# Supreme Court Bound!  Health Care Reform Law Unconstitutional



## PoliticalChic (Dec 13, 2010)

RICHMOND, Va.  A federal judge in Virginia has declared the Obama administration's health care reform law unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.

He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.

Other lawsuits are pending, including one filed by 20 states in a Florida court. Virginia is not part of that lawsuit.

The U.S. Justice Department and opponents of the health care law agree that the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word.


Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law - Yahoo! News


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

Step 1.


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2010)

Wait.  You mean the Commerce Clause CANNOT properly be read to tell us that we are OBLIGED to buy health insurance?

Hell.  If judges keep issuing decisions like that, sooner or later you know what we're gonna have to confront?

That's right:  actual liberty!

Kudos to Judge Hudson.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 13, 2010)

This is a good thing and may ultimately be what preserves our Constitutional government as many of us perceive it as intended to be.  Or at least slow down the erosion of it.

I hope we can keep this thread alive to use as the other suits in other states are decided right up to the time the High Court will be obliged to deal with it.


----------



## blastoff (Dec 13, 2010)

At least a case will now be heading in the right direction so we can hopefully eventually get the SCOTUS to put Obamacare in the crapper where it belongs.


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

We also need to get past precedent, using logic and reason, there is nothing that is untouchable by virtue of it having already decided on in the past, not when it trespasses the boundary of legitimacy.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 13, 2010)

Va. federal judge strikes down health care law - Politics - More politics - msnbc.com

msnbc.com news services 
updated 10 minutes ago 2010-12-13T17:31:15 

WASHINGTON  A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Virginia Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli filed a separate lawsuit in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. However, the key issue was his claim that the federal law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.


Well whaddya know?  The courts confirmed what many of us already knew.


----------



## Meister (Dec 13, 2010)

I hope I don't see this healthcare bill end up being a tax.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 13, 2010)

The Obama administrations requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance, a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the presidents plan.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, said today that the requirement in President Barack Obamas health-care legislation goes beyond Congresss powers to regulate interstate commerce. While severing the coverage mandate, Hudson didnt address other provisions such as expanding Medicaid that are unrelated to it. He didn't order the government to stop work on putting the remainder of the law into effect. 

Obama's Health-Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional Over Insurance Requirement - Bloomberg


----------



## jillian (Dec 13, 2010)

Intense said:


> We also need to get past precedent, using logic and reason, there is nothing that is untouchable by virtue of it having already decided on in the past, not when it trespasses the boundary of legitimacy.



it hasn't "tresspasse[d] the bound of legitimacy" if it's been decided by the Court. and while it can be reconsidered, there has to be a basis for a reconsideration.

i doubt the supremes are going to mess with the commerce clause...

no matter what a dubya appointee says.


----------



## hjmick (Dec 13, 2010)

Oh damn...


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 13, 2010)

Let me pull out my crystal ball......

If it goes to the Supreme Court it will lose.......ummm lets see...5-4


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 13, 2010)

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?

Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once. 

Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....


----------



## DiamondDave (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?
> 
> Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.
> 
> Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....



Nothing is stopping the deadbeats from getting insurance now.. and there are ways to collect from people who do not pay their bills... and if the deadbeats had no $ for insurance or bills anyway, then they cannot afford even Obamacare... that is, until it comes to pass that the contributors are required to pay for the insurance of non-contributors... which is also a huge overstep of power


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

Merged.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

I don't know that it will go to the SC anytime soon. This decision was a slam dunk. As obvious as it could be.

The SC will be petitioned but I bet they let the ruling stand without hearing the case.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?
> 
> Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.



What are you talking about? Requiring healthy people to buy private insurance is a subsidy for sick people and Medicare. It's exactly the opposite of what you describe.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 13, 2010)

hjmick said:


> Oh damn...



Indeed....


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > We also need to get past precedent, using logic and reason, there is nothing that is untouchable by virtue of it having already decided on in the past, not when it trespasses the boundary of legitimacy.
> ...



Apparently there is a basis for reconsideration though, most especially if most courts are coming down on the side of the requirement being unconstitutional.

Nobody is saying Congress has no authority to pass laws re healthcare policy.  But the idea that the government would assume authority to require any of us to buy a specific product for ANY reason is seen by many of us as hostile to our liberties and gives goverment way more power than any freedom loving person thinks it should have.

If the government is allowed to get away with this, it will set a precedent that will encourage them to require more and more 'mandates' for our 'own good'.  I don't want the government deciding for me what is for my own good.


----------



## jillian (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?
> ...



no.. it's to make sure that the good parts of the law get paid for. plain and simple. it's called spreading around the cost. there are many such affirmative requirements. thinking this one is separate and apart seems disingenuous.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 13, 2010)

Right on!

Once again, the attempts by this inept President and administration to shit on the constitution are being exposed.

Bottom line in this ruling, you can't force people to buy anything, and you cannot punish them for not buying.

Sounds about right!

It's going to be a great thing for this great country when this fiasco of a healthcare bill is shitcanned through repeal.


----------



## jillian (Dec 13, 2010)

oh pooh...


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> I don't know that it will go to the SC anytime soon. This decision was a slam dunk. As obvious as it could be.
> 
> The SC will be petitioned but I bet they let the ruling stand without hearing the case.



I dunno.  Since other Federal Judges have not reached the same conclusion --  I'd venture the guess that the Supremes are gonna see fit to iron it out after due course.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



except for the private insurance role.....

This ruling would apply to social security were it not for the fact that social security isn't brokered thru private insurance companies.

Requiring healthy people to pay too much for care they don't need is a direct subsidy for private industry legislated by the feds: patently unconstitutional.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 13, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Let me pull out my crystal ball......
> 
> If it goes to the Supreme Court it will lose.......ummm lets see...5-4



I don't know what you mean by lose, but I'm going with Jillian on this one....

If they find against Obamacare, they admit the over-use of the commerce clause, and we may see it tested ad infinitum.

Further, they would be affronting two othe branches of the government, and, actually, letting the Congress off the hook...

No, this is the job of the folks in Congress who claim that they hear the American people. Let's see what they do.

Am I just a pessimist?


----------



## Madeline (Dec 13, 2010)

It has to go to the Fourth Circuit first, and that will only happen if there is a conflict among the districts.  You people are reacting as if SCOTUS will hear this case tomorrow....fastest I'd suppose that could happen would be more like 2 years from now.


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Let me pull out my crystal ball......
> ...



If you are looking for a happy ending here, figuratively or literally, Forget about it!


----------



## Madeline (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



"Too much"? Do you not understand how insurance works, loosecanon?


----------



## KissMy (Dec 13, 2010)

Meister said:


> I hope I don't see this healthcare bill end up being a tax.



That is their ultimate play here, to make it a tax.

They had best hurry before the republicans take office or healthcare is D.O.A.


----------



## jillian (Dec 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> I dunno.  Since other Federal Judges have not reached the same conclusion --  I'd venture the guess that the Supremes are gonna see fit to iron it out after due course.



you know that's more than a guess. they will have to resolve the disparate decisions of the various circuits if they don't agree... and we don't know what the circuit ct in VA is going to decide, either.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



Maybe you're missing the concept of insurance. You don't buy insurance when a problem comes up. You actually buy it before hand to ensure that you are protected in the event you do get sick. So requiring people to be personally responsible and purchase protection for themselves before a major incident occurs is exercising a little personal responsibility and the very thing the right LOVE to whine about. 

Hey, don't get me wrong, I say strike down the mandate. That will throw the insurance companies in to unrest when their "meager" profits shrink and hopefully lead to their downfall. Single-payer, here we come!


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

Madeline said:


> It has to go to the Fourth Circuit first, and that will only happen if there is a conflict among the districts.  You people are reacting as if SCOTUS will hear this case tomorrow....fastest I'd suppose that could happen would be more like 2 years from now.



They can fast track cases to the SC like they did with Bush v. Gore.

I am laughing tho, Obama is a constitutional scholar, that's his one legit strength.

But not much of one apparently.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > We also need to get past precedent, using logic and reason, there is nothing that is untouchable by virtue of it having already decided on in the past, not when it trespasses the boundary of legitimacy.
> ...



You believe the commerce clause grants authority to the fed to make people buy things?


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?
> 
> Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.
> 
> Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....



The right (unlike the left) is also kind of big on this thing called personal liberty.


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > It has to go to the Fourth Circuit first, and that will only happen if there is a conflict among the districts.  You people are reacting as if SCOTUS will hear this case tomorrow....fastest I'd suppose that could happen would be more like 2 years from now.
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 13, 2010)

Jillian is right though that SCOTUS won't hear this case for some time on down the road.  We CAN hold out hope that they will hear it before the worst provisions of the law kick in in 2013 and 2014.   That is unless Congress comes to its senses and rescinds it, and then goes to work on putting the good provisions into a package that we all can live with.  And this time I hope they make it uniform for all including the unions and members of Congress.  We'll all get a much better deal that way.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



No I understand the concept of insurance just fine. The world you speak of would charge everybody the same rate for health insurance regardless of their personal risk. In reality health insurance for 80 yos should cost about 100 times as much as that of kids who are 19 yo. Because health care for a randomly picked senior costs 100 times more.

Forcing young healthy people to buy insurance at inflated rates is a direct subsidy of the elderly and medicare, as well as the sick. 

That's why the insurance industry loved Obamacare.


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Corrupt and bankrupt the system. Good plan Comrade. If we fail here we can always return to Europe.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 13, 2010)

Meister said:


> I hope I don't see this healthcare bill end up being a tax.


That's exactly what's going to happen.  It has been such a bullshit argument:  "you're forcing me to buy insurance!!!", "the dang gummint can't make me buy dang insurance!!!!" and it's all semantics.  Whether they/us call it a 'purchase' or a 'tax' makes no difference.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 13, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?
> ...



LOL, right on cue...yeah, your personal liberty which gets to interfere with mine. How noble.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 13, 2010)

Intense said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



The system is already corrupt and the people are bankrupt because of it. Glad we all know your priorities lie with the insurance companies over the people. You're a true Patriot!


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



There is nothing more noble in your position, just an absence of understanding power, and it's limits. It is you who trespass on others.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > I hope I don't see this healthcare bill end up being a tax.
> ...



The difference is the difference between single payer and forcing citizens to buy insurance from a private company.


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > I dunno.  Since other Federal Judges have not reached the same conclusion --  I'd venture the guess that the Supremes are gonna see fit to iron it out after due course.
> ...



When the circuits disagree, the SCOTUS will step in.  I think that's fair to say.

And I further agree with you that we don't know what the Circuit Ct. will say about Judge Hudson's decision.  

This thing has a way to go before it gets ripe enough for SCOTUS intervention -- unless, perhaps one or more of the Circuit Courts of Appeal issues an injunction against the Act taking effect (in whole or in part).  That could serve to speed things up, I'm guessing.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2010)

U.S. Health-Care Law Requirement Thrown Out by Judge - Bloomberg


Now we watch as this moves further up the Court system.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2010)

Nevermind - see the other thread (that I missed):  http://www.usmessageboard.com/healthcare-insurance-govt-healthcare/146123-supreme-court-bound.html

Someone close this one


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I don't think the states are gonna want to set up exchanges until this is settled. I spose the feds must have anticipated this kind of ruling was inevitable.

Congress could take action as soon as January, and I think they will seize this as an opportunity to gut the bill.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Let me pull out my crystal ball......
> ...



I don't agree. The Commerce Clause argument for this mandate is so weak that they can address it without putting much else in jeopardy.  The Commerce Clause argument was shot-down for the first time in a long time back in the mid-90s, and that case was probably closer to being legitimate than this one.  The purchasing mandate is relatively unique in terms of Commerce Clause case law, so if the Court wants to dispose of it they'll be able to distinguish it with little problem, and then subsequently distinguish future Commerce Clause challenges that try to rely on it.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Jillian is right though that SCOTUS won't hear this case for some time on down the road.  We CAN hold out hope that they will hear it before the worst provisions of the law kick in in 2013 and 2014.   That is unless Congress comes to its senses and rescinds it, and then goes to work on putting the good provisions into a package that we all can live with.  And this time I hope they make it uniform for all including the unions and members of Congress.  We'll all get a much better deal that way.



There is good incentive for them to take it up more quickly.  There are a lost of costs at stake, in both the private sector and the public sector, as things move forward.  I suspect the Court will intervene at its earliest opportunity because of that fact.


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




I'm not sure that, come January, the GOP majority House and the Democrat majority Senate will agree on what to do.

I'm really fine with Grdilock.  But that would leave a bit of a thorny and perhaps legislatively unresolvable problem festering.  In that event, a conflict in the Circuits, an injunction (stay) and a SCOTUS fast track resolution might be in order.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

Steerpike said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



exactly, this ruling doesn't change any existing precedent. So it has almost no impact on future rulings.


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Jillian, for you the Court is the Ultimate Authority, above reproach, and that is understandable. I believe in a higher authority than the Court, and through reason and argument, stand up against perceived injustice. The Court will always need to defend it's positions, Jillian, that is just the way things are by design. The wrong mix sitting on that Court, either way, wields unmeasured arbitrary power, that is true, but temporal, and can be reversed on a dime. Amendment is the alternative to blind stubbornness, should reason not prevail. The Founders did error, but they were good on human nature, providing us the tools to dig ourselves out of the holes we dig ourselves into.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


No one's interfering with YOUR personal liberty.

you want healthcare?...........Use YOUR personal liberty to go and provide it for yourself.


----------



## Meister (Dec 13, 2010)

merged


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > We also need to get past precedent, using logic and reason, there is nothing that is untouchable by virtue of it having already decided on in the past, not when it trespasses the boundary of legitimacy.
> ...



The trend has been going to opposite way on the Commerce Clause - toward reigning it in a bit.  Started with Lopez.  I think if the current court took it up, they'd come down against the mandate. Ruling it Unconstitutional will have little effect on the Commerce Clause generally.


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Hey, I'm all for confiscating all of Government's toy's and restoring Original intent. That bit about protecting against all enemies, foreign and domestic, with an accent on Corporate and Government injustice as well. Welcome aboard!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills



How about we stop paying their bills then?  Why isn't that an option?


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Who says it has to? I don't get what is so different about health care that people think they don't have to pay for service, planned or otherwise. THAT would be a much better way of getting more people health insurance. Make it illegal to not pay for services.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 13, 2010)

currently the score is 1-1 for Obama care. 

One judge have ruled it constitutional. one has not.

For:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/health/policy/08health.html

Against:
Virginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional - CNN.com

Both are Federal Judges and both saw it differently. Hence itll be 2 years before the SCOTUS hears that case and anything is decided.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> currently the score is 1-1 for Obama care.
> 
> One judge have ruled it constitutional. one has not.
> 
> ...



Yep. Unless the can fast track it.  It would be worth it if they could, either way, because of the money people and States are already putting into it.  Would be best to have some clear guidance here.

I do think, though, that the current Court is more likely to come down against the mandate.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 13, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Let me pull out my crystal ball......
> 
> If it goes to the Supreme Court it will lose.......ummm lets see...5-4



Weren't you the one saying this was just a waste of taxpayer money for state AG;s to fight the law?  That the law was obviously Constitutional?
Well, I guess we can add that to your other sterling predictions for 2010.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 13, 2010)

Now if congress uses their brains for once they will add this to the results of the November elections and realize they screwed the pooch on this one. They forgot that the intent was to lower health care premiums and instead decided to simply take control. Maybe they will throw out the whole mess and try again. Only this time actually do something right.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 13, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> Va. federal judge strikes down health care law - Politics - More politics - msnbc.com
> 
> msnbc.com news services
> updated 10 minutes ago 2010-12-13T17:31:15
> ...



NUTS!!!

I got moded into another thread by 29 minuts.  That's what I get for taking my time.  pfft.


----------



## jillian (Dec 13, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Now if congress uses their brains for once they will add this to the results of the November elections and realize they screwed the pooch on this one. They forgot that the intent was to lower health care premiums and instead decided to simply take control. Maybe they will throw out the whole mess and try again. Only this time actually do something right.



Why would one decision from one district court judge cause congress to do anything?


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. *Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?*
> Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.
> 
> Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....



