• 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!

Health Care Reform Provision Is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

obama's view of universal coverage---buy it yourself---has been perverse from the get go

in the spring the show me's of missouri (who very famously are remarkably representative of the nation as a whole) voted SEVENTY ONE to TWENTY NINE to outlaw this mendacious mandate

Prop C passes overwhelmingly

on november 2, tsunami tuesday, voters in arizona (by a plurality of 11) and oklahoma (by 28) joined the overwhelming majority of show me's

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...rance_Reform_Amendment,_Proposition_106_(2010)

Oklahoma Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Question 756 (2010) - Ballotpedia

georgia, idaho, louisiana and virginia have passed laws at the state level striking down the mandate inside their borders

Health insurance mandate on ballot in 3 states - Health - Health care - msnbc.com

ag in florida bill mccollum on behalf of TWENTY of his fellows is challenging the requirement that states take on these additional TWELVE MILLION medicaid members WITH NO FEDERAL FUNDING

the point---legalities aside, these poison pills in the president's plan are prodigiously unpopular

ie, should john boehner and mitch mcconnell take em on, they will only continue to profit politically

just like the 1099's requirement, which the gop saved this morning for the 112th, ie, the BOEHNER CONGRESS

Republicans say nix to Democrats' health law fix - Sarah Kliff and Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com

why do so many providers keep trying to ESCAPE?

More Health Waivers | Jamie Dupree Washington Insider

is obamacare a gulag, or something?

why does hhs sebelius keep LETTING EM GO?

is she scared folks WON'T be able to KEEP THEIR PLANS IF THEY LIKE EM?

what's she gonna say to the next 222 applicant's?

how are the states to PAY FOR the 12 million new enrollees?

Governors balk over what healthcare bill will cost states - The Boston Globe

ask bill richardson, christine gregoire, brain schweitzer, jim ritter and tennessee's phil bredesen, all dems

Dem Governor: Obamacare a ‘Stunning Disappointment’ - By Daniel Foster - The Corner - National Review Online

why has er traffic actually INCREASED in massachusetts, despite all the pretty promises of this particular payfor?

ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe

what are patients in the health care ghetto, medicaid, sposed to do when their doctors REFUSE to treat em?

the point---them's an awful lot of political plums for the reprobates to go picking

and where's your NEW OBAMA gonna stand in his NEW CENTER?

LOL!

you couldn't see this coming?

HE couldn't?

rank amateurs

party on!
 
Last edited:
The above came from some one who repeatedly told us "Health Care reform is dead. Bank on it".
 
Redress said:
The above came from some one who repeatedly told us "Health Care reform is dead. Bank on it".
Click to expand...

So far it's headed that way....either that or Obama better get the printing press to start printing those waivers....lol.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
So far it's headed that way....either that or Obama better get the printing press to start printing those waivers....lol.


j-mac
Click to expand...

So far actually it is not headed that way, since most judges have rules that it is constitutional out of those that even heard the challenge. Details, they are important.
 
Redress said:
So far actually it is not headed that way, since most judges have rules that it is constitutional out of those that even heard the challenge. Details, they are important.
Click to expand...

Uh huh....We'll see won't we.


j-mac
 
SO why is it that we can expect Americans by-law to purchase insurance, and yet we cant mandate that people provide for their families and children? And if we wont expect them to feed their children what on earth makes anyone think they will pay for insurance? How does ANYONE realistically believe this flies?
 
j-mac said:
So far it's headed that way....either that or Obama better get the printing press to start printing those waivers....lol.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Like I said in post #63, the issue is "penalty" -vs- "tax". Moreover, joint state/regional high-risk pools (HRPs) will act as the prelude to joint state/regional health insurance exchanges. The PPAC Act will very likely be declared constitutional before it's all said and done because the framework for it has already been laid. I doubt if this case gets to the Supreme Court before the law goes into effect in 2014, but if it does the success or failure of the HRPs will be the real justification for striking the law down. Opponents (Republican governors) will do everything they can to stall their effectiveness, but those sick individuals who have had success using the HRPs will be the true witnesses to its effectiveness.

Again, how do you like your popcorn? With or without butter? Carmel? Spicing seasoning? I'm partial to the white fluffy kind w/o the kernals. My daughter hooked me on it...that stuff's addictive!!!
 
VanceMack said:
SO why is it that we can expect Americans by-law to purchase insurance, and yet we cant mandate that people provide for their families and children? And if we wont expect them to feed their children what on earth makes anyone think they will pay for insurance? How does ANYONE realistically believe this flies?
Click to expand...

