• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,041
Reaction score
33,367
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

WASHINGTON | Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:24pm EDT
The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.
Here we go again.
 
Link


Here we go again.

Obviously this is a court stacked by the Kock Brothers and "Big Pharma" who don't care about the poor, the elderly or "the children" and of course, don't realize the superior system of UHC.
 
On to the Supremes.
 
The gov could have avoided all this follow-up drama if they had just avoided 'requiring' anything - and just made it an option for those who qualified like all other government programs are run.

Foodstamps and pell grants haven't put banks and product manufacturers out of business :shrug:
 
Obviously this is a court stacked by the Kock Brothers and "Big Pharma" who don't care about the poor, the elderly or "the children" and of course, don't realize the superior system of UHC.

First, big pharma WROTE Obama care.
Second, there's not enough money to pay for UHC.
Third, as this court has deemed, Obamacare is unconstitutional, so, without changing the constitution the US canno have UHC because the founders preferred that people be individually responsible, and independent of as much government controls as possible.
 
Obviously this is a court stacked by the Kock Brothers and "Big Pharma" who don't care about the poor, the elderly or "the children" and of course, don't realize the superior system of UHC.

Obamacare is not a good representation of UHC.

Also, the decision of this court would not negatively affect the majority of those you are talking about, since this decision does not affect the eligibility of those groups to get either Medicaid or Medicare. In fact, the decision of the court could possibly help a few of those that would be sitting right on the edge of availability, make just a little too much to qualify for Medicaid but not really enough to afford healthcare for everyone in the family. Either they could continue to live without healthcare or at least have the money on monthly payments or from the tax penalty to afford as-needed healthcare or it will force the government to actually come up with a true NHC system, that isn't a national healthcare insurance system.
 
U.S. Appeals Court Rules Against Obama's Health Care Law

Fox News said:
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that a provision in President Obama's health care law requiring citizens to buy health insurance is unconstitutional, but didn't strike down the rest of the law.

The decision is a major setback for the White House, which had appealed a ruling by a federal district judge who struck down the entire law in January. But the case is clearly headed to the Supreme Court, which will have the final say.

On Friday, the divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with 26 states that filed a lawsuit to block Obama's signature domestic initiative.The panel said that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by requiring Americans to buy insurance or face penalties.

Read more: U.S. Appeals Court Rules Against Obama's Health Care Law - FoxNews.com

Supreme court bound no doubt. The lower court rulings of "unconstitutional" are adding up.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Appeals Court Rules Against Obama's Health Care Law

Supreme court bound no doubt. The lower court rulings of "unconstitutional" are adding up.

Without the mandate, the law is toast.
 
The gov could have avoided all this follow-up drama if they had just avoided 'requiring' anything - and just made it an option for those who qualified like all other government programs are run.

Foodstamps and pell grants haven't put banks and product manufacturers out of business :shrug:

I've always favored the idea of liberals just going their own way and creating their own voluntary universal health care system. They could invite anyone who wanted to join and then they could price it so that it was self-sustaining. Putting one's money where one's mouth is blazing a trail is a pretty good way of going about things.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged
 
The gov could have avoided all this follow-up drama if they had just avoided 'requiring' anything - and just made it an option for those who qualified like all other government programs are run.

Foodstamps and pell grants haven't put banks and product manufacturers out of business :shrug:

Private businesses aren't required to provide foodstamps and pell grants for each of their employees, either.
 
..Third, as this court has deemed, Obamacare is unconstitutional, so, without changing the constitution the US canno have UHC because the founders preferred that people be individually responsible, and independent of as much government controls as possible.

no, the Appeals Court has deemed the individual mandate to be unConstitutional, not ALL of Obamacare.

and the SCOTUS has the final say anyways, so who cares what the lower courts think.
 
Private businesses aren't required to provide foodstamps and pell grants for each of their employees, either.

My point with that line goes to people's arguments that the government's health care erquirement will put private insurance companies (etc) out of business.

But we have countless thriving private businesses even know - even WITH the function and presence of government support and aid that's provided. The Health Department gives immunizations - but numerous doctors still do. Free dental clinics still give dental exams and work to the poor - but dentists are still very much *in* business.

On and on - I think there's plenty of proof that just because the government offers something the private businesses who offer it as well won't necessarily be folding under.
 
no, the Appeals Court has deemed the individual mandate to be unConstitutional, not ALL of Obamacare.

and the SCOTUS has the final say anyways, so who cares what the lower courts think.