Problem is.... the deadbeats wont be paying their own way, and are'nt paying their own way.....

We as taxpayers will be paying it for them already...... 

Those who chose & still choose to not have HC insurance can get in line with all the medicare medicaid recipients (which we are already paying for).... I have been to an ER and saw firsthand the illegals who cant speak english, or the crackhead with a lung infection and no way to pay for their habit.... ALL OF WHOM HAVE A CELLPHONE... but yet they cant afford basic insurance coverage for their family.... whatever!!!!!


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Now if congress uses their brains for once they will add this to the results of the November elections and realize they screwed the pooch on this one. They forgot that the intent was to lower health care premiums and instead decided to simply take control. Maybe they will throw out the whole mess and try again. Only this time actually do something right.
> ...



Its a step (all be it a baby step) in the right direction.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Now if congress uses their brains for once they will add this to the results of the November elections and realize they screwed the pooch on this one. They forgot that the intent was to lower health care premiums and instead decided to simply take control. Maybe they will throw out the whole mess and try again. Only this time actually do something right.
> ...



I believe this will snowball. But as always, I could be wrong....


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 13, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> The right (unlike the left) is also kind of big on this thing called personal liberty.



That's not true at all.  Does outlawing abortion advance personal liberty?  Does keeping Don't Ask Don't Tell in place advance personal liberty?  Is wanting to make it illegal to burn the flag advancing personal liberty?

The right is just as bad as the left when it comes to personal liberty.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?
> 
> Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.
> 
> Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....



Nonsense?

WOW, you really are in favor of a government run anything you want.

So what do we do with the people that can't afford to buy "enough" insurance or pay the fine?

If your wondering what happens, don't, they get put in jail, for theft.


----------



## jillian (Dec 13, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > The right (unlike the left) is also kind of big on this thing called personal liberty.
> ...



there is some of that. but its the right that seems to pick and choose from the constitution.

and i wonder what is a more fundamental right... control over our bodies and the ability to not be discriminated against by marriage laws

or having to wear a seat belt or pay for health insurance?


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> there is some of that. but its the right that seems to pick and choose from the constitution.
> 
> and i wonder what is a more fundamental right... control over our bodies and the ability to not be discriminated against by marriage laws
> 
> or having to wear a seat belt or pay for health insurance?



Near as I can tell, the left and right both pick and choose from the Constitution according to the things they want to control.  Not much difference between them in that regard, except of course that they pick different things.


----------



## Dr.House (Dec 13, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Let me pull out my crystal ball......
> ...



Don't blame him...

He went to the "*Joke Starkey School of Political Prognostication*"...


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



How does my choice to buy or not buy insurance interfere with your liberties in any way?  But if a law says I have to buy insurance so you won't have to pay as much for yours, how does that not interfere with my choices, my personal liberty to be insured or not as I choose?

I don't think you should have to pay for my healthcare either if I choose not to buy insurance.  The idea that you have no choice but to pay for my healthcare if I don't pay for it myself is, in my opinion, a violation of your civil liberties.

I suggest we all do our homework.  Go back to the beginning and research insurance rates, availability of insurance, cost of healthcare etc. BEFORE the government got involved.  I think you'll see that every time the government has meddled in the rates or availability of insurance, costs have dramatically escalated for everybody else.  More and more physicians are refusing to accept Medicare or Medicaid patients at all because it is forcing them to price the privately insured or self paying patients out of the market.

It would have to be done slowly and carefully just as the government has gradually forced people into dependency on existing programs, but I would like for everybody to consider whether we would all be better off if the government would allow the free market manage healthcare and the government gets out of the business altogether.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Now if congress uses their brains for once they will add this to the results of the November elections and realize they screwed the pooch on this one. They forgot that the intent was to lower health care premiums and instead decided to simply take control. Maybe they will throw out the whole mess and try again. Only this time actually do something right.
> ...



Congess won't do anything unless the Supreme court tosses it.

A smart thing would be to assume the worst and prepare ahead of time.  I know I'm not looking forward to this being in the news as much as it was last time


----------



## Claudette (Dec 13, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > I hope I don't see this healthcare bill end up being a tax.
> ...



Well Hell. Don't you remember Barry Boy on National television telling everyone that the HC bill wasn't a tax?? I sure do. 

Then came time to pass it and golly gee, guess what, the only way they could do it was TO CALL IT A TAX. 

Some pesky questions about the legality and about the SC overruling it. The only way it would fit into that GW clause was as a tax.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2010)

1994: In response to Clinton's Healthcare reform, Republicans propose a healthcare mandate. 

Health insurance mandate began as a Republican idea - The Boston Globe

2006: Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney signs state level mandate law.

2008: John McCain campaigns on a mandate platform.

2010: Obama and the Democrats concede a mandate to get Republicans onboard.

December 13, 2010: Republicans in Virginia claim victory as the health care mandate is ruled unconstitutional.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-uad6zBG1o[/ame]


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2010)

Landmark Legal Foundation, which my hero Mark Levin runs, just issued a statement regarding Judge Hudson's terrific decision!



> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Eric Christensen
> DECEMBER 13, 2010 (703) 554-6100
> (703) 554-6119 (fax)
> eric@landmarklegal.org
> ...


  -- http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/obamacare news release.pdf

I was listening to Rush at my office and heard him quote a bit of what Mark Levin said.  So I went to Landmark Legal's site to get the full statement and to provide the link for the USMB crowd.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 13, 2010)

Steerpike said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > there is some of that. but its the right that seems to pick and choose from the constitution.
> ...



Yes they do pick different things, but it's all in how we see the role of the federal government.  I see the proper role of the federal government as being responsible to protect individual liberties and unalienble rights.   My rights end, however, at the precise point that you are required to contribute for my benefit in any way.  There is no unalienable right to be provided healthcare any more than there is an unalienable right to be provided housing, food, transportation, clothing, or a job.   But it requires no conribution from you whatsoever if I seek healthcare or housing or food or transportation or clothing or a job from those willing to give or sell those to me, and I should have equal right with every other citizen to seek those things.

None of that was seen as the responsibility of the federal government until the old notions of socialism started creeping back into the system mostly beginning with the Teddy Roosevelt administration.  And it has been escalating ever since.

It's time to put on the brakes and the indefensible healthcare overhaul is a good place to start.

The minute the government steps in and requires you to contribute to my well being, there are likely to be far more unintended negative consequences than there will be positive ones.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 13, 2010)

Claudette said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I simply can't understand why anyone would demand that the government take care of them.

I worked as a csr for an ins co that did med sup D.  I, in an office of aroun 230, got an average of 1 call a week where the person would tell me they weren't dead.

Imagine my shock the first time that happend.     

Medicare, the wonderfull service that many of us will be on, had "accidentally" declared people dead.  oops, sorry, you can't get your life saving meds b/c we cancled your insurance b/c your dead.  Oopsie.

It's about a 3 month process to get your insurance back

And this is what people want to force us to pay for?


----------



## IHI4eva (Dec 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> Kudos to Judge Hudson.



Ditto! Good call Liability


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2010)

And JUST in case some of you had not read the LANDMARK LEGAL amicus brief in support of the Virginia opposition to the Obamacare bill, here's your link!  

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Pro Bono_Va Health Care SJ Brief.pdf

AND, as an ADDED BONUS, here's a link to the Judge's actual decision:  Text: Judge Hudson's Decision Striking Down Part Of The Health Law - Kaiser Health News


----------



## boedicca (Dec 13, 2010)

This ruling is an excellent step in the right direction, but the war is far from over.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2010)

The only question is: Who will Obama ask to appear in his place at the press conference to explain this?

Janet Reno?  

Larry Tribe? 

Al Gore? Al: Obama asked me to take his place here today because I have some experience with court cases (laughter from press gallery)


----------



## Avatar4321 (Dec 13, 2010)

Here is a much needed win for liberty. but the battle is far from over.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 13, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The only question is: Who will Obama ask to appear in his place at the press conference to explain this?
> 
> Janet Reno?
> 
> ...





Reminds me years ago I was watching Cspan while testimony re a proposed farm bill was being given.  One of the witnesses called was Jessica Tandy because she had once played the role of a farm woman in a movie.   That provided a LOT of fodder for ridicule in the chatrooms for awhile.

Some of this stuff gets just that ridiculous.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Dec 13, 2010)

I was looking for a thread on this in Politics.  Oh well.

This isn't that big a surprise.  The Insurance Mandate was the most corrupt and questionable part of the legislation in the first place.  I imagine it will (justifiably) get struck down.

That's why it's a mystery to me that went in the Healthcare bill instead of the Public Option.  The Mandate was nothing but a massive windfall for insurers and.....  No wait.  I understand it now.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2010)

The Libs on SCOTUS will of course rule that it's Constitutional and you have to ask, if that's legal then what CAN'T the government require of you?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 13, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The only question is: Who will Obama ask to appear in his place at the press conference to explain this?
> 
> Janet Reno?
> 
> ...



It certainly won't be any of leaders in the EU.

what's Hugo Chavez doing these days?

B/c I really doubt any dem with any future in politics is going to be against this before he was for it then against it again come re-election/election time.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Dec 13, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Libs on SCOTUS will of course rule that it's Constitutional and you have to ask, if that's legal then what CAN'T the government require of you?



I actually think this will be a Unanimous ruling from the SCOTUS against the Mandate, or if not unanimous, than something like 7-2 against the Mandate.  I doubt very very seriously this is 5-4.

The Mandate is one of the worst ideas to come out of the Legislature in a good long time.  I'm still amazed it has any defenders at all.  The Healthcare bill needed to be Public Option or leave well enough alone.  They chose the most corrupt non-solution on the table.


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Libs on SCOTUS will of course rule that it's Constitutional and you have to ask, if that's legal then what CAN'T the government require of you?



It is the very question and it is the big problem because the answer becomes:

 if that crap is upheld then "there is practically nothing that the Government can no longer require of us."


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 13, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Libs on SCOTUS will of course rule that it's Constitutional and you have to ask, if that's legal then what CAN'T the government require of you?



It would open the gates to anything that's "for our own good".


----------



## Avatar4321 (Dec 13, 2010)

I have to ask. Is anyone actually suprised that not purchasing health insurence means that you aren't engaging in interstate commerce and that the Fed then has no authority to regulate you?


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Dec 13, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Libs on SCOTUS will of course rule that it's Constitutional and you have to ask, if that's legal then what CAN'T the government require of you?
> ...



It's a trouble precedent to require a person to purchase something from a private entity.  Very troubling.  The Automobile Insurance metaphor fails here as you can opt out in most states with other conditions, or just opt to use public transportation.

That's why I think this will be a unanimous overturn of the Mandate at the SCOTUS level.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> It's a trouble precedent to require a person to purchase something from a private entity.  Very troubling.  The Automobile Insurance metaphor fails here as you can opt out in most states with other conditions, or just opt to use public transportation.
> 
> That's why I think this will be a unanimous overturn of the Mandate at the SCOTUS level.



That's true, but ultimately that's not the only reason it fails.  State governments have broader authority to regulate in this manner than does the Federal Government. The Federal Government cannot do anything unless it does so pursuant to a power granted to it in the U.S. Constitution.  The State and Local governments are not constrained by this same grant of power. So the question here is whether the Federal Government can have this mandate, not whether government generally can do it.

And, in fact, Massachusetts has a mandate if I'm not mistaken.  And it's not Unconstitutional because the State government have the power to regulate more broadly in this area, whereas the Feds do not.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Dec 13, 2010)

Steerpike said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > It's a trouble precedent to require a person to purchase something from a private entity.  Very troubling.  The Automobile Insurance metaphor fails here as you can opt out in most states with other conditions, or just opt to use public transportation.
> ...



I didn't know about Massachusetts having a Mandate.  Thanks for that.

I can see that you could get away with it on the State level to some effect.  Truth be told, I'd have rather this whole thing been done at the State level if it was going to be done.


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Steerpike said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



Regardless of one's politics, thats where it was designed to originate in our concept of Federalism. Show us competing working models that we can learn from and advance on success and proven ability.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 13, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> I have to ask. Is anyone actually suprised that not purchasing health insurence means that you aren't engaging in interstate commerce and that the Fed then has no authority to regulate you?



Thier reasoning for it, doesn't matter to me.  I knew forcing the purchase of a product was wrong from the get go.

I'm just upset it took this long.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 13, 2010)

This would have been better served at the state level.

If a states population wants it, let them vote on it and pay for it themselves.  If people in other states want it, they can move there.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Dec 13, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> This would have been better served at the state level.
> 
> If a states population wants it, let them vote on it and pay for it themselves.  If people in other states want it, they can move there.



Ditto.  There's an argument that at the Federal Level you waste less money on duplicate administrative tasks, but I feel that's far outweighted by the advantage of the State Government's proximity to the people and knowledge of the local needs of the State.

There are organizations better run at the Federal Level, like the FDA, the FCC, the DHS, the EPA, etc.  But when it comes to your basic welfare programs, like Social Security and Medicare, it's always been puzzling to me why they're not run at the State Level.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?
> 
> *Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once. *
> Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....



Well those deadbeats can start by paying FEDERAL TAXES. That's where we start.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 13, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Let me pull out my crystal ball......
> 
> If it goes to the Supreme Court it will lose.......ummm lets see...5-4



I suggest you send your crystal ball back for maintenance, it should tell you that the split will be either 4-4 or 5-3.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?
> 
> Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.
> 
> Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....



How about the fact that you should not be required to pay for my lifestyle choices? Do you enjoy paying for a broken down old man who preferred to sit around watching TV, munching on chips and cookie, rather than going out and keeping fit?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



If it is to pay for the law that makes it a tax that requires us to purchase something. Would it be constitutional to require everyone, even if they do not own a car, to purchase gasoline to help pay for interstate highways?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 13, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Let me pull out my crystal ball......
> ...



Congress could always make the issue moot before the Supreme Court hands down a decision.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 13, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> If it is to pay for the law that makes it a tax that requires us to purchase something. Would it be constitutional to require everyone, even if they do not own a car, to purchase gasoline to help pay for interstate highways?



Maybe the analogy I'm thinking along the lines of is wrong, but using your logic, those who never call the police or fire department should not have to pay for either services for the city.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Maybe it is because you do not see it when you do it, like your refusal to admit that the TSA is violating the 4th.

Both sides hate the Bill of Rights.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pk8IxqYF0E[/ame]


----------



## Capitalist (Dec 13, 2010)

*I swear to you, Obamacare is Constitutional!


*(RCP)-  &#8220;We are confident that the affordable care act will be upheld,&#8221; White  House press secretary Robert Gibbs says about a Virginia court ruling on  health care law.
Hahahaha..................


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Maybe it is because you do not see it when you do it, like your refusal to admit that the TSA is violating the 4th.
> 
> Both sides hate the Bill of Rights.



Sure. Not many are apt to support the Bill of Rights with respect to the TSA actions. And how many on the right support the 1st Amendment when it comes to Julian Assange?

In general, the right is less protective of the 4th amendment. The left is horrible on the 2nd amendment. Both sides are happy to curtail the 1st amendment when it suits their purposes. The right doesn't care for the 9th amendment (you hear rhetoric from the right often saying "where in the Constitution is that right?" as though the only rights we have are listed there, when the 9th clearly says otherwise).  Meanwhile, the left isn't fond of the 10 amendment in many instances.

Neither side has the higher ground on individual rights.  They just both use different rights (and disregard others) to get to the end result they want, and then come up with a justification for it after the fact.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 13, 2010)

Steerpike said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it is because you do not see it when you do it, like your refusal to admit that the TSA is violating the 4th.
> ...



There are only a few civil libertarians in politics right now, and in January there will be one less. Feingold's politics were almost always wrong, but his stance on individual liberties was almost always right.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> there is some of that. but its the right that seems to pick and choose from the constitution.



yes both sides do it. Making, at best, not side better than the other.



jillian said:


> and i wonder what is a more fundamental right... control over our bodies and the ability to not be discriminated against by marriage laws



Maybe you should ask the unborn



jillian said:


> or having to wear a seat belt or pay for health insurance?



the right to choose any and all of those things is the most fundamental right.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?
> 
> Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.
> 
> Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....



