DescentBB

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01 ... ge-debate/#

A U.S. district judge on Monday threw out the nation's health care law, declaring it unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause

Discuss

When someone requires you to pay for existing as a human being, you have effectively lost ownership of your own body.

Technically, we all have to pay for our existence because of shelter, food and fuel needs- but the moment that you are actually required to pay for just breathing (by being forced to pay for insurance) is a line that many would think our government would never cross...until last year.

It's pretty damn stupid for that judge to declare the entire package unconstitutional when the mandate portion is the only thing that question. One or two previous judges who did so restricted their ruling to that portion of the bill, which only makes sense. As someone who is currently unemployed and is using the extended age limit on his parents' coverage, the last thing I want to see is some ideologue ****ing with the rest of the bill.

But that aside, I don't know how eliminating that portion of the bill would really solve anything. We all need to use the healthcare system at some point in our lives, and those of us who have insurance wind up paying for those that don't as-is. So what's a feasible alternative?

\"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;\"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause


this judge just gave protection to private healthcare companies.

.

So is this why my insurance company has announced their intention to raise my premium TWICE so far this year for a total of about 40%?

Bet51987 wrote:So, to Cuda and Thunderbunny, why should they be forced to contribute something to their own healthcare when they have YOU picking up the tab for them. (And, I'm not talking about the truly poor)

Bee

It seems to me the Hospital should work a little harder with their collections department then huh.

Ferno wrote:[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"

the key work is regulate

reg·u·late/ˈregyəˌlāt/
2. Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

man·date   /ˈmændeɪt/ Show Spelled
[man-deyt] Show IPA
noun, verb, -dat·ed, -dat·ing.
–noun
1. a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative:

Congress is not regulating health care they are mandating it, hence a violation of the Commerce Clause

The feds may have the right to tax us but they do not have the right to make us purchase items. Period. As such:

\"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void.\"

In short Nancy, Harry and Barrack screwed up by tying the purchase requirement in with the whole package. As to congress's powers, they are limited by The Constitution and not given carte blanch:

\"Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution,\" the judge ruled.\"

The mandate is based on a lie of a kind…

The argument is all of the deadbeats that use the ER every time they need care…

These are the exact same people who are going to have their healthcare subsidized under the new law. (pay one way or pay another…taxes or premiums) As a matter of fact paying for these people’s health care under the new law will be more expensive, because it’s going to be insurance (fat layer) instead of direct payback to providers by the government.

The truth is they new blood into the system to offset the additional costs…but they won’t fess up to that, because the lie works & sounds better.

And, people are buying it like pizza. (the lie)

Hospitals are REQUIRED to treat you whether you're insured or not. It doesn't matter that the patient is talking to friends on an expensive dataphone with all the latest apps, while wearing a full grain leather coat and expensive ring.

I'm talking about the principle of the thing. The government owns you and will go to jail you if you don't pay the rent on your own body to the government.

The mandate was just a way to require everyone to pay something into a failure of a system in an effort to forestall it's eventual demise. Personally, I think that forcing everyone to buy private insurance is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will probably come to the same conclusion. Like ThunderBunny, I chaffed at the idea the government was now telling me I had to pay for private insurance or be punished. Well, what are they going to do to me when I can't afford it anymore? Sue me or fine me? I'll be broke by then, so they'll get NADA!

It's just not the solution to control our spiraling health care costs. It's only forcing more of us into bankruptcy by further lining the pockets of insurance companies, with little health care in return. Requiring insurance for all is NOT the same as health care for all. Until insurance and health care can be divorced from each other and rising costs and the inelastic demand of the American people can be resolved, everything the politicians do to try and fix this mess of a twisted system is going to EPICALLY FAIL.

I guess you should be careful about what you say

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ainst-him/

I wonder how the Nobel people feel about now.

snoopy wrote:I wonder how the Nobel people feel about now.

Excellant rejoinder snoop!

Y'know, the truly hilarious thing about all of this is that mandatory health insurance was originally a Republican idea from their attempts at healthcare reform in the early 90s. I can't help but notice that none of the Republican congressional leaders have mentioned that little tidbit.

Yeah, that's histerical...

Oh, wait... Hillary wasn't (and still isn't) a Republican.

Top Gun wrote:Y'know, the truly hilarious thing about all of this is that mandatory health insurance was originally a Republican idea from their attempts at healthcare reform in the early 90s. I can't help but notice that none of the Republican congressional leaders have mentioned that little tidbit.

Yeah, courtesy of Mitt Romney, and HE actually implemented the idea in Massachusetts, which has NOT been overturned by any court yet either.

Herculosis wrote:Yeah, that's histerical...

Oh, wait... Hillary wasn't (and still isn't) a Republican.

lrn2research

tunnelcat wrote:
Yeah, courtesy of Mitt Romney, and HE actually implemented the idea in Massachusetts, which has NOT been overturned by any court yet either.

The constitution does not bar the states from mandating insurance. It does bar the fed-gov from such a mandate.

