Bliz Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm sure the opinion will be an interesting one. Of course, we've known for a while now that the Supreme Court would be getting this sooner or later. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/31/federal-judge-says-key-parts-of-health-care-reform-unconstitutional/ A federal judge in Florida has struck down as unconstitutional key parts of the sweeping health care reform bill championed by President Barack Obama. Officials in Florida and 25 other states are challenging sections of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance in four years or face stiff penalties. and from Yahoo http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110131/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_1 PENSACOLA, Fla. – A federal judge in Florida says the Obama administration's health overhaul is unconstitutional, siding with 26 states that had sued to block it.U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson on Monday accepted without trial the states' argument that the new law violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties. Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed. The case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement, but a federal judge in Virginia also ruled the insurance requirement unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Welcome to the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinss Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Welcome to the Supreme Court. or welcome to massachusetts. we already have to have health insurance or face stiff penaltys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 Surely there must be some kind of reasonable compromise we can reach. Like, okay, we won't MAKE you buy health insurance, but if you don't and you're over 18 and employed, you have to sign a waiver consenting to die in the street if you can't afford medical service (emergency or otherwise). If you don't want to have insurance that's fine, just don't be a leech on the taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Its certainly a fascinating debate at this point. I do believe that the judges overturning the law have decided to ignore a lot of SC precedent. They are ignoring it based upon their own Constituitonal convictions though. I'm not sure how this plays out, and who's right and wrong. Surely there must be some kind of reasonable compromise we can reach. Like, okay, we won't MAKE you buy health insurance, but if you don't and you're over 18 and employed, you have to sign a waiver consenting to die in the street if you can't afford medical service (emergency or otherwise).If you don't want to have insurance that's fine, just don't be a leech on the taxpayers. Actually, I think if the SC ultimately throws it out, you are just going to see a public option in the future. Is that "compromise?" I'm not sure. But at some point, the dems will have majorities in both the house and the senate again and a sitting president, and they won't screw around in the senate again. They'll just use reconciliation or something else to get the public option through. Of course, the republicans could offer something too, but they haven't really offered anything up until this point, so I'm just assuming they don't have anything to offer. Couple other things though: I can't wait till someone brings the same suit against Romneycare in Massachusetts. I can't see how a state could mandate health insurance but the federal government couldn't, if these decisions are really based upon the bill of rights. I really can't believe this mandate has gotten some people into such a tizzy. There is such a minimal penalty, and the whole idea is to hold everyone accountable for their own health. Its still shocking to me that a lot of republicans and also conservatives are against this. I think the biggest thing is "to win" for a lot of these people filing suits and complaining about the mandate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 This is important. there have been six judges who have denied the states petitions, now we have two the florida and virginia judges who have ruled in favor of the states objections. I think if it was only one judge wo objected it would have been easier to avoid a supreme court test. The more judges who object the less likely that becomes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Surely there must be some kind of reasonable compromise we can reach. Like, okay, we won't MAKE you buy health insurance, but if you don't and you're over 18 and employed, you have to sign a waiver consenting to die in the street if you can't afford medical service (emergency or otherwise).If you don't want to have insurance that's fine, just don't be a leech on the taxpayers. How about simply setting limits of care available free for those uninsured? It should not be tied to employment,otherwise it discourages working Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Its certainly a fascinating debate at this point. I do believe that the judges overturning the law have decided to ignore a lot of SC precedent. They are ignoring it based upon their own Constituitonal convictions though. I'm not sure how this plays out, and who's right and wrong. No that's entirely false. The two judges who are ruling against the Commerse Clause explaination are certainly ignoring 80 years of precident and established case law. They are being your typical activist judges trying to advocate not for how the law is interpreted today; but how they think the law should be interpreted..... But that doesn't mean the supreme court won't side with them. It will likely come down to what side of the bed Kennedy wakes up on. Actually, I think if the SC ultimately throws it out, you are just going to see a public option in the future. Is that "compromise?" I'm not sure. But at some point, the dems will have majorities in both the house and the senate again and a sitting president, and they won't screw around in the senate again. They'll just use reconciliation or something else to get the public option through. Of course, the republicans could offer something too, but they haven't really offered anything up until this point, so I'm just assuming they don't have anything to offer. I think you are wrong there. The GOP likes to say Obama's a pinko extremist leftist and so are all the democrates... But at it's core this healthcare proposal was a very conservative bill. It reformed the existing broken system, which is conservative to the roots. It also closely followed the plan the republican party put forward under Nixon in the early 1970's. Obama also gave up on the public option with very little arm twisting very early in the proecess. Obama has shown here he's a pragmatist, and a moderate with this bill.... As have all Democrats been since LBJ. The last true liberal to become president from the Democratic party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Surely there must be some kind of reasonable compromise we can reach. Like, okay, we won't MAKE you buy health insurance, but if you don't and you're over 18 and employed, you have to sign a waiver consenting to die in the street if you can't afford medical service (emergency or otherwise). If you don't