different idea of what is "necessary and proper" (Can be interpreted in many ways). I bet there are more than a few Americans that think this bill is not only necessary and proper, but it is their entitlement. Obviously congress finds it necessary and proper or they wouldn't have included it in the bill.
How can anyone say just about anything isn't necessary and proper, and ALL LAWS being all-encompassing? Seeing as how you are for the FED and Central banking based on SCOTUS (NEcessary and proper, all laws), Why would you argue against this inclusion in the bill? If SCOTUS finds it is constitutional in the end, will that sit well with you; will you just accept that it is "constituional" because SCOTUS and Congress say so?
Got me thinking of Maryland Vs. McCulloch; by all necessary and proper means a central bank and the fed are not needed to collect taxes, yet SCOTUS finds them constitutional none the less. Well IMO health insurance is not "necessary and proper" to force onto people; so keeping in mind the "elasticity" and "necessary and proper" "All Laws" crap; do you really think this is going to be shot down by SCOTUS?
How can one argue what is necessary and proper, and what is not?
What would your argument be as to why this is NOT "necessary and proper"? And why it does not fall under "All laws"; specifically as to why it doesn't and the FED and Centralized/National banking does?
Not trying to further debate the FED/Central/National banking thing here; I just see parallels and wanted to know what everyone thought. Specifically why one is "necessary and proper, all laws; etc..." and the other is not...
I see no parallel at all. Compelling an individual to buy insurance is a "police power" (powers which govern health, safety and morality) which have traditionally been reserved to the states. An individual state can certainly compel you to buy automobile insurance if you want to drive as that governs the "health, safety and morality" of its population, but it's not a Federal law to buy automobile insurance. There is no "right to drive." The argument in favor of HCR is that you have a "right" to health insurance. A "right" does not require you to buy a product or even pay taxes to exercise it.
Creating a central bank is not a police power and compelling everyone to buy a product which they cannot afford, may not need and may not want is nowhere spelled out in Article I Section 8.
While the left is making the argument that it falls under the commerce clause it only gives congress the power to regulate (make regular) commerce not compel it.
The distinction is pretty clear.
Obama administration argueing it is, since it falls under interstate commerce....
To make its case, the Obama administration relies on the Constitution's Commerce Clause and the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, sometimes called "the Elastic Clause." The Commerce Clause gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. The Necessary and Proper Clause makes clear that Congress can use "necessary and proper" means to implement other powers such as the Commerce Clause, thus its description as "the Elastic Clause."
Since the mid-1930s, Congress has had a fairly free hand under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court has said that the clause gives Congress the right to regulate any commercial activity that has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce, even if the commercial activity itself occurs only within a single state. Congress became accustomed to regulating almost anything simply by claiming some slight connection to interstate commerce.
How will this be any different from the other crap they lump into "Interstate commerce" GSJ?
They've already stated the "necessary and proper" clause as their argument, and the parallel IS there IMO.
I see no parallel at all. Compelling an individual to buy insurance is a "police power" (powers which govern health, safety and morality) which have traditionally been reserved to the states. An individual state can certainly compel you to buy automobile insurance if you want to drive as that governs the "health, safety and morality" of its population, but it's not a Federal law to buy automobile insurance. There is no "right to drive." The argument in favor of HCR is that you have a "right" to health insurance. A "right" does not require you to buy a product or even pay taxes to exercise it.
Creating a central bank is not a police power and compelling everyone to buy a product which they cannot afford, may not need and may not want is nowhere spelled out in Article I Section 8.
While the left is making the argument that it falls under the commerce clause it only gives congress the power to regulate (make regular) commerce not compel it.
The distinction is pretty clear.
With all the crap in the past SCOTUS has allowed to fall under the "interstate commerce" clause, hwo can you say"the distinction is clear".
Wouldn't making a LAW to "compel" fall under "All laws"...
Gutshot John
12-16-10, 12:44
Obama administration argueing it is, since it falls under interstate commerce....
The Obama administration can argue anything it wants. Nowhere in our history have the Courts upheld that principle and nowhere has anyone made that argument until now.
The Administration made two separate arguments, one in pushing the bill through Congress and another through the Courts: In pushing the bill through Congress it denied it was taxation and subject to the Commerce clause. In arguing before the courts it's denying that it's allowed under the Commerce clause and instead falls under the power of taxation.
The Courts have long since upheld the principle of a Central Bank and so did our Founding Fathers from the beginning. More importantly no one has claimed multiple justifications in different branches in favor of the Central Bank.
There is no comparison between the two.
Gutshot John
12-16-10, 12:46
With all the crap in the past SCOTUS has allowed to fall under the "interstate commerce" clause, hwo can you say"the distinction is clear".
Wouldn't making a LAW to "compel" fall under "All laws"...
See the history of the Rehnquist court.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."
ABOUT DAMN TIME.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.