| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
from http://ca.news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-again st-obama-healthcare-law-171829777.html How about that? There may be hope for America after all.  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
It doesn't matter. Progressives want it. It's GOING to happen. Bend over and take your medicine. | ||
| Hootowl |
A liberal judge recently ruled that it was constitutional because...get this...Obamacare wouldn't work unless it was. So it was. If you're having trouble following that logic, welcome to the club. A clear case of judicial activism. | ||
| Dannyd |
It will only happen if we allow it to happen next year. If we can get both the House and the Senate back from the liberal Dems then it can be repealed it like it never happened!! | ||
| Two_seasons |
What ever happened to WE THE PEOPLE? I wouldn't worry about R vs D, it's much deeper than that! | ||
| Cityxslicker |
ah, then watch the lawsuits start to roll in for breach of contract. This thing is lined with pork, and those that are getting it are very intune with skirting constitutionality. .... all they need is a little healthcare crisis; like a viral 'epidemic' or pandemic in say 2013 and suddenly it is now 'in the national interest' ps, get Roush Pharma now whilest it is CHEAP  | ||
| Two_seasons |
Right now as it stands, anything the States do that the Feds don't agree with, then there is an injunction barring enforcement. THE FEDERAL GOV'T TRUMPS ALL. It's the new law of the land, don't you understand? | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Ft Bastard: If an overturn is what you are hoping for, you should be more optimistic. So far, this thing is a tied up as it could be. The Sixth Circuit says constitutional by a 2-1 vote. The eleventh circuit says unconstitutional by a 2-1 vote. It is going exactly where everyone knew it would: To the Nine. And look at the composition of the Nine: Four definite conservatives, three definite liberals, a moderate who leans left most of the time, and a moderate who leans right most of the time. Count em up. If all goes as expected, you are looking at a decision of "unconstitutional" by a 5-4 vote. But it will take a good long time to get there. The quicker action is Danny's strategy, and you are almost there. Just need to not lose more than 24 house seats and take 3 senate seats. I can damn near guarantee you that this (along with the "Tea Party held us all hostage" thing) will be the left's battle cry in the next set of elections to motivate the troops. Hold on. It is about to be a wild ride. (If you are boring like me and thing that watching political action can be a wild ride). | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Ft Bastard: If an overturn is what you are hoping for, you should be more optimistic. So far, this thing is a tied up as it could be. The Sixth Circuit says constitutional by a 2-1 vote. The eleventh circuit says unconstitutional by a 2-1 vote. It is going exactly where everyone knew it would: To the Nine. Normally, when a lower court rules something unconstitutional, the implementation stops until the ruling is confirmed by the higher court or is vacated by the higher court. This thing is moving full speed ahead so that it can't be removed once it's implemented. How many carriers will be left at the end of 2013? How many employers will still offer group coverage at the end of 2013? | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
"Normally, when a lower court rules something unconstitutional, the implementation stops until the ruling is confirmed by the higher court or is vacated by the higher court." I'm not so sure this is true. Here, the lawyer's on the Fed. Government side will almost certain request a review of the full 11th Circuit (this was just a panel). If they lose there, they will appeal again to the Nine. As long as the appeals continue (obviously, they stop at the Nine), I think the law can remain in effect. In essence, nothing happens until the appeals stop. One thing to note: The eleventh circuit didn't declare the entire program unconstitutional - only the mandage that individuals be insured. The remainder of the bill would remain even if this part is ultimately declared unconstitutional by the Nine. The really interesting legal question for me has nothing to do with the policy or politics behind this bill. Instead, it is whether the Commerce Clause really is broad enough to cover the "mandatory buy" clause that the 11th circuit doesn't like. Here she is: Congress shall have the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". I still remember the first day of law school that we talked about the commerce clause. We focused on it for a number of weeks, and every day I found the Court decisions to be more and more far reaching. Under both conservative courts and liberal courts, the Commerce Clause has been interpreted as being more and more broad to allow for Federal regulation of just about everything. You would be absolutely amazed and the number of Federal regulations that find their apparent Constitutional hook in the Commerce Clause. A couple biggies that made me scratch my head where The Civil Rights Act of 64 and the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. Are those good laws? I think so. Do they belong under a clause that gives Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". I don't really think so. A couple of others are the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and intrastate drug laws. So anyway, I think the question is going to be: 1. If the Nine overturn this law, are they going to acknowledge that the Commerce Clause is not as broad as it has been interpreted to be by them and others for the last fifty years; and 2. If they do, are they going to open the door to the challenge of a bunch of existing laws that have nothing to do with healthcare under a "new commerce clause interpretation" era? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
how many will be left at the 2013.... if Washington state is any indication when the similar legislation went through our state in 96-98.... NONE. There is not a SINGLE domiciled individual insurance carrier in Washington state. Not one. There were 18 prior in 95. And Obamacare is NOT insurance- it is MEDICAID. So in the same manner that unemployment creates jobs, Medicaid creates health. It will be a wild ride indeed. Read the Bill http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf you can bet with high probability your legislator that signed it - didnt. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Did Judge Vinson not issue a very clear stay on the implementation? http://www.scribd.com/doc/49955429/Vinson-Clarific ation Was this stay not summarily dismissed by the Obama Administration? I can guarantee you that any stay issued by a court on behalf of the Obama Administration would require immediate and unequivocal cessation of implementation. If the "commerce clause" is broad enough to force a citizen to purchase a good or service from another citizen, there is very little that the "commerce clause" can NOT compel a citizen to do. | ||
| Raceautobody |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's healthcare law suffered a setback Friday when a U.S. appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty. So Medicare part D for seniors should be unconstitutional? What do you guys think? Al | ||
| Blake |
Don't worry, our free press will look out for us! Well, I guess only if you are a Democrat.  | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Medicare Part D is a supplemental policy option (heavily subsidized) and an individual choice. If you do not want it, you are not compelled to purchase it. | ||
| Raceautobody |
But if you do not purchase it are you not penalized, if not now but later? | ||
| Kenm123t |
The only people with cradle to grave gov health care are Serfs or Slaves! If you think the health care bill is about health your nuts! Its about Control! | ||
| Cityxslicker |
You are not allowed to purchase it mid year, you have to wait to the next open enrollment, at which time because of your advanced year in 'need/age/ailment/risk' your premium maybe higher (the marketing fear tactic) but indeed, it is still available, and not something you are REQUIRED to purchase, or not Purchase based on your own individual health status. and there is very little healthcare in this 'health' bill. If you loved Toxic Assets of the Housing market credit swaps; you will be completely enamored with the coming Health Care Exchanges. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
But if you do not purchase it are you not penalized, if not now but later? No, you simply have to pay for more of your care out of your own pocket. | ||
| Rfischer |
Far too erudite discussion, Gents. Let's get back to demonizing the left [or right]. It's much easier to follow..... | ||
| Cityxslicker |
There really should be an insurance 101 class taught in high-school. I have the severe sensation that if people actually knew the topics at hand, instead of the gut wrenching hysteria and propaganda about unplugging grandma, that this thing never would have left the tarmac. PS the quality review board wont 'unplug' grandma directly, they will just no longer reimburse for her care - so you will have to unplug her yourself (and peculiarily, that the review board for 'cost value of end of life determinants' is NOT applied to death row inmates at all) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Shit, they don't teach anything of any use in High Schools. This includes reading. They don't even bother to teach REAL government classes. Most graduating seniors in HS couldn't pass the naturalization exam. Economics and government should be major subjects taught. Instead it's global warming and how to put a condom on a cucumber. |