The quicker this entire bill is toilet paper, the better off we'll all be.
 
My point with that line goes to people's arguments that the government's health care erquirement will put private insurance companies (etc) out of business.

But we have countless thriving private businesses even know - even WITH the function and presence of government support and aid that's provided. The Health Department gives immunizations - but numerous doctors still do. Free dental clinics still give dental exams and work to the poor - but dentists are still very much *in* business.

On and on - I think there's plenty of proof that just because the government offers something the private businesses who offer it as well won't necessarily be folding under.

Pell grants and food stamps don't directly effect a company's bottom line, the way that Obamacare will. Cutting into the bottom line, even more and during a depression will most certainly cause businesses to go belly up. There are alot of them that are holding on by shoestring, as it is.
 
The quicker this entire bill is toilet paper, the better off we'll all be.

Except for hte people who don't earn enough to cover their own insurance or basic healthcare costs - they won't have anything after all this is said and done.

Somehow - if it mattered to the liberals and democrats - they'd figure out another way to care for these people.

I think they should just alter an existing healthcare program that the government and my state are in for together - like 'AR Kids 1st' - it's a partial insurance program for parents who don't qualify for 100% gov-funded healthcare. It requires a small co-pay at each office visit of maybe $10.00

I think something like that hsould just be altered and expanded to include anyone who's willing to pay a small copay and seed fee each month - child-having status, marital status shouldn't be factored in - income can be higher than that for the cut off for government foodstamps (example) - and there should be a grace period when coverage ends to ensure that those shifting to their private insurance don't go without.
 
Last edited:
The quicker this entire bill is toilet paper, the better off we'll all be.

Right, I'm impressed by Republicans' efforts to protect people who sponge off the health care system, costing those of us who do pay for their own insurance a significant amount of money. Save the free riders! To hell with personal responsibility! The new Republican slogan....
 
Right, I'm impressed by Republicans' efforts to protect people who sponge off the health care system, costing those of us who do pay for their own insurance a significant amount of money. Save the free riders! To hell with personal responsibility! The new Republican slogan....

To bad we didn't try and find away to cover those with no insurance as opposed to wasting a year on something that's just going to get tossed.
 
this is a signficant development on several levels

politically, it is high wind in the anti's sails, a strongly worded statement in favor of TWENTY SIX attorneys general of the united states

this is historically completely unprecedented, radically unprecedented, to have the majority of the commonwealths' depts of justice SUE the federal govt in objection to a major social reform enacted (by senate reconciliation) just months before...

the first dem appointee came over to the anti's in atlanta, as well

this is seriously sobering and depressing news for the white house

on substance, we are a significant footstep closer to scotus and ultimate repeal

patience, patriots, we will prevail
 
Pell grants and food stamps don't directly effect a company's bottom line, the way that Obamacare will. Cutting into the bottom line, even more and during a depression will most certainly cause businesses to go belly up. There are alot of them that are holding on by shoestring, as it is.

Well - the healthcare and it's rising costs are the fault of insurance being made readily available at the end of WWII, really - they created this market that they now are drowning in and trying to bailout of . . . the government could just be another player on the board. I have gov insurance - Blue Cross and Shield and other locals aren't suffering for my absence.
 
I want to see the health care law scrapped, not because I am against the idea, but because what ended up coming to pass was a watered down piece of crap. It basically played right into the hands of insurance corporations who are part of the problem in the first place.

It's funny to note though that if this has been something the right wing had supported, they would call these judges "activist" for ruling it unconstitutional.
 
if this has been something the right wing had supported, they would call these judges "activist" for ruling it unconstitutional

over this particular use of the commerce clause?

no way
 
I want to see the health care law scrapped, not because I am against the idea, but because what ended up coming to pass was a watered down piece of crap. It basically played right into the hands of insurance corporations who are part of the problem in the first place.

It's funny to note though that if this has been something the right wing had supported, they would call these judges "activist" for ruling it unconstitutional.

These sort of posts never make any sense to me. You agree that it's a bad law and needs overturned but yet you just can't stop there. You still have to lash out at someone.
 
If greedy kkkhristianist kkkapitalist kkkreationist kkkaucasianisist doctors didn't have to make a bazillion dollars every year, then maybe healthcare would be affordable. They vacation in their second homes while minorities, non-christians, and the poor basically just have to deal with whatever illness comes their way. F***ing greedy f***s destroy the environment with their excessive consumption while the underprivileged classes are crushed by illness. Shame on this country.
 
Back
Top Bottom