Because the law provides provisions (aid) for the poor to receive credit to defray the cost OR go directly into Medicaid. Moreover, people who have health care via their employer won't have a problem retaining health care with said employer even if said employer changes insurance companies. As long as the employer makes the insurance available at the start of every enrollment period which the law mandates they must do, no one gets dropped. Instead, the individuals chooses to acquire health care via some other means, i.e., they pay for it themselves or go without. In such case, the mandate tax "penalty" kicks in.
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
When is a loss not really so bad?

Hudson ruled against the government, but he didn't stop it (you can read the full opinion here). He refused the plaintiff's request for an injunction against the legislation's continued implementation. The construction of the bill's infrastructure will continue.
Click to expand...
Yes, they can "build infrastructure" but they can't actually implement it -- so it has the same effect as an injunction, only they're not barred from making preparations in the event the decision gets overturned on appeal.

The judge felt no irreparable harm would occur in allowing the government to make preparations that could easily be reversed.

Chappy said:
And second, he refused to overrule anything but the individual mandate itself…
Click to expand...
Well, the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision and any provision that is directly dependent on it.

It seems extremely unlikely that he would have invalidated a 2,700 page bill -- much of which had nothing to do with health care -- simply because of this one provision. So, no surprise here.
 
Taylor said:
Yes, they can "build infrastructure" but they can't actually implement it -- so it has the same effect as an injunction, only they're not barred from making preparations in the event the decision gets overturned on appeal.

The judge felt no irreparable harm would occur in allowing the government to make preparations that could easily be reversed.
Click to expand...

It's not going to be implemented until 2014, so it's not exactly a big deal. It will be through the court system by then. So your "same effect" is no effect.
 
Not much else matters actually except,
A.
The majority of americans dont like the plan,
and therefor
B.
a majority republican house wont fund it.

it's dead in the water, effectivly repealed.
 
Objective Voice said:
Because the law provides provisions (aid) for the poor to receive credit to defray the cost OR go directly into Medicaid. Moreover, people who have health care via their employer won't have a problem retaining health care with said employer even if said employer changes insurance companies. As long as the employer makes the insurance available at the start of every enrollment period which the law mandates they must do, no one gets dropped. Instead, the individuals chooses to acquire health care via some other means, i.e., they pay for it themselves or go without. In such case, the mandate tax "penalty" kicks in.
Click to expand...

Do you really (are you serious? Are you serious??? NP) believe that there will be private insurance 5-10 years from now? And who is 'poor'? Is it anyone under the $250k cap? Anyone under the poverty level? And how much is that going to jack up the costs (which is why they will eventually insist the only answer is increasing taxes and offering universal healthcare...sure...you can pay for insurance...again...)? How many employers will just pay the fine (considering the fine is projected to be less than the cost of providing coverage)? And how many more business will get 'waivers' so they wont be included in the requirment to provide coverage for their employees?

I see one future...shut down medicare, medicaid, coverage for seniors, shut down VA hospitals: one system...universal healthcare. For all except the very wealthy who will pay for private doctors or go to another country for their healthcare.
 
The Prof said:
abc, today: obamacare popularity at all time low

New Low in Support for Health Care Reform - The Numbers

seeya in congress, folks
Click to expand...
The only way Congress has any affect on the health care reform law is if by or before 2014 we have a Republican Congress and a Republican president. Otherwise, it's all on the SC as to the constitutionality of this law. So, grab a seat and watch the theater unfold.

Do you take seasoned salt or hot sauce on your popcorn? Yellow or white? (I'm sorry...I just gotta laugh at all the hysteria on this issue. Nothing's going to be final until the SC has its say. BTW, the Virginia District court judge may as well recuse himself now that reports are out concerning his apparent ties to the forthcoming House Speaker and the GOP. Where's the impartiality in our judicial system?)
 
As I said,
you find a way to get it out of the house with "funding" and we will talk about your popcorn feast.

Some of you make things too complicated..
 
VanceMack said:
Do you really (are you serious? Are you serious??? NP) believe that there will be private insurance 5-10 years from now? And who is 'poor'? Is it anyone under the $250k cap? Anyone under the poverty level? And how much is that going to jack up the costs (which is why they will eventually insist the only answer is increasing taxes and offering universal healthcare...sure...you can pay for insurance...again...)? How many employers will just pay the fine (considering the fine is projected to be less than the cost of providing coverage)? And how many more business will get 'waivers' so they wont be included in the requirment to provide coverage for their employees?