Your not living in Europe.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > and i wonder what is a more fundamental right... control over our bodies and the ability to not be discriminated against by marriage laws
> ...



Yeah, the abortion argument isn't a good example, in my view. Because if you're a pro-lifer, then to you being against abortion is in and of itself a protection of our most fundamental liberty - life.

I happen to disagree. I'm pro-choice. And I do think there are plenty of areas where the right is hypocritical on individual rights and small government.  But abortion isn't one of them.  I don't agree with the position, but it is entirely consistent with a pro-liberties viewpoint if you believe the unborn are persons and entitled to the same rights as those who are born.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Libs on SCOTUS will of course rule that it's Constitutional and you have to ask, if that's legal then what CAN'T the government require of you?
> ...



like a free foreplay session each time you wish to fly or take a train, or a free pass to enter and search your home without your knowledge, or read your e-mail just because. 

The unitary executive is above the law and in that is itself unconstitutional.

And the fed IS trying to expand it's powers on every front from preventing states from enforcing existing federal law to intervening in bankruptcy proceedings.

But almost nobody really cares. They are two busy worrying about the other party to recognize the real dangers enfolding.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > We also need to get past precedent, using logic and reason, there is nothing that is untouchable by virtue of it having already decided on in the past, not when it trespasses the boundary of legitimacy.
> ...



Well if they do..which I doubt..we can finally go single payer.


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

Steerpike said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it is because you do not see it when you do it, like your refusal to admit that the TSA is violating the 4th.
> ...



I truly believe that he has every right to speak his mind. Making Illegally obtained Classified Government Documents available to the public is not a Free Speech issue. It is Theft, and I'm sure a couple of other things too. Had it been your Financial Statements or Medical Records released I'm sure you would see it differently.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 13, 2010)

Intense said:


> Steerpike said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



it has already been ruled as free speech in the courts. they cant stop of news agency from printing it, they can only charge the person who gave them that classified information.


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




I hate to throw in some cold water, but that whole cockamamie crap about "unitary executive" is just so much meaningless pablum.

The Executive Branch IS unitary (yes there are some deliberate exceptions, but by and large it is what it is; and that's unitary).

And, more importantly, the FACT that the Executive Branch is unitary does not make it unConstitutional, either.

Certain authorities were given EXCLUSIVELY to the Judicial Branch (and then they claimed even more).

Certain authorities were granted EXCLUSIVELY to the Legislative Branch.

And, yes, certain authorities were granted EXCLUSIVELY to the Executive Branch.

The exclusivity of such authorities was granted BY the Constitution, so it cannot be UN-constitutional.

The bullet points to which you point may be areas of legitimate concern (to varied extents), but the problems have nothing to do with the mythical bogeyman of a "unitary executive."


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

8 pages of posts on this, does anybody have so much as a case name to get the actual District Court decision?


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Steerpike said:
> ...



The conundrum of "no prior restraints" was *never found to prevent the government from prohibiting the publication of classified material.*  If you are thinking of the Pentagon Papers case, then you are misguided.  Instead, the Court determined that the proponent (i.e., the government) had to meet what it called the "heavy burden" in order to prevail in obtaining an injunction to prohibit the publication.  In the Pentagon Papers case, the Court found that the government had failed to meet that heavy burden.


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 13, 2010)

America has lost her heart, her compassion, her civic responsibility. Thankfully the supreme court didn't get any McCain selections. One can hope charity and good sense prevails as it does on occasion.

This nation is so controlled by corporate tools there would be no founders today.

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them."  Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

Imagine trying to pass SS today. 

"The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decision." Social Security Online


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> 8 pages of posts on this, does anybody have so much as a case name to get the actual District Court decision?



http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...eform-law-unconstitutional-6.html#post3082706


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

Intense said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > 8 pages of posts on this, does anybody have so much as a case name to get the actual District Court decision?
> ...



Sorry, my friend. That doesn't have the info I'm looking for. Who was the named plaintiff? Without that or a docket number all that's out there is media summaries and reports, and they're always super simplified and usually biased in some way. I like to read the opinion before forming a concrete opinion of my own.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 13, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage.


Quite simple.
You have the right to provide for your health care how you see fit.
The government cannot force you to exercise one of your rights in a particular manner.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

Intense said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > 8 pages of posts on this, does anybody have so much as a case name to get the actual District Court decision?
> ...



Found it, I'll chase it down. Thanks!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



Text: Judge Hudson's Decision Striking Down Part Of Health Law - Kaiser Health News


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



Thanks Ollie, for the Link. The Ruling appears well grounded. I'm Impressed.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 13, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> America has lost her heart, her compassion, her civic responsibility. Thankfully the supreme court didn't get any McCain selections. One can hope charity and good sense prevails as it does on occasion.
> 
> This nation is so controlled by corporate tools there would be no founders today.
> 
> ...



We wouldn't pass Social Security today because we have seen the end results of yet another entitlement that had good intentions but resulted in unintended negative consequences and is unsustainable.

I think the world is far MORE compassionate now than it has ever been in the history of humankind on Earth BUT inpolitics there are distinct differences between Left and Right as to what compassion is.

To the conservative, compassion is his willingly and VOLUNTARILY giving of his resources to help others.

To many leftists, compassion is via taxes or mandates forcing Citizen A to help out Citizen B.

In my opinion charity is something I choose to do with my own money or resources.  It don't call it charity or compassion when I confiscate your money or resources to give to somebody else and then feel righteous that I've done my duty.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

Intense said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Ollie, apparently! 

Still reading...this judge really, really does not like a couple of SCOTUS decisions.


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



Should that surprise you?


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

Intense said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Not at all. Wickard and Gonzales are cases that hit the outer limits of the Commerce Clause. But they are, in fact, law until an unless they're overturned whether anybody likes them or not.

It's a case of first impression. Does refusal to participate in economic activity constitute economic activity in itself? Interesting question.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 13, 2010)

Please, someone else posted that link earlier. I forget who....


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

By JANET ADAMY

RICHMOND, Va.&#8212;A federal court ruled Monday that a central plank of the health law violates the Constitution, dealing the biggest setback yet to the Obama administration's signature legislative accomplishment.
In a 42-page ruling, 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."

The individual mandate "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers," wrote Judge Hudson, of the Eastern District of Virginia. "At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance&#8212;or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage&#8212;it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."
The lawsuit, brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, is the first court ruling against the law since President Barack Obama signed it in March. More than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against the overhaul, and judges in two of those cases ruled in favor of the Obama administration.

While the ruling creates a headache for the law's supporters, it doesn't mean states or the federal government must stop implementing the law.

Judge Hudson didn't grant the plaintiffs' request for an immediate nationwide injunction against the entire law or against the requirement that most Americans carry insurance. That requirement, known as the individual mandate, begins in 2014. The judge also said his ruling only applies to the individual mandate and the provisions of the law that are directly dependent on it.

Judge Sides With Virginia on Health Law - WSJ.com


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



Are we the Property of the State? Interesting question.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

Probably, Ollie. I just skimmed over the thread looking for the good stuff and probably passed right over it. 

And it is an interesting question. I'm not sure what the answer should be on a first read.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I didn't invent the term, and it is a buzzword within a movement in constitutional legal circles that seeks to expand presidential authorities: 



> Unitary executive theory
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Jump to: navigation, search
> 
> ...


Unitary executive theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have seen examples of the president acting fully above the law since 9/11. And it has been reported that both Roberts and Kagan were appointed and Miers was nominated based on their strong support for increasing presidential powers.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

Intense said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Not exactly. 

If Congress has the right, as it currently does, to regulate individual economic activity that has an aggregate effect on interstate commerce, does it also have the right to regulate the refusal to engage in such activity when that refusal also has an aggregate impact on interstate commerce? And, if so, does a tax on these individuals fall under the necessary and proper clause?

I'm not sure I agree with the standard of review the judge chose to use, or his pretty much out of hand dismissal of Wickard and Gonzales, I think he made a decision that's above his pay grade here - but then again, somebody has to be the first to weigh in. That will be taken up at the Circuit level.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 13, 2010)

Note: Congress does not have rights.


----------



## Zander (Dec 13, 2010)

I believe this is the first of many such decisions to come. The scummy way they passed the bill , the sleazy back room deals that made it possible, the whole thing stinks like raw sewage.  It is time to repeal this POS.......


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2010)

If this law stands, when we win it back we're going to pass a law requiring that all Libs begin the day with the pledge of allegiance, eat a Big Mac for lunch and listen to Limbaugh for at least an hour


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

Zander said:


> I believe this is the first of many such decisions to come. The scummy way they passed the bill , the sleazy back room deals that made it possible, the whole thing stinks like raw sewage.  It is time to repeal this POS.......



I don't like it either, probably for some of the same reasons and probably for some different ones. 

But once it hits the courts it's not a question of politics or whether we like it, or shouldn't be. It's a question of law. And the question here is one that's never been decided before. I think this judge severed it appropriately and put out an opinion to move it along, frankly. Some of his differentiation seems sloppy and he's inserting quite a bit of his own judgment in place of legal basis. But issues of first impression aren't decided in his court and he knows his odds are only 50/50 of the order standing at best. So mooove it on up and let the games begin!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2010)

It's a penalty!  No, it's a tax!  It's a penalty!  No, it's a tax!  

Wait a second you two, ObamaCare is a penalty AND a tax!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 13, 2010)

Intense said:


> Steerpike said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Funny thing is, the courts, and the law, disagree. The New York Times has repeatedly published classified government documents, and the courts have repeatedly said that, as long as they did not commit the criminal act of stealing them themselves, or facilitating the theft, they have a 1st Amendment right to print them. That makes any argument that Assange and Wikileaks iffy at best, unless the government can prove they that he had something to do with the actual theft. They might have a case if Wikileaks paid for the information, but otherwise all they can do is damage control.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2010)

Intense said:


> I truly believe that he has every right to speak his mind. Making Illegally obtained Classified Government Documents available to the public is not a Free Speech issue. It is Theft, and I'm sure a couple of other things too. Had it been your Financial Statements or Medical Records released I'm sure you would see it differently.



Not true at all. It is theft, or other crimes, by whoever leaked the documents. Once in the hands of WikiLeaks or the NY Times or others, it is protected. This is a good case in point about people being choosy about which rights they like.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 13, 2010)

What?

No cries of "Judicial Activism" from the right?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 13, 2010)

Steerpike said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > I truly believe that he has every right to speak his mind. Making Illegally obtained Classified Government Documents available to the public is not a Free Speech issue. It is Theft, and I'm sure a couple of other things too. Had it been your Financial Statements or Medical Records released I'm sure you would see it differently.
> ...



If it is stolen property, then wikileaks has received stolen property at the very least. Time to use some common sense here and protect our state secrets. And I believe that a state secret is still a secret as long as the information is contained, wikileaks is the uncontainer. There should be no 1st amendment protection to reveal classified material.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Steerpike said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Information isn't property. Passively receiving it is not an offense. Now if Assange was involved in any way in obtaining it, it's espionage. Tough call to make without more facts than we have publicly available, but IMO we have our signal the Europeans are willing to play ball in handing the guy over and keeping him out of circulation if we can just come up with evidence. He's dangerous to them too.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Steerpike said:
> ...



His general attitude is dangerous to all governments that value secrets over transparency. Their willingness to persecute him says more about them than anything he did.


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



I think the Courts have already transgressed past that point in giving the Federal Government by authority of the Commerce Clause control over what we grow in our gardens for private and personal use. I realize your livelihood is the Court's GC, so you are deeply associated with procedures and rulings everyday. The issue for me is the  assumed powers and abuses against the Citizenry under an imagined intent, just because someone says so. If your position was so solid, why are so many of the Rulings so widely split? Why aren't they close to unanimous, if the principle is so pure. Jefferson was so right, claiming the dangers of the Oligarchy powers of the Judicial Branch. For you It's your job, where you see the administration of justice every day. For me the Issue is not Politics, but the growing totalitarian power over our lives. Who is kidding who?


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



There are certain secrets any government has to value above transparency, particularly where relations with other governments are concerned. 

I'm a big fan of the First, but it's obvious even to me that when we assure another nation that our communications will be confidential, we have a duty to honor that commitment. We do not have a right to public access to absolutely everything for good reason.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> If it is stolen property, then wikileaks has received stolen property at the very least. Time to use some common sense here and protect our state secrets. And I believe that a state secret is still a secret as long as the information is contained, wikileaks is the uncontainer. There should be no 1st amendment protection to reveal classified material.



Problem with this analysis is that the 1st amendment trumps laws on receipt of stolen property.  The media gets information leaked to them quite often that is stolen or confidential. The person doing the stealing or breaking the confidence may have liability, but the media outlet is shielded by the 1st amendment.

As for "common sense," and other such phrases, those are throw-away words that you see quite often from both the left and the right when they want an excuse to ignore the Constitution.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> There are certain secrets any government has to value above transparency, particularly where relations with other governments are concerned.
> 
> I'm a big fan of the First, but it's obvious even to me that when we assure another nation that our communications will be confidential, we have a duty to honor that commitment. We do not have a right to public access to absolutely everything for good reason.



There's a difference between having a right to it and being able to prosecute an outlet once the information is leaked.

You don't have a "right" to the information, which is why you couldn't get it through FOIA or other means.  But if it gets leaked out by someone who has access to it, the 1st does shield the media outlet that gets it.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 13, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's a penalty!  No, it's a tax!  It's a penalty!  No, it's a tax!
> 
> Wait a second you two, ObamaCare is a penalty AND a tax!





The Obama Administration is now pushing for Severability so that if the individual mandate is thrown out, the rest of ObamaCare can go forward.

Of course, the individual mandate was a key part of cooking the CBO score, but they aren't worried about paying for the program now that the law has been signed.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 13, 2010)

> In the final analysis, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Defendent's similar motion. The Court will sever Section 1501 from the balance of the ACA and deny Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief.



Ten pages and, unless I've missed it, no one has noted that the health care reform law has _not_ been ruled unconstitutional. Not only did Hudson specifically decline to halt implementation of the law, he rejected the plaintiff's request that he rule the entire law unconstitutional. Instead, he ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional and specifically severed it from the rest of the law, which survives intact. From a court that was obviously going to rule against the ACA, this is a surprisingly favorable ruling.



loosecannon said:


> I don't think the states are gonna want to set up exchanges until this is settled.



That depends on state leadership and has very little to do with this decision (even if the decision as issued stood, exchanges would still be constructed in every state). The best it can offer is political cover for governors or legislature that want to drag their feet. 48 states (and D.C.) are currently being funded to design/plan their exchanges. If some of them decide not to build exchanges, it doesn't really matter. If a state can't demonstrate in early 2013 that it will have a customized state-designed, state-run exchange operational by the end of that year, the feds will step in and build and operate one for the state. If a state doesn't mind ceding control over most of its individual insurance market to the federal government, it can sit on its hands forever, if it likes.



Common Sense said:


> currently the score is 1-1 for Obama care.



Actually, the score of ACA-related suits is 5-1 in favor of the ACA. In terms of those that have actually gone far enough to rule on the constitutionality of the law/individual mandate, the score is 2-1 in favor of it being constitutional. Today's decision is actually the anomaly, though you wouldn't know it by the champagne corks popping around here. Though, as I said, even for a defeat it's remarkable positive. About 2,690 pages of the law are untouched. Which is where all of the promising stuff lies.



goldcatt said:


> I'm not sure I agree with the standard of review the judge chose to use, or his pretty much out of hand dismissal of Wickard and Gonzales, I think he made a decision that's above his pay grade here - but then again, somebody has to be the first to weigh in. That will be taken up at the Circuit level.



There are bits of bad logic in there (like suggesting the necessary and proper clause doesn't apply if the commerce clause itself doesn't directly apply) but overall I'm pretty relieved by this decision. Establishing severability is about the kindest thing this judge could have done. Somebody should send this guy a cake.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 13, 2010)

Steerpike said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > There are certain secrets any government has to value above transparency, particularly where relations with other governments are concerned.
> ...



Well it shouldn't and should be changed. Simple as that.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Dec 13, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> America has lost her heart, her compassion, her civic responsibility. Thankfully the supreme court didn't get any McCain selections. One can hope charity and good sense prevails as it does on occasion.
> 
> This nation is so controlled by corporate tools there would be no founders today.
> 
> ...