The bill of rights protects the states rights to all powers not specifically granted to the US government:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. - The Bill of Rights

The specific power granted to the US that is used to justify mandating insurance is the following:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; - The U.S. Constitution

It is clearly ridiculous to call forcing someone to purchase a given product against their will regulating commerce between the states.

The judge in this case has correctly determined that without the mandate to purchase insurance, the bill cannot stand on it's own. For example the bill requires insurance companies to provide insurance to everyone. The way the law is worded, if someone refused to buy insurance, without the mandate the insurance company would effectively be required to insure them free of charge. Clearly the bill did not intend this outcome, and therefore the bill in it's entirety is invalid. The judge had no choice but to rule based on his fact-finding, which is that, one, the clause mandating citizens to purchase insurance in violation of the law, and two, that there is not a severability clause.

I believe that even if there were, the bill is non-severable. It just won't work as intended without the mandate to purchase insurance.

Pajamas Media » Is the Individual Mandate ‘Severable’ from the Rest of ObamaCare?
Severability - Clauses and Explanations - Yale Library of Law
Severability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Severability Clause at Heart of Judge Vinson's Ruling That 'Obamacare' Is Unconstitutional - AOL News

ThunderBunny wrote:When someone requires you to pay for existing as a human being, you have effectively lost ownership of your own body.

Technically, we all have to pay for our existence because of shelter, food and fuel needs- but the moment that you are actually required to pay for just breathing (by being forced to pay for insurance) is a line that many would think our government would never cross...until last year.

Not really. Obama's plan was basically going to be more of the same American cruelty under the name of universal healthcare.

I want to move to Canada. >_<

Blaze wrote: I want to move to Canada. >_<

Move to Australia instead. If you can put up with the weather... - ...plus the locals, the spiders, the wildlife, the Wombats and the Sheep... ...we have a taxpayer funded healthcare system that is second to none

Sure it's not perfect, but it in many respects it beats the hell out of the alternative.

woodchip wrote:

snoopy wrote:I wonder how the Nobel people feel about now.

Excellant rejoinder snoop!

It seems like all the "hope" floating around when he started is crumbling as people wake up to the fact that he's just another politician with an agenda. The health care bill wasn't about helping the people, it was about furthering Obama's prescription for the US.

No, it was all about getting re-elected, not following any principles.

tunnelcat wrote:Until insurance and health care can be divorced from each other and rising costs and the inelastic demand of the American people can be resolved, everything the politicians do to try and fix this mess of a twisted system is going to EPICALLY FAIL.

We don't agree very often, but this is definitely a case where we do.

"Health insurance" should function like car insurance -- you use it to cover emergencies/catastrophes. Why involve 3 lawyers, 5 accountants, and 2 hospital interns for a simple doctor visit?

The insurance industry has a vested interest in reducing payouts, hence \"pre-existing conditions\".

Lothar wrote:"Health insurance" should function like car insurance -- you use it to cover emergencies/catastrophes. Why involve 3 lawyers, 5 accountants, and 2 hospital interns for a simple doctor visit?

I'll go for that. as long as they dont try to use Aftermarket parts on me.

Lothar wrote:"Health insurance" should function like car insurance -- you use it to cover emergencies/catastrophes. Why involve 3 lawyers, 5 accountants, and 2 hospital interns for a simple doctor visit?

And that's exactly how it works up here in Canada.

Ferno wrote:And that's exactly how it works up here in Canada.

But it's part of a payroll tax, right?

Lothar wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Until insurance and health care can be divorced from each other and rising costs and the inelastic demand of the American people can be resolved, everything the politicians do to try and fix this mess of a twisted system is going to EPICALLY FAIL.

We don't agree very often, but this is definitely a case where we do.

"Health insurance" should function like car insurance -- you use it to cover emergencies/catastrophes. Why involve 3 lawyers, 5 accountants, and 2 hospital interns for a simple doctor visit?

That's what gets me about liberal politicians, they're on the wrong track. They're all out there pontificating that if everyone just had "insurance", everything would be hunky dory. Well, THAT'S THE PROBLEM YOU MORONS! IT'S NOT INSURANCE WE NEED, IT'S HEALTHCARE!

Oh, and here's my illustrious Democratic Senator's idea of getting around the mandate, the 'opt out' method. He don't get it do he?

http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php? ... iew&id=662

But the question remains, what type of health problem is catastrophic? Where do you draw the line on what's minor care and what's major care if you wanted to go to the car insurance model Lothar?

tunnelcat wrote:the question remains, what type of health problem is catastrophic?

Just as with car insurance, the answer will be different for different people -- so you buy the policy that's right for you.

Personally, I'm in the process of acquiring health insurance with an annual deductible of over $10,000 because that's where I place my "catastrophic" threshold. You might prefer a plan with a $1000, $2000, or $5000 yearly out-of-pocket maximum, which will cost you more for the added security.

I disagree with the yearly maximum you can still have too much abuse thay way. unless you make it a $10,000 or higher dudctible. if you make it like car insurance a deductible for everytime you file a claim. then people wouldn't be likley to goto the doctor everytime they get a runny nose.