I see one future...shut down medicare, medicaid, coverage for seniors, shut down VA hospitals: one system...universal healthcare. For all except the very wealthy who will pay for private doctors or go to another country for their healthcare.
Click to expand...

But that's what's so hilariously sad about this entire state of affairs. Conservatives could and SHOULD have done something about this 17 YEARS AGO after HillaryCare was voted down in '93. They knew health care costs were spiralling out of control. They knew people were being denied medical coverage. They knew families were one catastrophic illness or injury away from filing bankruptcy due to high medical cost. They knew tort reform was a big financial burden on doctors, surgeons and hospitals. And they knew Medicare and Medicaid (not to mention the cost to VA Hospitals) were skyrocketing, and yet they did nothing in that 17 year period except play political games, i.e., the individual mandate was a good thing when they included it in health care reform then but suddenly once health care reform passes it's a bad idea and it's unconstitutional? And it was their idea!!
 
shades said:
As I said,
you find a way to get it out of the house with "funding" and we will talk about your popcorn feast.

Some of you make things too complicated..
Click to expand...

I'm not making it complicated. I'm just stating fact of which you countered with congressional appropriations which isn't a repeal but rather a stalling tactic.

If Republicans want to repeal the health reform law then repeal it! But they'd better come up with something far better than what they'd tear down or they're likely to regret their action should things ever come to that.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
It's not going to be implemented until 2014, so it's not exactly a big deal.
Click to expand...
LOL maybe you didn't realize.. but none of this is "exactly a big deal" until the case is decided by the Supreme Court. Until then, we get to discuss lower court decisions.
 
Taylor said:
LOL maybe you didn't realize.. but none of this is "exactly a big deal" until the case is decided by the Supreme Court. Until then, we get to discuss lower court decisions.
Click to expand...

Maybe you did not realize, but I was responding to your point that it not being implemented now was some sort of victory.
 
Redress said:
Maybe you did not realize, but I was responding to your point that it not being implemented now was some sort of victory.
Click to expand...
Then you're reponding to something you imagined. I never claimed or implied it was "some sort of victory" -- I was parphrasing the law as it was laid out in the judge's decision.
 
disneydude said:
Sorry...don't listen to any of the media whores (left wing or right wing). She clearly didn't have a clue what is contained in the first Amendment.
Click to expand...

actually she did and she was correct. but that's a discussion for a different thread. the misogynistic attack on conservative women goes on.
 
Taylor said:
Yes, they can "build infrastructure" but they can't actually implement it -- so it has the same effect as an injunction, only they're not barred from making preparations in the event the decision gets overturned on appeal.
Click to expand...

Taylor said:
Then you're reponding to something you imagined. I never claimed or implied it was "some sort of victory" -- I was parphrasing the law as it was laid out in the judge's decision.
Click to expand...

This is where we show your own words in actuality. Note what I was responding to. Note that "has the same effect as an injunction" is false, for the reasons I pointed out.
 
Objective Voice said:
But that's what's so hilariously sad about this entire state of affairs. Conservatives could and SHOULD have done something about this 17 YEARS AGO after HillaryCare was voted down in '93. They knew health care costs were spiralling out of control. They knew people were being denied medical coverage. They knew families were one catastrophic illness or injury away from filing bankruptcy due to high medical cost. They knew tort reform was a big financial burden on doctors, surgeons and hospitals. And they knew Medicare and Medicaid (not to mention the cost to VA Hospitals) were skyrocketing, and yet they did nothing in that 17 year period except play political games, i.e., the individual mandate was a good thing when they included it in health care reform then but suddenly once health care reform passes it's a bad idea and it's unconstitutional? And it was their idea!!
Click to expand...

You are assuming 'conservatives' think this has ANY business in the government arena. Dont make the mistake of assuming 'republicans' are 'conservatives'. Republicans are democrats are republicans are democrats. They are two sides of the same worthless coin.

That being said...Im all for STATES deciding (if it be the will of the citizens of their state) to create a health care system. let the states run it, manage it, govern it (and tax THEIR people) accordingly. But getting the fed involved? Anyone that thinks thats a good idea quite simply isnt invested in paying for the feds manic spending habits.
 
Taylor said:
LOL maybe you didn't realize.. but none of this is "exactly a big deal" until the case is decided by the Supreme Court. Until then, we get to discuss lower court decisions.
Click to expand...

yup. i'm so glad that we are now ruled by a small oligarchy which deigns from time to time to tell us how we may order our lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom