It was passed in a legitimate manner and deemed legitimate through judicial review of the highest form. Good enough for me, and not sufficient grounds for a lawsuit.
Bull****, they went through the reconcilliation process to lower the amount of votes needed for passage. Then the only slim thread that held it together was the taxing powers of congress when the mandate reached SCOTUS, John Roberts used tortured logic to apply tax powers to something the federal government had no other authority constitutionally to enact. Literally, this thing had to be massaged into constitutionality by the Supreme Court.
Many folks out there with preexisitng conditions would hardly fall under the category of dumb or guilty of any social or health sins per se, especially those who have fallen victim to work related injuries, genetic predispositions and other conditions of the sort. You might even know a few.
Yes and Yes. In what manner would those two facts legitimize a lawsuit filed against it's participants? Anything of note outside of personal grievances?
Because if I did what they did when I sold I'd be in prison, and sued into the poor house. This is from someone who knew how the industry works, so why in the hell should a bunch of idiots with no practical knowledge get to screw an entire sixth of the economy up with no penalties? It's obviously bad law to anyone being honest, both in execution AND by the process by which it was passed.
Did what now?
Hmm, ignoring the rules, not giving constituents information "until it was passed", misrepresentation, fraud, lying, inducement, bribery. I can further explain all of that if you'd like.
I'll have to ask you again to cut to the chase, what laws were violated that would warrant a lawsuit (legitimate preferably) be aimed towards all participants who voted for the ACA?
Well, let's see. Issuing a mandate against constitutional authority under either the commerce clause or state powers clause, fraud("Have to pass the bill to see what's in it" ring a bell?), bribery(Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana purchase), misusing congressional protocol by using a budget rule to get the votes needed reduced. None of that was ethical, some of it was pretty much illegal, and all of it would get your average citizen thrown in jail.
Gleeming over the rehashed arguments, and right to the meat of the post. Pretty much illegal according to a casual bystander's point of view? Doesn't cut it. Just orphan that original argument about the merits of granting every Tom Dick and Harry the ability to sue the living you know what out of any congressman with whom they have a personal grievance, and all of this silliness will just disappear.
And here is where the problem lies. People are willing to excuse politicians being protected from things that citizens, i.e. their employers would have to answer for. "The ends justify the means" right?
Just wondering from what source you derived the idea that individualism as a whole will simply be cast out the window because of seemingly unstated text regarding health reform.
The relationship between Employers and employees, and Representatives and constituents is not analogous in the least. Past the surface of the claim, I'm sure you would agree as well. After all, employers who choose not to contribute to their employers health care costs are in your words "screwing them over" in regards to their personal finances. Should an employee be able to sue said employer? Should I be able to levy a lawsuit against an employer who reduces my hours? Cuts my wages? If we're being honest here, comparing employers and legislative representatives is indeed a fool's errand even when using your standards.
You're right, I can't use bribery to do business. I cannot take other people's money through taxation, then give it to a senator to do what I want them to do. When I was in the insurance business I had to go through compliance departments before giving anything more than marketing based office supplies as gifts because..............it could be inducement. I can't threaten people with a fund cutoff to get them to change their minds, that's coercion, and I couldn't falsify anything when selling a product, that would be fraud. I could not have anything in a policy change without notice, so you're right, our employees(representatives) are not being held to the ethical standards they IMPOSE by law on others. Thank you for making my point.
Well, you could in a roundabout way. Bribery is a crime that's not terribly easy to prosecute. Lot's of subjectivity at play.
Okay, but political bribery like the "Cornhusker kickback" and the "Louisiana purchase" are exactly the same thing as if I were to induce a big client into signing up for the products I offered except for two differences. 1) The political inducements were right out in the open and 2) I would have gone to prison.
Table HIB-2. Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage All Persons by Age and Sex: 1999 to 2011
Well, who was Nelson harming? Several other states were granted deals as well which aided their citizenry at large. Nothing particularly illegal about it. Also, many politicians go to jail for bribery, when a concrete case can be formed. As stated before, bribery isn't the easiest charge to litigate.
I mentioned the other major payout, "The Louisiana Purchase" which involved Mary Landrieu. They did harm, they harmed the process of representation, this bill harms businesses and insured, it harms a sixth of the U.S. economy. You were saying?
And Bobby Jindal. Louisiana isn't terribly self sufficient and obviously relies on federal assistance heavily. The extended Medicaid programs obviously required additional federal funding in order to render the plan feasible.
Now you are reaching. Jindal didn't have anything to do with the funds for Landrieu's vote, Louisiana is in a growth period right now. And if you didn't realize that health services are 1/6 of the overall U.S. economy we're done discussing this.