So we have lost our charity and compassion because we dont think forcing people to buy insurance is a good idea?

Are you serious? Or are you just trolling right now?


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

Intense said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



We're looking at it from two different points of view here, you're right. Although I don't actively practice anymore. 

Perhaps that's the problem when looking at these decisions. Some of us are looking at what the law already is, like it or not, and applying it to the question. Others are focusing on what we think the law should be, and looking at the outcome from that point of view. Of course when we're coming at it from two different directions we're not likely to agree on much if anything.

I'm actually not taking a firm position on this yet. As an issue of first impression it would take a lot more research and thought then I feel like putting into it tonight to come up with any more than a first impression.  It feels a little sloppy to me, like he wanted to sever it and move it through the process as quickly as possible. But that's just a quick and dirty.

What's the final answer going to be? I'm not sure right now. I understand where you're coming from, but the issues you're looking at are much, much bigger than any single case can address, and some of it isn't judicial in scope at all. 

I can tell you this though, just as on this board the judiciary is split on its opinion of how to interpret the language. There are at least a dozen different recognized mainstream legitimate interpretation schemes, and several more out on the fringes or that are subcategories of those. There are also different set standards of review, and there is a certain amount of discretion with some of those standards over which should apply in different situations. There's the role of precedent in a common law system, where everything is applicable or not based on its similarity to or differentiation from the case at hand. There are hundreds of procedural rules and many different types of decisions, all of which mean slightly different things or at least produce slightly different orders as they move through the process. 

Makes it seem overly complicated, subjective and frustrating, doesn't it?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Ollie, apparently!
> 
> Still reading...this judge really, really does not like a couple of SCOTUS decisions.



Glad to hear that. That means he has a brain. The SCOTUS has made some pretty crappy decisions in the past.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 13, 2010)

Meister said:


> I hope I don't see this healthcare bill end up being a tax.



its a fee, its a tax....no its a fee,  no its a tax, no its a fee no its a tax.....shes my sister  shes my daughter.... shes my sister  shes my daughter....


----------



## Trajan (Dec 13, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> > In the final analysis, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Defendent's similar motion. The Court will sever Section 1501 from the balance of the ACA and deny Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



so you'll now tell us this is doable sans mandate?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Dec 13, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> What?
> 
> No cries of "Judicial Activism" from the right?



It's not judicial activism to enforce the constitution. It's judicial activism to create completely new legislation and rights that the Constitution doesn't mention.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Dec 13, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> His general attitude is dangerous to all governments that value secrets over transparency. Their willingness to persecute him says more about them than anything he did.



Maybe we need more open and honest governments then.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 13, 2010)

boedicca said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > It's a penalty!  No, it's a tax!  It's a penalty!  No, it's a tax!
> ...



hey what the heck?I mean  they have already started submarining the 'bill' and its precepts by granting what, 3,000 waivers ? without the mandate this is dead, period, its just a matter of burying it.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

Steerpike said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > There are certain secrets any government has to value above transparency, particularly where relations with other governments are concerned.
> ...



Exactly. So long as the media outlet or its employee or contractor had no part in stealing it in the first place. Passive receipt of information is never a crime.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > > In the final analysis, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Defendent's similar motion. The Court will sever Section 1501 from the balance of the ACA and deny Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief.
> ...



Obviously not. Which was also part of the government's argument as to "necessary and proper". It's necessary to make the scheme "work".


----------



## boedicca (Dec 13, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> There are bits of bad logic in there (like suggesting the necessary and proper clause doesn't apply if the commerce clause itself doesn't directly apply) but overall I'm pretty relieved by this decision. Establishing severability is about the kindest thing this judge could have done. Somebody should send this guy a cake.





Uh.  The ruling today did not establish severability.   The hearing covered only parts of the law, and the judge essentially kicked severability to a future court to decide.

From page 40 of the ruling:

"Moreover, without the benefit of extensive expert testimony and significant supplementation of the record, this Court cannot determine what, if any, portion of the bill would not be able to survive independently.   Therefore this Court will hew closely to a time-honored rule to severe with circumspection, 'severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact'..."

Given the summary judgment nature of this hearing, he is not dealing with the entire law, only the few portions that have to do with the mandate.  Another court will have to evaluate this issue in full.


----------



## PixieStix (Dec 13, 2010)

Intense said:


> Step 1.



My thoughts exactly


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 13, 2010)

Trajan said:


> so you'll now tell us this is doable sans mandate?



In case you don't read my posts: I've never found the insurance part of the law to be the interesting part. Near-universal coverage is nice and it's been _the_ Democratic linchpin for several decades now. And while eliminating the individual mandate obviously creates adverse selection issues in exchanges (that, after all, is why it was included) there are ways around that, either at the state or federal level.

The rest of the law is designed to provide the tools to build a high-value (value roughly being understood as quality/cost) system. Those are untouched and those are where ACA's potential lies.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 13, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Uh.  The ruling today did not establish severability.   The hearing covered only parts of the law, and the judge essentially kicked severability to a future court to decide.



When I use quotes, it's because I'm quoting something. Apologies if that's not clear. To again quote the decision in question:

_"The Court will sever Section 1501 from the balance of the ACA and deny Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief."_


----------



## Avatar4321 (Dec 13, 2010)

Sad thing about all this, is it still probably hasnt kept costs from going up. As long as the other parts of Obamacare go into affect, health insurance prices are going to go up because insurance companies wont be completely confident about the profitability rates.

As much as people like to pretend profits are evil, without them no one is going to be providing insurance.


----------



## Zander (Dec 13, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> What?
> 
> No cries of "Judicial Activism" from the right?



If you think this is "judicial activism" you really have no clue what that means.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 13, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Uh.  The ruling today did not establish severability.   The hearing covered only parts of the law, and the judge essentially kicked severability to a future court to decide.
> ...




I read it.   And I also quoted page 40 where the judge is being conservative.

http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/Health Care Memorandum Opinion.pdf

He is leaving severability as an issue for another court due to the limited nature of what he reviewed.

Page 38 and 39 have bits that support this view as well

"The bill embraces far more than health care reform. It is laden with provisions and riders patently extraneous to health care-over 400 in all&#8230;." - from page 38

"The final element of the analysis is difficult to apply in this case given the haste with which the final version of the 2,700 page bill was rushed to the floor for a Christmas Eve vote. It would be virtually impossible within the present record to determine whether Congress would have passed this bill, encompassing a wide variety of topics related and unrelated to heath care, without Section 1501." - from page 39

http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/Health Care Memorandum Opinion.pdf


He's saying he doesn't have enough information to rule on the entire bill.

The sooner this mes gets before the SCOTUS, the better.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



you and I know this, , but I think GB may argue differently, we had this out in the past,  in another place, not sure he remembers, but I do.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 13, 2010)

boedicca said:


> He's saying he doesn't have enough information to rule on the entire bill.



 He _did_ rule. You understand that much, right? He ruled that Section 1501 is unconstitutional but he also ruled to sever it from the rest of the law. Thus he denied the request of Virginia's ambitious attorney general to issue an injunction halting implementation of the law. In other words, in his decision all of ACA stands except for the individual mandate and implementation is allowed to proceed.

Yes, he's very aware in this ruling that more important jurists than him will have the final word. That doesn't mean he didn't issue a ruling. Read all the way through to the end, dear.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



whoops...see?

look at post 167, I answered you before reading on....hes forgotten...


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > There are bits of bad logic in there (like suggesting the necessary and proper clause doesn't apply if the commerce clause itself doesn't directly apply) but overall I'm pretty relieved by this decision. Establishing severability is about the kindest thing this judge could have done. Somebody should send this guy a cake.
> ...



You missed the context there. 

What they were discussing for a page or so prior to that was whether the bill without the mandate would have survived the Congressional vote, speculation on which was part of the Plaintiff's argument for trashing the entirety. In this the judge was absolutely correct that the argument is speculative at best. 

Severability is a very different issue related to splitting off only that portion of the bill that is at issue in the order, and is always done with deference to the legislative. Which is why only the mandate portion was severed and declared facially unconstitutional, the rest stands. Failing to sever appropriately would have been a HUGE no-no in any final order from the District level. 

And yes this decision is a final order. The next step will be a 3-judge Circuit panel.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 13, 2010)

He ruled on only those portions of the law he reviewed and indicated he was using the "tried and true" conservative standard regarding those provisions.

He did not review the entire law; his ruling is not going to stand as the definitive word on Severability.  The judgment includes that he didn't have enough information to rule on the entire law.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 13, 2010)

Trajan said:


> you and I know this, , but I think GB may argue differently...



To be clear, allowing adverse selection will make insurance purchased through the exchanges more expensive. It will also make them less effective, as businesses eligible to bring their employees into exchanges will opt not to (and the competitive aspects of these markets will suffer). Which is why I expect intelligent states to deter adverse selection (and, perhaps once members of Congress are required to buy their family's insurance in the exchanges, maybe even Congress). If they don't, that's unfortunate for people who aren't in the group market. But there's considerably more to the law than that.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 13, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > so you'll now tell us this is doable sans mandate?
> ...



Oh I read your posts, I have been reading them and we have had exchanges on this topic long before either of us got here btw.

you crafted one of your patented 2000 word answers to my question regards the efficacy of the mandate, first we argued tax vs fee etc. then you formulated numbers showing how the mandate even at the lower tier # after the dems lowered it would help reimburse or buttress the grants to those that would need help buying policies etc....what? you don't remember that? I do. 

I called your numbers all based on that a fantasy that was the mandate and that the mandate in fact IF it went forward would have to be much  higher, that is at or even higher than what they started with and where we wound up to make the numbers work......and the last proviso was the gov's ability to manage such a complex system without playing favs ( unions etc.) and by passing inconvenient issues ala waivers....we didn't have the waivers enacted then,  but I posited something very close....and here we are.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

boedicca said:


> He ruled on only those portions of the law he reviewed and indicated he was using the "tried and true" conservative standard regarding those provisions.
> 
> He did not review the entire law; his ruling is not going to stand as the definitive word on Severability.  The judgment includes that he didn't have enough information to rule on the entire law.



I'm sorry, but that's just not the case.

First, a summary judgment does not mean it was a summary hearing. It is a specific term for a specific type of final order handed out by the court after hearing all the facts and determining as a matter of law that there is only one possible outcome. The determinations of fact are not a material issue, either because there is no disagreement as in this case or because they simply don't matter. 

Legal Dictionary | Law.com

The judge did, in fact, review the entire case brought before him - as is proper. What he found was that the mandate portion of the ACA was unconstitutional on its face - meaning that there was no constitutional basis for enacting it in the first place. Based on this, the VA Attorney General argued that Congress in its infinite wisdom would not have passed the bill without the mandate and asked for the entirety to be struck down in keeping with legislative intent. An argument the judge rightfully called speculative and tossed. Go back and read more than the quote you pulled, the discussion is fairly in depth on this subject.

It's a bright line, clear rule that when in doubt, the courts must defer to the legislature on matters relating to statutory construction and severance. So using that deference, the order itself is clear. The mandate, Section 1501, was severed from the rest of the ACA and the injunction against enforcing the rest of the Act was denied.

The procedural status is a little confusing since it's a summary judgment, I know. "Summary" seems to mean something it doesn't in this situation. But if you go back and read the whole opinion it will make sense.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 13, 2010)

Trajan said:


> you crafted one of your patented 2000 word answers...



If my posts are too long, just say so. I've been working on explaining complex issues to children. I have very intelligent nieces and nephews.



> I called your numbers all based on that a fantasy that was the mandate and that the mandate in fact IF it went forward would have to be much  higher, that is at or even higher than what they started with and where we wound up to make the numbers work......



I assume at that point I pulled empirical evidence from Massachusetts, which has been using a slightly cheaper mandate (except for the highest income tier eligible for subsidies, as their mandate works slightly differently). But ACA's mandate may need to be increased to further deter adverse selection, we'll see. It was lowered multiple times during the legislative process to appease conservative voices but it's not clear that its final statutory level is insufficient.



> and the last proviso was the gov's ability to manage such a complex system without playing favs ( unions etc.) and by passing inconvenient issues ala waivers....we didn't have the waivers enacted then,  but I posited something very close....and here we are.



Again, the annual limit waivers are a bridge to exchanges. They won't exist after 2013 (indeed, I'd be surprised if they exist after 2012). You can drop the union schtick, since the largest and most visible beneficiaries of the annual limit waivers are prominent Republican contributors like McDonald's.

Luckily the job of managing most of the ACA will be done by the states, which I understand conservatives trust implicitly. Some of them are going to do a bang-up job.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 13, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > I hope I don't see this healthcare bill end up being a tax.
> ...





Great movie you referenced..I loved "Chinatown".


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 13, 2010)

boedicca said:


> He ruled on only those portions of the law he reviewed and indicated he was using the "tried and true" conservative standard regarding those provisions.
> 
> He did not review the entire law; his ruling is not going to stand as the definitive word on Severability.  The judgment includes that he didn't have enough information to rule on the entire law.



I don't know for sure and I'm way out of my league debating fine terms of law with our resident legal beagles here, but the way I'm understanding this so far is that the judge dug out a portion of the bill that he judged to be clearly unconstitutional and left the rest as it was.

Pretty much the same thing was done with the Arizona law--a judge dug out the couple of phrases he saw as violation of rights or some such, and then let the remainder stand.

It seems that Arizona has chosen to appeal that judge's decision and will proceed all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary to restore the components the judge nixed.   The Arizona Legislature doesn't seem interested in reversing the rest of it at this time.

It will be interesting to see if the Obama Administration will appeal the judge's ruling.  I suppose however, if a subsequent Congress repeals the whole law, that would be moot.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Steerpike said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



A) nothing was actually stolen, it was copied, big difference

B) the US doesn't have any states secrets laws


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > He ruled on only those portions of the law he reviewed and indicated he was using the "tried and true" conservative standard regarding those provisions.
> ...



You understand it correctly. 

And it's pretty much a given that the Administration will appeal, as the judge indicated in his order. It's an issue of first impression, meaning the exact underlying legal concepts they're arguing have never been decided in our courts before. These are the cases most likely to go all the way - but it's got a long way to go before it gets there.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Ten pages and, unless I've missed it, no one has noted that the health care reform law has _not_ been ruled unconstitutional. Not only did Hudson specifically decline to halt implementation of the law, he rejected the plaintiff's request that he rule the entire law unconstitutional. Instead, he ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional and specifically severed it from the rest of the law, which survives intact. From a court that was obviously going to rule against the ACA, this is a surprisingly favorable ruling.



He struck down the single most necessary component in the bill. Without the means to force everybody to participate the bill is unworkable and unacceptable to the health insurance industry and is no longer a "universal" health care bill. Meaning is does nothing for the dems. Nothing at all. It doesn't finance the poor on the backs of those who can afford coverage, it doesn't rescue medicare, it basically dismantled the entire premise the bill was forged around. 

Most people would just continue buying private insurance and ignore the whole thing unless the government's plan was actually cheaper.

And the states will definitely balk at having to erect exchanges if participation is low. 

The bill is bankrupt without this provision in force.


----------



## Intense (Dec 13, 2010)

Judicial Despotism 

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51 

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277 

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212 

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114 

Search "Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government"


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Steerpike said:
> ...



It was classified material. Nuff said.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 13, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> "The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937.......



..........by a court that FDR had to threaten to pack to uphold his SS act. Are you that ignorant of history?


----------



## jillian (Dec 13, 2010)

Intense said:


> Judicial Despotism
> 
> "The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
> 
> ...



you know he lost that battle, right?

it's all well and good to look at what some politicians said 200 plus years ago, but it isn't law... 

and it's barely authoritative 

again, please read Marbury v Madison.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 13, 2010)

In laymen terms.

 The Bill was a pile of shit to begin with and after the unconstitutional part is removed it will become a larger pile of crapola. Congress needs to rescind it and start over, without the back room deals and remembering that the objective is not power but lowering costs.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> It's an issue of first impression, meaning the exact underlying legal concepts they're arguing have never been decided in our courts before. These are the cases most likely to go all the way - but it's got a long way to go before it gets there.



are you saying that the ruling by the Judge today is not a parallel ruling to the MI and VA cases that have already upheld the entire bill? As in there are no contradictions to settle between the three rulings?


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> In laymen terms.
> 
> The Bill was a pile of shit to begin with and after the unconstitutional part is removed it will become a larger pile of crapola. Congress needs to rescind it and start over, without the back room deals and remembering that the objective is not power but lowering costs.



I actually agree with you, but the Court cant rule it unconstitutional just because the law sucks. That's up to Congress. Good luck.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> He struck down the single most necessary component in the bill. Without the means to force everybody to participate the bill is unworkable and unacceptable to the health insurance industry and is no longer a "universal" health care bill. Meaning is does nothing for the dems. Nothing at all. It doesn't finance the poor on the backs of those who can afford coverage, it doesn't rescue medicare, it basically dismantled the entire premise the bill was forged around.



The poor aren't touched by this decision at all. Because the poor (actually, anyone with an income under 138% of the federal poverty line) is automatically eligible for Medicaid. ACA's expansions of state Medicaid programs are preserved in this ruling.

Indeed, nothing actually changes for those who would be getting insurance through exchanges, either, as long as their incomes are under 400% of the poverty line. The ACA requires a certain premium contribution that's pegged to a person's income; the rest of the premium (up to the the value of the 2nd cheapest silver actuarial plan in the area) is financed through a refundable, advanceable tax credit. Meaning the cost of the law itself rises if the valuable of the silver plan rises, not the cost to the subsidized consumer.

People who need insurance would still get it, and at the same price. Those who opt to be free riders until they get sick would now be able to, which is different (though of course the additional expenses to the non-subsidized exchange population and the federal government are a direct result of this adverse selection). I doubt their newfound ability to free-ride would turn them against the Dems. But as I've said multiple times now: 1) this decision is not the final word on ACA, and 2) even if it were, states (and the feds) can institute alternative methods of discouraging free-riding. 



> Most people would just continue buying private insurance and ignore the whole thing unless the government's plan was actually cheaper.



What government plan? There is no new government plan under the ACA.



> And the states will definitely balk at having to erect exchanges if participation is low.



I'm not sure what the rationale for this statement is.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



It doesn't matter classified material is "unclassified" as soon as it enters the public domain. Whereas actual stolen hard copies are still stolen material no matter how many times they change hands. 

And IF we had a state's secrets law then "information" that was a state secret would be classified even after it was in the public domain regardless of whether it was hard copies or copies of the original. 

The pentagon papers were similar: literally xeroxed and diseminated and it was classified material released publicly in the media but Ellsberg was not convicted for espionage. In fact in the ruling one judge wrote:



> Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
> Justice Black


New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713)


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > It's an issue of first impression, meaning the exact underlying legal concepts they're arguing have never been decided in our courts before. These are the cases most likely to go all the way - but it's got a long way to go before it gets there.
> ...



They were also matters of first impression.

It gets a little tricky here. The Eastern District of VA is not bound by a ruling from another court at the same level in MI or even another District of VA. They're all just guessing, with nothing to guide them.

There's also a question of whether those cases that upheld the ACA in toto used the same legal theory - I have no idea, I haven't read them. They may in fact all have been decided on different grounds.

Binding precedent on a District Court comes from its own Circuit's decisions and SCOTUS. Other Circuits' decisions and other District level decisions can be considered, but they don't actually "have" to follow them. They're not in that court's "chain of command", so to speak.

Remember, this was just the trial court level. Then it goes to appeal at the Circuit level before a panel of three judges, then potentially to another Circuit level appeal before all of the judges in that Circuit, then to SCOTUS if cert is granted. This was only the first step. But the specific Courts "up" in that chain are the only Courts whose opinions the District "must" follow.

Confused yet?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



This is not exactly deceiving the people. This is doing harm to at least our diplomacy, if not more.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 13, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > you crafted one of your patented 2000 word answers...
> ...


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The poor aren't touched by this decision at all.



Yes they are, there will be no pool of paying participants to shoulder their premiums. 




Greenbeard said:


> > Most people would just continue buying private insurance and ignore the whole thing unless the government's plan was actually cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> What government plan? There is no new government plan under the ACA.



the exchanges



Greenbeard said:


> > And the states will definitely balk at having to erect exchanges if participation is low.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what the rationale for this statement is.



The states already are resisting the mandate to erect these exchanges and support them without compensation. If it is a futile gesture with low unpredictable participation they will resist much more, being broke and all...

The economic and mechanics of the bill are utterly scrambled by scuttling this sole provision.

The health care bill is dead unless the SC (or another higher court) over rules today's ruling.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Confused yet?



No that was actually a really good explanation.





goldcatt said:


> It gets a little tricky here. The Eastern District of VA is not bound by a ruling from another court at the same level in MI or even another District of VA. They're all just guessing, with nothing to guide them....
> 
> Binding precedent on a District Court comes from its own Circuit's decisions and SCOTUS. Other Circuits' decisions and other District level decisions can be considered, but they don't actually "have" to follow them. They're not in that court's "chain of command", so to speak.



I had no idea....what a bizarre system.



goldcatt said:


> There's also a question of whether those cases that upheld the ACA in toto used the same legal theory - I have no idea, I haven't read them. They may in fact all have been decided on different grounds.



Ok, thanks for that clarification. I thought you said earlier that they definitely were decided on different grounds. Just wanted to be sure i understood.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Confused yet?
> ...



It is a little complicated. Think of the Courts at the different levels like coworkers. You might ask a coworker at your same level for advice and even listen to them sometimes, but you only really "have" to listen to your boss.

And the same case can be heard many times using many different theories, you just have to find somebody different to bring it. If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Just ask the birthers. 

Could be the situation, maybe it's not, I have no idea. But it'll get sorted out at some level of appeal.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> This is not exactly deceiving the people. This is doing harm to at least our diplomacy, if not more.



The information leaked reveals deceit on the part of the government.

And whether or not it is doing harm it does not appear to be illegal under our law's traditional interpretations. 

The courts will have to create a new interpretation of our law, or pass a new law, to get a conviction. Which is possible.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> It is a little complicated. Think of the Courts at the different levels like coworkers. You might ask a coworker at your same level for advice and even listen to them sometimes, but you only really "have" to listen to your boss.
> 
> And the same case can be heard many times using many different theories, you just have to find somebody different to bring it. If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Just ask the birthers.
> 
> Could be the situation, maybe it's not, I have no idea. But it'll get sorted out at some level of appeal.



OK, thanks. So there are compelling reasons to fast track a judgement that will stand, likely a SC ruling or a SC nod on a lower court's ruling.

Considering the appeal process how long will it take to get this settled?


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > It is a little complicated. Think of the Courts at the different levels like coworkers. You might ask a coworker at your same level for advice and even listen to them sometimes, but you only really "have" to listen to your boss.
> ...



I'm not sure he really cares whether it will stand, considering all of his references to it being an issue of first impression. He knows for a fact his is not the last word.

As to how long it will take to settle, it's anybody's guess. The next step will be the appeal to the 4th Circuit, that's automatically granted. Under the procedural rules it will take a few months for the briefs to be filed, then the court will hear motions and accept briefs from friends of the court. Then they have to hear oral arguments, in this appeal before that 3-judge panel, then they deliberate and write the opinion. A lot depends on how full their docket is to schedule motions and arguments as well as release the opinion. Could be a year, could be more, could be less. If the issues and arguments in the two VA cases are similar enough, the Court may combine them into one case and issue one joint opinion to save time.

MI isn't in the same Circuit, so that case will have to go through the process in the 6th Circuit. With maybe the same or maybe a different result, and probably on a different time table because of the different docket.

Then the loser in each case has to appeal to their respective Circuit for an "en banc" hearing before the entire Court rather than just a panel. If the Circuits want to fast track it to SCOTUS, they might deny it. If not, the case gets reheard and another opinion released.

Then and only then, after all options have been exhausted, can the losers at the Circuit level petition SCOTUS to hear the case. And that's just the petition for cert, it takes time to file supporting info, have the petition heard in conference, then submit briefs and go through that whole process all over again. So it's a process that can take quite a bit of time, even if it's "fast tracked". Worst case, 3 years or more.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2010)

So what's everybody doing with all the money they're saving from switching to ObamaCare?

Are the costs bending down or bending you over?


----------



## Ragnar (Dec 13, 2010)

Via Hot Air and AmSpec, on the issue of severability...

Breaking: Federal judge rules ObamaCare mandate unconstitutional; Update: Bill argues Congressional power without &#8220;logical limitation&#8221;  Hot Air


> Update II: Still waiting for more data from the opinion, but several commenters have mentioned the lack of a severability clause in ObamaCare to argue that this decision would invalidate the entire bill.  Not so fast, wrote David Catron at American Spectator last week:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The American Spectator : Of Severability and Sins of Omission

Read this whole thread and found a lot of interesting thoughts on this subject "severability" being among the most interesting of all to me. (one of the non-lawyers lol) In any case, it's going to be fun watching this stuff go forward through the system. *Unlike Congress, the courts have to read and think about the laws they deal with.* That leads to much better debate.


----------



## Ragnar (Dec 13, 2010)

From the same HA link above...



> Update V: Hudson hits the nail on the head with this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> there is some of that. but its the right that seems to pick and choose from the constitution.



They both pick and choose from it.  The left extrapolates the Commerce Clause to mean that the federal government has the right to force us to buy health insurance, but when it comes to the Second Amendment? Well, there is just no possible way it could mean we all have the right to own a gun.



> and i wonder what is a more fundamental right... control over our bodies and the ability to not be discriminated against by marriage laws
> 
> or having to wear a seat belt or pay for health insurance?



Any decision made by politicians that takes away the freedom to make choices for ourselves is an infringement of our freedoms period, whether that be forcing us to wear a seat belt or telling us who we can or can't marry.  I don't differentiate between them or view freedoms in terms of degrees.


----------



## Londoner (Dec 13, 2010)

During the postwar years, the Right was comprised largely of Burkean consensus builders. They did not believe in top-down government-imposed revolutionary change, ala French Revolution. They believed in supporting the will of the people, and if the people wanted the New Deal or progressive taxation or safety nets, than so be it -- they would accommodate consensus (as they did during the liberal postwar era when Eisenhower and Nixon supported the New Deal). The old Right didn't have a strategy for populating the judiciary with ideologues committed to change because they didn't see themselves as change agents -- they saw themselves as protecting the social fabric. The old Right allowed society to change _organically_, according to it's own _bottom-up_ rhythm. This is what made them Burkean consensus builders rather than top-down revolutionaries.

Starting with Reagan, however, the Right coalesced around radical change. They were determined to break the New Deal come hell or high water. Burkean Conservatism would be replaced by Movement Conservatism. Over the next 30 years they would eliminate everything the government did for the Middle Class in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy. They expressed a desire to reduce government to a size small enough to choke it in a bath tub. If this meant putting government in terrible debt (in order to *starve the beast* and choke Social Security/Medicare), than so be it. 

*Here is a dirty little secret about Reaganism: the historically large deficits caused by tax cuts & defense spending was intentional, that is, the point of the Reagan Revolution was to put Washington in such financial trouble that eventually there would be no more money for Big Government: Social Security and Medicare.*

People need to focus on the pivotal 70s when the radicals finally pushed out the moderates and created a radical movement -- a movement determined to completely overhaul government, the judiciary, and mass media. The movement sought radical top-down change -- change created and imposed by elites who would meet in William F Buckley's house, where they drafted the blueprints for magazine/TV/radio and university activism. The right would not only change the way government worked, but how people thought about government. Starting in the 70s they funneled money into think tanks, publishing groups, political action committees, and mass media on a level unlike anything seen before. Their strategy was to permeate every element of America institutionality -- from regulatory and judicial bodies, to congress and the media -- with hard-line conservatives. They wanted to create a perfect synergy between business and government, so corporations could fund (staff) government and buy legislation. 

Their goal was also to pack the courts so they could stop Liberal legislation, should any get past their net.

*They were successful*. Now, when they don't like legislation, they have an army of talking heads who wage an information war against it. Matt Drudge employs a small city of researches who comb through every inch of hyperspace looking for an angle. The machine is powerful: it places the well-meaning voter in a fog of mushroom clouds, WMDs, gay agendas, illegals, liberals, terrorists, sin, drugs, birth certificate, baby killers, Constitution! Constitution! Constitution!, Osama! Saddam! Osama!, death panel! death panel! death panel FOX News Terror Alerts ordered by Bush to distract people from the derivative time bomb being constructed over the economy. The machine repeats strategic talking points over and over, as the white middle aged man clutches his steering wheel in rage. Point is: the right, after 30 years of _concentrated_ investment into media, now has direct access to American opinion, and they have the most powerful funding advantage known to man: business. They left is done.

They also have the judiciary, from the local level to the Supreme court. They also have the regulatory body, which is populated by business insiders. 

What happens when the Democrats pass a law which tries to help the non-wealthy. The right calls it unconstitutional. They have the power to overturn ANYTHING, from health care to presidential elections. 

People, if you think things are bad now, you ain't seen nothing yet. America is in the middle of a protracted Coup d'etat that started in 1980. The goal is to replace the great postwar middle class with a new uber-wealthy class. America is becoming like the 3rd world with concentrated pools of wealth surrounded by exploding poverty. The majority of wealth doesn't reach the real economy -- which is being starved. Eventually, the uber-wealthy will all live in hyper-secure self-sufficient "compounds". These compounds will have their own food/security/education/health care/entertainment/etc. On the other side of the compound-wall there will exist a dying public sphere with decaying cities, filth, crime, and total poverty. The federal government will be irrelevant, replaced by private enclaves of pure wealth. 

Post middle class America is going to look much different. Movement Conservatism is replacing a great nation with a neoliberal dystopia. They can get rid of any law they don't like. Anything Washington does for the non-wealthy will be killed in the crib. The game is over.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Dec 13, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> In laymen terms.
> 
> The Bill was a pile of shit to begin with and after the unconstitutional part is removed it will become a larger pile of crapola. Congress needs to rescind it and start over, without the back room deals and remembering that the objective is not power but lowering costs.



The government doesn't comprehend the idea that the objective isn't power. If they wanted to lower costs, this bill wouldn't have been passed because we know it increases costs. Heck it already is increasing costs and the bill isnt even implemented in it's fullness.

Not to mention the borrowed spending adding to the inflation rate.

No. This bill needs to be thrown on the scrap heap. And if the Federal government wants to do anything with health care they can do two things:

1) Permit interstate shopping for insurance.
2) Get the heck out of everything else.

Everything else is unconstitutional and makes the problems worse.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



That is way too much limbo. That's a trainwreck for the health care programs themselves.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Dec 13, 2010)

Londoner said:


> During the postwar years, the Right was comprised largely of Burkean consensus builders. They did not believe in top-down government-imposed revolutionary change, ala French Revolution. They believed in supporting the will of the people, and if the people wanted the New Deal or progressive taxation or safety nets, than so be it -- they would accommodate consensus (as they did during the liberal postwar era when Eisenhower and Nixon supported the New Deal). They old Right didn't have a strategy for populating the judiciary with ideologues committed to change because they didn't see themselves as change agents -- they saw themselves as protecting the social fabric. The old Right allowed society to change _organically_, according to it's own _bottom-up_ rhythm. This is what made them Burkean consensus builders rather than top-down revolutionaries.
> 
> Starting with Reagan, however, the Right coalesced around radical change. They wanted to give a New Deal not to lower classes, but to the upper class. Burkean Conservatism evolved into Movement Conservatism. Their goal was to reduce government to a size small enough to choke it in a bath tub. If this meant putting it in terrible debt (in order to starve the beast and chose Social Security/Medicare), than so be it.
> 
> ...



Yeah it's all a right wing conspiracy. We are very clever by arguing that the Interestate commerce clause means exactly what it says.

You know, you could just pass constitutional legislation. You know make real arguments on why your positions are superior. Maybe actually help those poor people you claim you are helping instead of hurting them with the legislation you claim is going to help them so much and telling people its the thought that counts not the reality of the situation.

The Republic needs to be restored. And it wont be by pretending that the Constitution is meaningless.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Yes they are, there will be no pool of paying participants to shoulder their premiums.



I'm talking about _Medicaid_. That's funded through general tax revenue at the state and federal level, which is a bit different than premium-based insurance pools.




> the exchanges



Exchanges aren't a government plan, they're a marketplace in which private plans compete.




> The states already are resisting the mandate to erect these exchanges and support them without compensation. If it is a futile gesture with low unpredictable participation they will resist much more, being broke and all...



Only two states have shown any resistance to building exchanges thus far (and one of them, Minnesota, is almost certain to reverse that position under its new governor). Some states may try to reverse their position as leadership changes--I fully expect mine to openly contemplate it, if not actually try to--but that's a philosophical/political stance. However, again, any state that worries about sustainability is free to cede control of their state's exchange to the federal government. It'll be interesting to see how many conservative state policymakers make that choice.



Avatar4321 said:


> If they wanted to lower costs, this bill wouldn't have been passed because we know it increases costs. [...]
> 
> 1) Permit interstate shopping for insurance.



How many times must it be said? Interstate purchasing by itself doesn't inherently lower costs Depending on the circumstances of your provider market, it can (and probably will) raise your premiums. The only offsetting factor is that it allows insurers to game risk pools ("deregulation") by ejecting or shifting costs to those with medical issues. If that's what you're betting on for cost control, you're fighting a losing battle.


----------



## Ragnar (Dec 13, 2010)

Londoner said:


> During the postwar years, the Right was comprised largely of Burkean consensus builders. They did not believe in top-down government-imposed revolutionary change, ala French Revolution. They believed in supporting the will of the people, and if the people wanted the New Deal or progressive taxation or safety nets, than so be it -- they would accommodate consensus (as they did during the liberal postwar era when Eisenhower and Nixon supported the New Deal). The old Right didn't have a strategy for populating the judiciary with ideologues committed to change because they didn't see themselves as change agents -- they saw themselves as protecting the social fabric. The old Right allowed society to change _organically_, according to it's own _bottom-up_ rhythm. This is what made them Burkean consensus builders rather than top-down revolutionaries.
> 
> Starting with Reagan, however, the Right coalesced around radical change. They wanted to give a New Deal not to lower classes, but to the upper class. Burkean Conservatism evolved into Movement Conservatism. Their goal was to eliminate everything the government was doing for the Middle Class in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy. Their goal was to reduce government to a size small enough to choke it in a bath tub. If this meant putting government in terrible debt (in order to *starve the beast* and choke Social Security/Medicare), than so be it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



If this while Wikileaks thing is about the need for government to keep secrets why did the Obama administration and the Justice Department wait until the leaks embarrassed Obama before trying to find some obscure law to prosecute Assange? Why did until they had wait until egg on their face they before pressuring web sites to take down legal content, and force ask PayPal to stop accepting donations?

The better question to be asking is, if we are assuring other nations our communications are confidential, why do 3 million people, including low level military analysts on the front line, have access to it? Another point, the communications that were leaked were all internal State Department communications, not communications between us and anyone else. That explains why they were more embarrassing than damaging, and why Obama got upset. Narcissists hate to be embarrassed.


----------



## Liability (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> 8 pages of posts on this, does anybody have so much as a case name to get the actual District Court decision?




WELL before your post, I had already provided the Court's decision.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/3082768-post81.html

You're welcome!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 13, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Ten pages and, unless I've missed it, no one has noted that the health care reform law has _not_ been ruled unconstitutional. Not only did Hudson specifically decline to halt implementation of the law, he rejected the plaintiff's request that he rule the entire law unconstitutional. Instead, he ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional and specifically severed it from the rest of the law, which survives intact. From a court that was obviously going to rule against the ACA, this is a surprisingly favorable ruling.



I am pretty sure someone pointed that out.

Didn't the White House recently say something about the ACA not being viable without the mandate because certain parts of it, like the requirement to cover preexisting conditions, are inextricably linked to it?


----------



## Londoner (Dec 13, 2010)

This is our future. Neoliberal dystopia. Snow Crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Yes they are, there will be no pool of paying participants to shoulder their premiums.
> ...



You don't understand the core mission of the healthcare legislation at all. 

The healthcare reform legislation sought to subsidize existing medicare and medicaid, which both underpay practicioners and the health care industry, by increasing the pool of patients who overpaid, hence:

>The complete lack of effort to reduce aggregate healthy care costs

>the necessary inclusion of all citizens including the young and healthy who don't need much care in the system

>the advertised and otherwise illogical claims to saving billions of $ on future medicare expenses

>the unchallenged immediate increases in health care insurance for paying consumers once the legislation passed

>the openly disclosed discussion of a kind of premium parity in which the premiums for the most expensive patients would be reduced below market standards while the young and healthy would be forced to pay rates above the market value of their care

It is a subsidy scam in which the medical care industries and medical insurance industries agree to take losses on medicare/medicaid and high risk patients in exchange for more lucrative patient participants being forced to enter the system and pay more for coverage and therefore care than their health care requirements demand.

It's just a way to tax the young and healthy to pay for health care for the poor and unhealthy. 

If there was any other agenda then efforts would have been taken to insure that cost reduction was a part of the bill, and none were, except in the case of insurance provided by the feds.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> The healthcare reform legislation sought to subsidize existing medicare and medicaid, which both underpay practicioners and the health care industry, by increasing the pool of patients who overpaid, hence:



This is nonsense on its face. ACA reduces the ranks of the uninsured by 32 million by the end of the decade. It does so by granting 16 million people Medicaid eligibility; the other 16 million will enter health insurance exchanges (with at least another 8 million trickling in from current non-group insurance). How many exchange enrollees will be unsubsidized? About 5 million.

Obviously the goal of ACA is to subsidize coverage to vastly increase the insured population. But if you think that's done by siphoning dollars through private insurance premiums, you're way off. It's done the old fashioned way: through actual public subsidies (either via Medicaid coverage or refundable tax credits available to purchasers in the exchange). And in the long run most of that money will come from limiting the tax exclusion for group insurance, just as the exchange subsidies are limited.



> >The complete lack of effort to reduce aggregate healthy care costs



It sounds like something on your wish list didn't make it into the law.



> >the necessary inclusion of all citizens including the young and healthy who don't need much care in the system



The young may buy catastrophic coverage. The mandate doesn't exist to entice them into higher-premium comprehensive coverage. It exists to prevent people from waiting until they get sick to buy guaranteed-issue, community-rated insurance policies.



> >the advertised and otherwise illogical claims to saving billions of $ on future medicare expenses



The Medicare-related savings are based on three things: 1) smaller market basket updates to account for presumed productivity gains through the delivery system reforms, 2) the reduction in overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, and 3) the reduction in DSH payments as the number of uninsured people falls. What does that amount to? Fewer expenditures than the baseline would anticipate.



> >the unchallenged immediate increases in health care insurance for paying consumers once the legislation passed



This is getting silly.



> >the openly disclosed discussion of a kind of premium parity in which the premiums for the most expensive patients would be reduced below market standards while the young and healthy would be forced to pay rates above the market value of their care



If premiums were equal to the value of care consumed for every member of an insurance pool, there would be no need to have an insurance pool at all. Insurance pools are inherently resource transfers. Under the ACA, risk adjustment _between_ pools replaces rating within pools. Most people consider that to be a more equitable system (and for good reason--it is).



> It's just a way to tax the young and healthy to pay for health care for the poor and unhealthy.



You're describing health insurance, period.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > He ruled on only those portions of the law he reviewed and indicated he was using the "tried and true" conservative standard regarding those provisions.
> ...




I didn't say it was a summary hearing.

The judge himself in his ruling states that he did not evaluate the entire bill, just a few parts having to do with the individual mandate.    The "severability" is due to the limited review, not due to the merits of the entire bill.

If those who support the entire bill wish to cling to the fact that he didn't fully review the entire bill in order to give themselves comfort, so be it.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 13, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...




Then we are in violent agreement.  The judge ruled on only a portion of the bill, and is leaving the rest for whomever is faced with evaluating the entire thing.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 13, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> He struck down the single most necessary component in the bill. Without the means to force everybody to participate the bill is unworkable and unacceptable to the health insurance industry and is no longer a "universal" health care bill. Meaning is does nothing for the dems. Nothing at all. It doesn't finance the poor on the backs of those who can afford coverage, it doesn't rescue medicare, it basically dismantled the entire premise the bill was forged around.
> 
> Most people would just continue buying private insurance and ignore the whole thing unless the government's plan was actually cheaper.
> 
> ...




The bill has ALWAYS been bankrupt, yet that didn't keep Congress from passing it under the pretext of a faked CBO score.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 13, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> This is nonsense on its face.



No it's reality. You are either another partisan who lives in a maze of partisan lies, a technician who can't see the forest for the trees or you can't handle the truth.

That's cool, the legislation was designed to pull the wool over your eyes. 

Meanwhile if what I said wasn't true there is no way that even a pretense of deficit reduction could have been credited to this bill, and deficit reduction was credited to this bill.

How do you reduce the liability exposure of the federal government (reduce the deficit) if you don't reduce costs and don't pull some slight of hand trick like forcefully enrolling folks who don't need much healthcare into the system paying rates above market value?

Learn to read between the lines, kid. You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 14, 2010)

Oh Boy!



> *Health-reform advocates have little to fear from judge's ruling*
> 
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Monday, December 13, 2010; 10:46 PM
> ...



Health-reform advocates have little to fear from judge's ruling

This looks like a political firestorm in the making.

Are all judges partisan activists, I ask you?


----------



## Jroc (Dec 14, 2010)

jillian said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...





Good parts of the Law...This stupid law was just a bunch of thrown together payoffs, it's not well written, it's bullshit. Anyway let me ask you this...Do you think these politicians should actually read the Bill before they pass it? Why is it that certain people judge a law or mandate based on the stated intention of the law and will defend it based on that intent?


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t32ckkdlcao"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t32ckkdlcao[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU[/ame]


----------



## jillian (Dec 14, 2010)

unless your kid isn't being denied coverage b/c of a pre-existing condition.

unless you have coverage when you wouldn't have before.

unless your kid in medical school or law school is still covered under your plan.

unless you are one of the people who can't be dumped from their insurance coverage after getting diagnosed with an "expensive" illness...


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 14, 2010)

jillian said:


> unless your kid isn't being denied coverage b/c of a pre-existing condition.
> 
> unless you have coverage when you wouldn't have before.
> 
> ...



so nationalize health care instead of nationalizing health insurance.

Any "reform" that doesn't reduce health care costs by 30% is a bum deal certain to satisfy almost nobody.


----------



## 007 (Dec 14, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Health-reform advocates have little to fear from judge's ruling
> 
> This looks like a political firestorm in the making.
> 
> Are all judges partisan activists, I ask you?



I saw this too, but really, it makes absolutely no difference at all. Look at the liberal whack job that just got appointed to the S.C., Sotomayor. If political ideologies were to exempt judges from being judges, we wouldn't have any at all.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 14, 2010)

jillian said:


> unless your kid isn't being denied coverage b/c of a pre-existing condition.
> 
> unless you have coverage when you wouldn't have before.
> 
> ...



The last of course is illegal, not that I would expect you to know that, "counselor".
ALl of those mandates have served to drive up costs as government has mandated insurers take more risk.  So if you had insurance before and didnt fall into one of those categories you will now find yourself with an almost unaffordable premium.
This is typical of the lib mindset that "protects" a few by punishing everyone else.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 14, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> That is way too much limbo. That's a trainwreck for the health care programs themselves.



I don't have much if any sympathy for them in this situation. They're the ones who bought and paid for this scheme over any other that could have been enacted with far better results, they're the ones who stand to make a killing if it stays on the books, tough luck if they didn't see these challenges coming and plan appropriately. The law only bends so far for money, and ideally at least in the Judiciary it doesn't bend for money at all.

E.D. VA and the 4th Circuit is what's called a "rocket docket", if it makes you feel any better. They have a tendency to fast track issues like these through the process and kick 'em on up to the next level fast in judicial terms. But even a rocket docket can't ignore the procedural rules and time frames, and they must hear the full argument and provide appropriate process.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2010)

Obama said he's "itching for a fight" who will he ask to fight for him, Mike Tyson?


----------



## Intense (Dec 14, 2010)

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Judicial Despotism
> ...



Sadly I have. Until either 5 Justices have the Balls to reverse bad precedent, or an Amendment when the people wake up to the bullshit scam that was perpetuated on them, we will suffer from that injustice. Until that time, your argument is justified, but only by the force of the Court, right and wrong have nothing to do with it. So much for 3 Equal Branches.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 14, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> How do you reduce the liability exposure of the federal government (reduce the deficit) if you don't reduce costs and don't pull some slight of hand trick like forcefully enrolling folks who don't need much healthcare into the system paying rates above market value?



To repeat the bit of my post you apparently skipped: half of the newly insuring are entering existing public insurance programs, the other half are entering private coverage. Of those who are newly entering private coverage, the majority will be subsidized. Their personal contribution will be determined only by their income, unless they choose to buy a more expensive plan than the one to which the subsidy value is pegged, in which case they pay the difference themselves.

If the law were being financed primarily through a cost shift to private premiums, paid in private dollars, it wouldn't cost $900 billion in public dollars in the first decade. And there would be no--or very limited--subsidies for private coverage. And young, healthy people wouldn't be able to satisfy the mandate simply by buying catastrophic coverage.

The mandate is not a financing mechanism. Its purpose is to replace medical underwriting as the primary deterrent to adverse selection. Yes, deterring adverse selection is motivated by the desire to keep costs from ballooning (i.e. altering the composition of risk pools to the point that they're composed only or mostly of the sick). But the influx of newly insured is being paid for primarily through public dollars; hence the price tag of the law.

How do you lower the deficit? By raising revenue. Notice how one of the debt commission's biggest suggestions was limiting the tax exemption for employer-sponsored coverage? ACA does that (and it does so more and more as time goes on, making it a huge revenue source in the future). The commission simply wanted to do it more and faster, raising even more revenue. Regardless, when your primary revenue source is designed to grow more quickly than your primary expenditure, voila, your deficit shrinks--that's why ACA looks so good in the second decade. The revenue source cuts money out of the health care sector more quickly than the subsidies put it back in. The first 8 years is a patchwork of smaller revenue sources to get to that point but that's where the ACA leads; by the end of the decade the excise tax on plans will dominate and you'll begin to see a bit of your cost curve bending.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that there a bunch of uninsured rich people out there who don't have employer-sponsored coverage and are going to be coerced into exchanges through a 2% income tax penalty. But no, that's not the idea here. Insurance pools will be propped up via huge influxes of public money, as well as potential risk adjustment payments from their peers. _Not_ the rates of the unsubsidized. Remember, for a while at least, exchanges will still be the smallest source of coverage in the country.


----------



## Intense (Dec 14, 2010)

It's a 3 ring circus fighting for the right for everyone to purchase the $500 Band-aid. No One asks or considers why the Band-Aid costs $500, that just goes right over their heads. The fact that they are now forced to buy that $500 dollar Band-aid, whether they need id, or want it, goes right over their heads too. So much for Liberty and Justice. You give Love a bad name Folks. Control Freaks in denial.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 14, 2010)

Intense said:


> It's a 3 ring circus fighting for the right for everyone to purchase the $500 Band-aid. No One asks or considers why the Band-Aid costs $500, that just goes right over their heads.



I'm all for addressing the inflated reimbursement rates providers are negotiating for themselves (which is also why I think interstate purchasing is a potentially destructive idea). The primary way health reform tried to tackle that was through the creation of a robust public option but that was scrapped. I wouldn't mind seeing more states experiment with all-payer rate setting.


----------



## Intense (Dec 14, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > It's a 3 ring circus fighting for the right for everyone to purchase the $500 Band-aid. No One asks or considers why the Band-Aid costs $500, that just goes right over their heads.
> ...



But that would interfere with the Government Revenue Scheme.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Dec 14, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > unless your kid isn't being denied coverage b/c of a pre-existing condition.
> ...



Yeah....make everybody join the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan....the same one that the Congress members use....

...but....oops.....that would probably make that program go broke too.....much like Medicare/Medicaid....

...and you know those congressmen wouldn't cotton to that...not if they are treated with the same lack of treatment as everybody else...but hey.....equal maltreatment for all....


----------



## Jroc (Dec 14, 2010)

jillian said:


> unless your kid isn't being denied coverage b/c of a pre-existing condition.
> 
> unless you have coverage when you wouldn't have before.
> 
> ...




Those are all easy fixes without the federal government taking over the health care system, and I'm sure that medical student is going to love being a federal employee, which is what will eventually happen once the government, takes over completely. It's just going to be cheaper for business to drop their coverage, pay the fine and let people go to the government plan. So what exactly does the government do efficiently? Like I said these politicians dont read the damn bill they put a little piece here to pay off this guy, a little piece here to pay off this interest group, and we all get screwed in the end. Oh but it sounds so nice health care for all


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 14, 2010)

Jroc said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > unless your kid isn't being denied coverage b/c of a pre-existing condition.
> ...



That would already have happened had the administration not started its "waiver of the week" program, allowing companies to keep their existing health plans that somehow didnt pass muster.
Remember when he said "if you like your insurance, you can keep it"?  I guess he lied then too.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 14, 2010)

Jroc said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > unless your kid isn't being denied coverage b/c of a pre-existing condition.
> ...



Since the Federal government has not organized or managed ANYTHING related to social engineering (or much of anything else) that did not turn out to be more expensive, less efficient, an increasing problem, and largely unsustainable as the years passed and the negatives increased, I can't understand how intelligent people can think that the federal government managing or directing healthcare would be any different.

But if they were going to do it, all the Federal Government had to do was create an assigned risk pool for the difficult to insure people just as most states have assigned risk pools for general liability, work comp, and other types of necessary insurance for those who can't get insurance throught the private market.

It is not the Federal government's business if people choose not to buy any kind of insurance....BUT.....it also should not be the Federal government's business to mandate that anybody get the benefits whether or not they buy the insurance.

Before the government got involved, uninsured people with no money got emergency healthcare just as they do now, and that included hospitalization and surgery or other expensive procedures.  But they were also required to sign a note and pay for that care even at $10/month if that is all they could afford.  So people did not abuse the system and everything was much more affordable.   From day one that Medicare and Medicaid went into effect, there was abuse of the system by both patients and healthcare providers.  And the costs began unnaturally and excessively inflating and have been doing so ever since.

There are many ways to address the problems without the federal government taking over management of the whole system.

Congress should now repeal the whole law and start over using common sense to address the hard core uninsurable and turn the rest over to the free market.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 14, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> If the law were being financed primarily through a cost shift to private premiums, paid in private dollars, it wouldn't cost $900 billion in public dollars in the first decade. And there would be no--or very limited--subsidies for private coverage. And young, healthy people wouldn't be able to satisfy the mandate simply by buying catastrophic coverage.



You still don't get it. Medicare and medicaid costs are being offset by more lucrative patients being forced to participate in the system. This is the way the system already works btw, medicare and medicaid already pay less for the same care. 

Since the bill is being touted as producing enough savings in medicare etc to offset the costs associated with startup over a decade then there must be a savings realized in medicare costs. That savings is offset within the care and insurance industries by a new pool of participants who are paying more for the same services. 

It's a stealth subsidy. But it is very real all the same.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 14, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > If the law were being financed primarily through a cost shift to private premiums, paid in private dollars, it wouldn't cost $900 billion in public dollars in the first decade. And there would be no--or very limited--subsidies for private coverage. And young, healthy people wouldn't be able to satisfy the mandate simply by buying catastrophic coverage.
> ...



What the devil have you done with Loosecannon???


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 14, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



Don't worry, If it was up to me the entire private health insurance industry would be dechartered and replaced with non profit health insurance coops or government insurance. Probably at the state level.

But I don't like being lied to when it is obvious that the real goal of Obama care was to keep medicare solvent without doing anything to contain health care costs. 

A steal tax. And an out of control industry.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 14, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > That is way too much limbo. That's a trainwreck for the health care programs themselves.
> ...



Goldcat, I wasn't referring to the insurance industry or the states or the parties, but to the programs themselves which are compromised by a lack of certainty. How can the states proceed setting up exchanges if they don't know how this ruling will be decided? How can they manage a transition from the present systems to an unknown?


I just read an article that claims logical errors in the ruling but I definitely do not agree with the rationale provided in the article. But I also know law is not always intuitive. What do you think?



> *Amateur Hour: VA Judge Makes Elementary Error In Health Care Ruling*
> 
> The Virginia federal district court judge who ruled yesterday that the individual mandate in the health care bill is unconstitutional is catching a lot of flack -- and not just for having a financial interest in an anti-health care reform consulting firm.
> 
> ...



Amateur Hour: VA Judge Makes Elementary Error In Health Care Ruling | TPMDC

See to me it sounds Like Kerr got it wrong because he overlooked the phrase "Constitutional ends" in the interp of the Necessary and Proper Clause


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 14, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



The Necessary and Proper clause applies to taxes, which the mandate is clearly not. Kerr is obviously grasping at straws here.

On the other hand, quite a few people have been trying to pull apart the decision based on Hudson's reading of the commerce clause, but he might actually be following precedent from a concurring opinion from Scalia in Raich.

The Volokh Conspiracy  From Judge Hudson&#8217;s Pen to Justice Scalia&#8217;s Ear

I hope Goldcatt sees this and gives us her opinion based on this logic.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 14, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



There are a few areas of sloppy logic and case differentiation in the opinion,IMO. I'm not sure I'd agree this is one of them. When you look at the document as an organic whole, Congress has a list of powers in Article I. The Necessary and Proper clause empowers Congress to enact legislation as it deems necessary and appropriate to use those powers. That's the system's way of leaving their hands free to react to different needs and realities without tying their hands as to policy. Makes sense, right?

So...under the way I interpret it (and I'm mostly a moderate pragmatist in case you were interested) it's an if/then situation. IF the law is constitutional under the Commerce Clause, THEN the Court moves on to determine whether the specific law is necessary and proper to make use of that power. It has no power to question the wisdom of the policy, only whether it is rationally related to its intended, constitutionally authorized goal. 

There are, however, those to my left and those to my right whose method of interpretation either severs the object power from the necessary and proper clause in the case of the far right, since some on that fringe read each provision separately and without reference to the whole, or bestows the Necessary and Proper clause with its own assumed power albeit without object, which would be some on the farthest extreme of the left.  In either of those cases, you're looking at a pretty extreme construction but it exists.

I don't see how you can read the document either way and have it make any sense, personally. It's an organic four corners system, not a bunch of individual lines mashed together into a jumble of separate and unrelated statements. And the words and its manner of construction do have meanings - often vague ones that leave room for interpretation, but meanings nonetheless. But here's me getting all theoretical. 

And I was under the impression you were talking about the health care system/insurers previously. My mistake. 

With no injunction in place it's pretty clear the States need to move forward, the law other than the mandate remains in full effect. And the mandate isn't effective yet anyway.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 14, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



I see it, have to run for a bit but I'll look it over and get back to you later. At a casual glance it looks really interesting, but it needs a thorough read and a little side work. 

And thanks for putting it up!


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 14, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



We're holding our breath.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 14, 2010)

For you, QW. 

re: The Volokh Conspiracy  From Judge Hudson&#8217;s Pen to Justice Scalia&#8217;s Ear

I had to go back and read that Gonzales concurrence, I couldn't remember it. Holy Shit, Batman. I substantially agree with Scalia on something. 

Not entirely, but substantially.  

I agree more with several of the more cogent comments on that piece though, the lynchpin here is activity v. inactivity not implication of the necessary and proper clause. And for the reasons I stated above, because I don't think you get to the necessary and proper clause without first clearing the commerce clause hurdle. And once you clear that hurdle, the legislative gets a lot of deference as to what it deems necessary and proper as a policy to advance their goal. The necessary and proper clause alone gives no power, it only grants latitude in execution when coupled with an object. Which is basically Scalia's argument.

The judge here may be attempting to have Scalia's concurrence in Gonzales confirmed, the logic does make a lot more sense when you read the two side by side, but I can't see it happening. Simply because by applying his reasoning and vote in Gonzales, Scalia would likely have gone in the other direction. Remember, he concurred with Gonzales. That means he voted with the majority, he just had a different reason for his vote. And Gonzales is a extremely broad application of the commerce clause, using criminal sanction rather than civil penalties or taxes as is the case here.

Look at what Scalia argued. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The majority found regulation of personal marijuana cultivation constitutional under the commerce clause. Scalia said no, the regulation itself did not directly involve something that has an impact on interstate commerce and therefore was not authorized under the commerce clause. BUT, and this is a big but, that the necessary and proper clause allowed Congress to step outside the strict bounds of interstate commerce in order to effectively exercise its power. In other words it gave them wider latitude in what they could regulate and how it could be regulated than the commerce clause alone. It's not restrictive, it's empowering. That's significant - and not favorable for a ruling against PPACA.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 15, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Supreme Court Bound! Health Care Reform Law *Unconstitutional*



Yes, indeed it is. 

I predict that a SCOTUS 5-4 decision will affirm the USDC.

.


----------



## Kat (Dec 15, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Supreme Court Bound! Health Care Reform Law *Unconstitutional*
> ...





Well, I 'll be darn. Look who's back


----------



## Yurt (Dec 15, 2010)

Washington (CNN) -- Today is a good day for liberty. By striking down the unprecedented requirement that Americans buy health insurance -- the "individual mandate" -- Judge Henry Hudson vindicated the idea that ours is a government of delegated and enumerated, and thus limited, powers.

But this should not be surprising, for the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to force private commercial transactions. 

Even if the Supreme Court has broadened the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause -- it can now reach local activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce -- never before has it allowed people to face a civil penalty for declining to buy a particular product. Hudson found therefore that the individual mandate "is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution."

Stated another way, every exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce has involved some form of action or transaction engaged in by an individual or legal entity. The government's theory -- that the decision not to buy insurance is an economic one that affects interstate commerce in various ways -- would, for the first time ever, permit laws commanding people to engage in economic activity.



What judge's health care ruling means The government's theory ... would, for the first time ever, permit laws commanding people to engage in economic activity. 

Under such a reading, which judges in two other cases have unfortunately adopted, nobody would ever be able to plausibly claim that the Constitution limits congressional power. The federal government would then have wide authority to require that Americans engage in activities ranging from eating spinach and joining gyms (in the health care realm) to buying GM cars. Congress could tell people what to study or what job to take: We need fewer lawyers and more engineers, right?

As Hudson put it, "This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence."

Indeed, not even in the infamous 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn -- when the Supreme Court ratified Congress' regulation of what farmers grew in their backyards on the theory that such local activity, in the aggregate, affects national wheat prices -- have courts faced such a breathtaking assertion of raw federal power. Even at the height of the New Deal, Congress did not attempt to force people to buy wheat to support the new national agricultural policy. 

U.S. can't force people to buy stuff - CNN.com


----------



## Care4all (Dec 16, 2010)

aren't we forced to buy private auto insurance if we choose to drive our own cars on our own public roads payed for by our own taxes though?


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 16, 2010)

Care4all said:


> aren't we forced to buy private auto insurance if we choose to drive our own cars on our own public roads payed for by our own taxes though?



We are not required to carry auto insurance that pays for our own injuries or damages.  We are only required to carry a specified minimum amount for any injuries or damages that we might cause to others.  And if we choose to park that car and don't drive it on public roads, we are not required to have any kind of insurance on it.

Further, the matter of auto insurance is regulated within each individual state and is not the business of the Federal government.  Which is how health insurance is properly managed if government is going to be involved in that at all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 16, 2010)

Care4all said:


> aren't we forced to buy private auto insurance if we choose to drive our own cars on our own public roads payed for by our own taxes though?



No, we are not forced to buy insurance because not everyone owns a car. Additionally, the insurance those who choose to drive are required to purchase is liability insurance, and that does not cover us, it covers people we might injure and property we might damage. And, as a final point, the federal government does not force you to buy insurance.

Let us review the differences.

If you do not want to buy auto insurance, don't drive. If you do not want to buy health insurance, don't breathe. I think most people would see a slight difference in those. Auto insurance covers others against damage we might do if we choose to engage in a risky behavior. Health insurance covers us against whatever the government decides we need to be covered against. Auto insurance is imposed by state governments, the mandate is imposed by the federal government. While there are restrictions on state government powers they are generally a lot more powerful than the federal government in areas like this.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 16, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > aren't we forced to buy private auto insurance if we choose to drive our own cars on our own public roads payed for by our own taxes though?
> ...



You just made half of the Feds' argument and half of the State's.

The Feds are arguing that the insurance mandate is necessary because without it, the rest of us will be forced to carry the costs of both treatment for the uninsured and premium rates for the unhealthy who choose to purchase insurance. Only with the uninsured, those who choose to be uninsured generally being young and healthy, can there be a feasible cost structure to make the rest of the Act workable.

The State is making a Tenth Amendment argument that the mandate of lack thereof, in fact the entirety of the law, is solely within the purview of the States and the Federal government has no power to enact or enforce it. Similar to your statement concerning auto insurance.

And of course, adults can always choose not to go to the doctor if they're ill or injured. Children have mandated medical exams and vaccinations to attend public or private schools or child care facilities and are required to submit proof of such even when homeschooled in at least some states, and failure to seek medical care when needed can be considered neglect, but there is no such requirement for adults. So strictly speaking, medical care is also a choice, not a necessity. Most things when you get right down to it are choices The alternatives may not be attractive, but there are always alternatives.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 16, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



All factual statements but still not addressing the core issue.

Children have been required to get vaccinations etc. before attending school for a very long time now including well before either the federal or state governments got involved in that other than to urge parents to get it done.  Parents paid for it or in most places local communities set up periodic free vaccination clinics.  But all kids were required to go to school and all were required to be properly vaccinated before doing so and it got done.  Without involvement of the federal government.  

Children have always gotten sick and needed medical attention from time to time, and that was true before the the federal or state governments got involved in any way.  And most parents took their kids to the doctor and, if they didn't have money to pay at the time, they paid it out a few dollars a week or month until they paid their bills.  Many a time a local community took up collections to help out with an needed operation if the parents couldn't come up with the money.  Sure some parents were irresponsible and didn't do right by their kids but that was always the exception rather than the rule.  I think there are probably a higher percentage of parents now who don't do right by their kids.

Healthcare is no more essential to life, health, and happiness than is food, shelter, and clothing and it makes no more sense for the government to take over or control the entire healthcare industry any more than it makes sense for the government to take over and control all the other essentials of life.

The government should spend its energies setting up and enforcing anti trust and RICO laws and setting minimal standards of quality and safety for products and services and then let healthy competition in the free market make healthcare affordable as it does in all other essentials of life.  We'll all be better off.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 16, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Your restatement of the Government's position amounts to: This is constitutional because if it weren't we couldn't do all these jazzy things.
That isn't an argument.

The basic truth is: If the Federal government can mandate people to buy individual products then is there anything gov't cannot mandate people to do?  If the answer is no, then what is the point of having a government limited by the Constitution?


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 16, 2010)

One othe thought I didn't address in my previous post:

Where is it written that the federal OR state government has authority to require Citizen A to pay for Citizen B's health care?    Yes people in immediate crisis should be taken care of in an emergency and doctors and hospitals have always done that.  So lets get the federal and state governments out of the business of mandating that people who can'pay for their healthcare automatically get it free.  Lets go back to the policy of everybody paying what they can however small that amount might be.  They're paying for their beer and cigs and ho hos.  They can jolly well pay $10 - $20 - $50/month to pay off a doctor or emergency room bill.  And if they know they'll be expected to do that, they won't abuse the system.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 16, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



The question posed was whether the health insurance mandate was different from the auto insurance mandate enforced via civil and criminal penalty by the States. The straight factual answer is, it really isn't.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 16, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



The straight factual answer is, it is very different for all the reasons already enumerated.
If MA wants to mandate its citizens must buy health insurance, fine.  No one has to live there and states appear less limited in what they can do.
But the Federal gov't is different.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 16, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Uber fail again, gutter boy. Please post a link to any post of mine stating with certainty that this is constitutional, then if you're willing to stop following me around and accusing me of sleeping with people for money we can argue over the weak little straw man you built out of the rest of that unsupported blather. 

You gonna stalk me now? Getting tired of your usual female prey? Go for it. I've been called a lot worse than hooker and whore and told to do far worse than fuck off by far, far better than you and lived to laugh about it. Knock your socks off, you're only showing your own complete ignorance and lack of class.

Now back to that straw man....linkypoo please. Tick tock, tick tock, time's a-wastin'.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 16, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



WTF are you taking about?  Did I every say you thought it was constitutional? No.  I was stating your opinion of what you thought the gov'ts position is.
Again, your reading comprehension skills probably are on a par with your fellatio skills.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 16, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> The question posed was whether the health insurance mandate was different from the auto insurance mandate enforced via civil and criminal penalty by the States. The straight factual answer is, it really isn't.



No, I think it really is.

The auto insurance mandate is because every one of us puts other people at risk every time we get out on the road.  So, it makes sense that we show that we are able to make restitution should we cause injury or damage to others.  It is a reasonable cost for the privilege of using the public roads.  And if we choose not to drive on the public roads, we do not need and are not required to buy the insurance.

Should the government mandate people have Homeowners or flood  or earthquake Insurance?  It doesn't because the homeowner is allowed to assume the risk of fire, destructive winds, hail, flood, earthquake, theft, or somebody tripping and falling on the property.  But nobody is REQUIRED to come onto our property; therefore we do not automatically put anybody else at risk by maintaining a property UNLESS the government unconstitutionally and foolishly requires others to pay for our damages that we choose not to insure.

If I get sick I do not automatically put anybody else at risk UNLESS the government unconstitutionally and foolishly requires others to pay for me to see doctor or go to the emergency room or whatever.

Whenver or whatever the federal government becomes involved in re ANY kind of entitlement, it has ALWAYS resulted in higher costs than were originally advertised and resulted in long term unsustainability.  Auto insurance, however, has remained affordable and available throughout the land.  The federal government has not been involved in that.

The federal government should not be involved in healthcare either.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 16, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Nice backtrack, gutter boy. Now how about a little actual analysis of what's really been said and posted and perhaps even crafting some semblance of an argument if you're going to try to debate? 

Keep dancing for me, that's a good little gutter boy. You might graduate from rolling in the gutter to sleeping under the bridge if you keep behaving.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 16, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > The question posed was whether the health insurance mandate was different from the auto insurance mandate enforced via civil and criminal penalty by the States. The straight factual answer is, it really isn't.
> ...



Actually, you do put other people at risk when you get sick, both physically in the case of infectious disease and financially if you are uninsured and unable to pay for your own care. Those costs are invariably passed on to the rest of us either in the form of government paid insurance or in the form of higher costs for our own healthcare, or most likely both.

That's just fact.

Now whether the Federal government has the right to regulate economic inactivity under the commerce Clause is a different question, and an interesting one. But the individual States already do it, and in a different situation where there is another form of compensation available to victims in the form of civil tort liability. In the case of shouldering another's unpaid health care costs or in almost every case of succumbing to the public health risk of untreated communicable disease there is no secondary remedy. Which, if I'm to play Devil's Advocate here, makes a mandate for health insurance more necessary rather than less.


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

There are already systems and mechanisms in place to stop the spread of communicable diseases.

Can the government force you to buy a Chevy Volt?


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> There are already systems and mechanisms in place to stop the spread of communicable diseases.
> 
> Can the government force you to buy a Chevy Volt?



Precisely what systems and mechanisms would those be?


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > There are already systems and mechanisms in place to stop the spread of communicable diseases.
> ...



State and county health agencies and the CDC.

None of those work, but the new government programs will work?

What is the relationship between communicable diseases and health insurance, anyway?


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



That doesn't answer my question. What do those agencies _do_ to affect the spread of untreated communicable disease? What exactly are their systems and mechanisms? And if they don't work, why did you cite them as relevant to the discussion?

The link is simple. The uninsured are far less likely to seek medical care when they become ill. Which often leads to communicable illness of greater severity and longer duration with more damaging effects than if the illness were left untreated. History bears out the rest. The most obvious and glaring example being that if there had been antibiotic treatment in the Dark Ages, Europe would not have seen the Black Death. Look more recently at the deadly outbreaks of childhood diseases like mumps and measles among the unvaccinated in the US, which occurred in several states within this year alone. /shrug


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

There is no threat of the spread of communicable diseases in the absence of government mandated health insurance.

Where in this country is that happening?


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

When they are available, immunizations are free, or certainly cheaper than health insurance.

Viruses are communicable, but health insurance does nothing to stop their spread.

Another layer of government won't do anything about communicable diseases that all the other layers of government don't already do.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 16, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



Other people pay for unpaid health care costs only if the government mandates that they are required to.  But again, if we could get back to the system where people are actually expected/required to pay for their healthcare costs to the extent that they are able, people are far less likely to abuse the system and the unpaid for healthcare costs are going to be minimal.  People who can afford cigarettes, beer, television, cable, cell phones, computers, internet service etc. etc. etc. can jolly well afford to pay their medical bills however long that might take.  If they know they're going to be paying more at the Emergency Room, they'll take their kids to the doctor and pay less.

The free market has always been a better controller of overall costs than the federal government or most state governments can do.

Government mandated healthcare is not going to control communicable diseases any better than private healthcare.  The same exposures exist.  Government required quarantine for communicable diseases has helped in the past and should be mandated again, however.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 16, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Actually, the providers add  portion of their loss from their unpaid services in to their bills directly without asking the consumer's permission. Programs such as medicaid and "free" vaccinations are paid for using taxes, which are also not voluntary. There is no choice for the consumer. 

Nobody's talking about government healthcare here. Nobody's even talking about government insurance. At issue is the mandate to purchase private health insurance either with or without the State as a broker, which coverage makes healthcare more affordable and accessible when an illness occurs and protects the rest of us from paying off others' unpaid medical debt in our own bills. Or so goes the government's argument.

I'm actually not a fan of the PPACA, probably for some of the same and probably for some very different reasons than the reasons you dislike it, but when we're talking about constitutionality and whether the mandate portion of the bill is necessary and proper for those purposes, the argument that the policy advances the intended goal is pretty cut and dried.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 16, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Actually, the providers add  portion of their loss from their unpaid services in to their bills directly without asking the consumer's permission. Programs such as medicaid and "free" vaccinations are paid for using taxes, which are also not voluntary. There is no choice for the consumer.
> 
> Nobody's talking about government healthcare here. Nobody's even talking about government insurance. At issue is the mandate to purchase private health insurance either with or without the State as a broker, which coverage makes healthcare more affordable and accessible when an illness occurs and protects the rest of us from paying off others' unpaid medical debt in our own bills. Or so goes the government's argument.
> 
> I'm actually not a fan of the PPACA, probably for some of the same and probably for some very different reasons than the reasons you dislike it, but when we're talking about constitutionality and whether the mandate portion of the bill is necessary and proper for those purposes, the argument that the policy advances the intended goal is pretty cut and dried.



Not cut and dried to me.  The very day that Medicare went into effect, there was abuse of the system by medical personnel.   And once they figured out there were no consequences, widespread abuse of the system by patients also became a factor.

The government had deep deep pockets and wouldn't question 'legitimate' healthcare services.  And from that day forward, costs began increasing proportionately to the 'free' government monies paid for healthcare costs.  Ditto for Medicaid.   And the government caps on Medicare and Medicaid payments shifted the costs to the rest of us so that private insurance premiums began escalating at a rapid rate.  And the more mandates the government piled on--nobody could be turned away for ANY reason for any medical treatment and those who couldn't pay would be paid for by the hospital or the state--private insurance became even more expensive.  Little or no accountability was required by anybody and individual responsibility was out the window altogether.

Such is the track record of essentially all government entitlements.

To think that adding 40+ million more people to the system won't dramatically further increase costs is absurd.  To think that government caps on what doctors and hospitals can charge while addressing none of their costs won't drive many out of the business altogether is also absurd.

There is much the federal and state government could do to make the system more efficient:
1.  Cap punative awards in all but the most egregious cases of negligence so that there would be less necessity for 'defensive medicine' and malpractice insurance would be more affordable.
2.  Form assigned risk pools for the difficult to insure.
3.  Establish and enforce anti trust laws so that insurance companies won't enjoy near monopolies in any place and will be forced to compete.
4.  Allow doctors and other medical providers to charge everybody for their services and collect what they can get.  Eliminate free healthcare as an entitlement for anybody.
5.  Expect parents to provide food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare for their kids.  Those that cannot or will not will be at risk of losing their kids rather than being compensated more for having more kids.  (Exceptions can be made for extenuating circumstances, but for the most part put the responsibility back on the individual where it has always belonged.)
6.  Require all insurance to be portable.  Employees covered under an employers plan have the option to take their policy with them and pay for it themselves when they change jobs or are fired or laid off.

There are many such ways to enable and empower the free market to bring down costs and insure more people without the government taking over and micromanaging the whole thing.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 16, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, the providers add  portion of their loss from their unpaid services in to their bills directly without asking the consumer's permission. Programs such as medicaid and "free" vaccinations are paid for using taxes, which are also not voluntary. There is no choice for the consumer.
> ...



I actually agree with some of that, but when you're talking about the constitutionality of a law none of it matters a whit. It doesn't matter if a law is good or makes sense, it doesn't matter if the policy actually works as intended, it only matters that it is allowed under current constitutional guidelines OR, more difficult to win, that it highlights a serious flaw in the current constitutional guidelines that must be changed.

IOW the courts have no authority to strike down a law for being a bad law, only for being an unauthorized one. The fact that there are many, many other paradigms Congress could have adopted that could or would have gotten better results is irrelevant to the courts. They can only work with what's before them applying the laws as they exist to the arguments that are made.

I realize we're looking at this from very different places and points of view, but the suggestions you're making simply cannot be addressed anywhere but Congress and don't enter into the discussion of whether PPACA is or is not constitutional.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 16, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



Unless some judge comes at it as constitutional because it 'promotes the general welfare' or addresses the 'common good' or some such as that and uses various cherry picked examples as precedence for declaring this law constitutional.

I can see how that might come under consideration in some courts--is it necessary because there is no alternative?  Judicial activism is not entirely a new concept these days.  And I can't prove it, but I think public opinion has played a part in SCOTUS decisions too.

But I do appreciate your focus on the constitutionality issue as opposed to the Congressional approach and of course you are right.  I believe the mandate to be insured is unconstitutional and must not be upheld.  If it is allowed to stand, I see that as a precedent that could be used to strip  us of all choices, options, and self determination and would pretty well render moot the intent of the Constitution to limit the powers of the federal government.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 16, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Again, your reading comprehension skills probably are on a par with your fellatio skills.



I assume then that you give really, really good read.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 16, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



Translation: Yes, I mis-understood what you wrote but I have to cover myself and attack so I dont look stoopid.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 16, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



Really? 

The last time I got seriously sick I simply stayed home, and was fine in a few days. No doctor visit, not danger to anyone else, and no cost to anyone but myself. In fact, no real cost to myself because lost wages are not an expense.

Exactly how did my insurance status impact anyone?


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 16, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I'd like to speak to Congress about passing such a piece of pork and calling it health care legislation, but unfortunately they don't exactly answer their phone for me either.  So at this point until and unless a bill comes up repealing or amending PPACA, we're stuck with the only action being court action. So that's where I try to focus, since I like to be where the action is. 

The way it was framed at the District level, in the statement of jurisdiction within PPACA itself and the way it will play out is as a commerce clause issue, with a potential side question of whether the mandate itself falls within the (broad but not entirely unlimited) scope of the necessary and proper clause.

Which is where I come down as an "I don't know" on the eventual way this will pan out as far as the commerce clause issue goes. There's a pretty good argument either way in other fields of law where economic activity v. inactivity is at issue ranging from FICA taxes on severance packages to issues like the auto insurance mandates at the State level. But as far as Federal law specifically exacting a penalty for choosing not to participate in economic activity, no, there is no case or other law directly addressing it. 

IMO, if it's found to be constitutional under the commerce clause the mandate will stand under the necessary and proper clause because at that point it relates closely to applicable precedent in Gonzales and Wickard. I had a side conversation elsewhere with a poster here talking about the possibility of a 10th Amendment based argument using a case called Printz, where a policy was found to be outside the scope of the necessary and proper clause because it was an issue that had previously specifically been ruled to belong solely to the States. But there is no such ruling on health insurance, if there were there could and would be no VA, medicaid or medicare.

I'm not sure the consequences are as dire as all that if PPACA stands though. (Beyond the law sucking eggs, that is) The argument being made here is fairly narrow, and would not affect government's power to force people to purchase usual goods ad services such as cars or clothing. And at the State level there are already insurance mandates as has been pointed out, those being more onerous because they are usually enforceable by criminal penalties rather a tax or surcharge. People sometimes forget that at minimum 80% of the laws we all live under are either State or local in nature, not Federal. I'd be just as concerned about placing broad new powers in the hands of the States as I would be that of the Feds, honestly.

Yep, there's been plenty of judicial activism - on both sides of the aisle, I might add. But this is, or should be, a fairly straightforward commerce question. It'll be interesting to see how it develops as the case progresses.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 16, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I take a continuing treatment and pay for it out of my own pocket, despite having insurance.  How does that effect anyone else?
I wish more people would do that.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 16, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > goldcatt said:
> ...



You wish more people would be idiotic enough to pay for insurance and then pay again to not use it? Or is your treatment not covered by your plan so you pay out of pocket, and you're trying to turn that into a virtue? Or are you ripping off your insurer by not having them pay for treatments and therefore are deliberately withholding information about a condition that would make your premiums skyrocket under the law and hoping they don't find out about it on their own and dump you for fraud?

Either way...wow. You really are a sucker.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 16, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Jesus are you stupid and arrogant.  Bad combination.
In fact I wont meet the deductible anyway and I negotiated a cash discount with the doctor. Saves everyone time, money and paperwork


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 16, 2010)

Even if they just throw out the mandate it won't change the law that much.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 16, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Even if they just throw out the mandate it won't change the law that much.




Other than the fact that the entire mess was financially justified by forcing everyone to participate.

Oh, and now the penalty fee which wasn't a tax is a tax.

When they have to LIE to get the bill passed, that's a big clue that it shouldn't have been passed in the first place.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Even if they just throw out the mandate it won't change the law that much.
> ...



How many people actually don't have and don't want health insurance?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 16, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



"That's not the point!!! This infringes upon our god given freedoms!!! blah, blah, blah...."


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 16, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Even if they just throw out the mandate it won't change the law that much.



Except there was no severability clause added so if one part is unconstitutional, the whole thing.  Or at least I believe that's the case.  I might be wrong.
And as pointed out, the mandate was critical to making it at least appear like it might be affordable.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


Echo chamber much?

There are plenty of people who don't have health insurance.  There are plenty of people who don't want it because they have lots of other things to pay for, like student loans.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 16, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



LOL, Here we go again.

There is a difference between not having insurance because you can't afford it and being able to afford it but choosing not to purchase it anyway. That's what he was asking.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I'll add "mind reader" to "mathematician" on your list of accomplishments.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



And most people between 25 and 40 choose not to buy insurance even if they can afford it because they judge, usually correctly, that they do not need it. Why should they have to get insurance just so whiners like you have to pay less?


----------



## Trajan (Dec 16, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



they needed the mandate to make the numbers come out where they wanted them to, forget they lowered it almost immediately anyway, they just submitted the 6 years of taxes oops fees and the like vs. only 4 years of the system acutally running, the Spending,   plus the bribes and it was done. 

Without the mandate the money they need to buttress the extended care to all those  folks who don't have it and/or won't as you say in that age range buy it, the whole magilla is a goner. 

They can re- submit more rigged figures to the CBO if they like, but anyone with a lick of common sense knows that the money to pay for  someone who has no policy and then shops and buys one with subsidy only when they are then sick etc, makes this all bologna.  No mandate no money to help offset this cost.

So, where does it come from?...


----------