want to have insurance that's fine, just don't be a leech on the taxpayers. That's always been my position. Its a lot easier to go without insurance and object to the mandate when you know that if you get struck by a bus you'll be taken care of anyway. I'd be OK with a system where if you could afford insurance and refused it the first responders just moved you to the curb and the bus went on its way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Couple other things though: I can't wait till someone brings the same suit against Romneycare in Massachusetts. I can't see how a state could mandate health insurance but the federal government couldn't, if these decisions are really based upon the bill of rights. Because the states aren't subject to a law of "If it isn't on this list, they can't do it"? :whoknows: In fact, to be more accurate, a rule of "If it's not on this list, then it's reserved to the states"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 No that's entirely false. The two judges who are ruling against the Commerse Clause explaination are certainly ignoring 80 years of precident and established case law. They are being your typical activist judges trying to advocate not for how the law is interpreted today; but how they think the law should be interpreted.....But that doesn't mean the supreme court won't side with them. It will likely come down to what side of the bed Kennedy wakes up on. I think you are wrong there. The GOP likes to say Obama's a pinko extremist leftist and so are all the democrates... But at it's core this healthcare proposal was a very conservative bill. It reformed the existing broken system, which is conservative to the roots. It also closely followed the plan the republican party put forward under Nixon in the early 1970's. Obama also gave up on the public option with very little arm twisting very early in the proecess. Obama has shown here he's a pragmatist, and a moderate with this bill.... As have all Democrats been since LBJ. The last true liberal to become president from the Democratic party. In response to both of my thoughts you said you disagreed, but I think we agree on both points. ---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 03:49 PM ---------- Because the states aren't subject to a law of "If it isn't on this list, they can't do it"? :whoknows:In fact, to be more accurate, a rule of "If it's not on this list, then it's reserved to the states"? I'd have to read the opinions carefully and think about it. I don't really know what the basis is at this point for striking them down. I'm just sort of thinking out loud in these posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinss Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 That's always been my position. Its a lot easier to go without insurance and object to the mandate when you know that if you get struck by a bus you'll be taken care of anyway. I'd be OK with a system where if you could afford insurance and refused it the first responders just moved you to the curb and the bus went on its way. im not sure if your kidding or not but if you arent i think you might change your mind if you had to watch someone gasping for breath, bleeding to death and begging for your help. if you can honestly say you wouldnt feel bad for this person just because they were too cheap to buy insurance then im a little surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 im not sure if your kidding or not but if you arent i think you might change your mind if you had to watch someone gasping for breath, bleeding to death and begging for your help. if you can honestly say you wouldnt feel bad for this person just because they were too cheap to buy insurance then im a little surprised. That would actually be considered murder in a few states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Here's the full text of the ruling http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/Vinson_HCRuling_0131.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinss Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 my wife is an e.r. nurse and i think the real problem is abusing the system. they get people in there in the back of ambulances all the time with toothaches and other stupid crap, but the doozy of all doozies happened the other day when someone called 911 and when they arrived the paramedics were told they were called to help them shovel snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm skimming the opinion online now... a few rambling thoughts: 1) anyone who quotes the Federalist Papers more than 5 times in an opinion is A) a pompous ass; and just trying to get appointed to a higher court; 2) It does appear that he's just ignoring a lot of case law he doesn't like, e.g. Gibbons v. Ogden 3) I think if the individual mandate gets struck, then the federal government is going to end up withdrawing all medicaid support to any state that doesn't "opt in" to the Health Care law... I'll have more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Surely there must be some kind of reasonable compromise we can reach. Like, okay, we won't MAKE you buy health insurance, but if you don't and you're over 18 and employed, you have to sign a waiver consenting to die in the street if you can't afford medical service (emergency or otherwise). If you don't want to have insurance that's fine, just don't be a leech on the taxpayers. perhaps we should throw those lawbreakers in jail and force "free" socialized health care on them there... I cannot understand why people want the government involved in this issue in the first place. If you don't want insurance, then fine pay for the health services as you go, if you want a nice policy with all the bells and whistles, then fine buy it (or offer it to your employees) no need to tax you more because you have a higher standard of coverage. Obamacare is full of Fail. It should be repealed and replaced with the type of things that nobody disagrees with (something as simple as buying coverage across state lines would be a start) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 im not sure if your kidding or not but if you arent i think you might change your mind if you had to watch someone gasping for breath, bleeding to death and begging for your help. if you can honestly say you wouldnt feel bad for this person just because they were too cheap to buy insurance then im a little surprised.No, I'm not really serious. It's why I don't object to the mandate, because NOBODY will refuse care in that situation. It is, in effect, a form of free insurance we already provide to those without policy coverage. EVERYONE in America already has this "coverage" so I have no problem charging them for it if they can afford it. An environment where we just let the uninsured die instead of providing emergency care isn't going to happen here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 I cannot understand why people want the government involved in this issue in the first place. If you don't want insurance, then fine pay for the health services as you go, if you want a nice policy with all the bells and whistles, then fine buy it (or offer it to your employees) no need to tax you more because you have a higher standard of coverage. Because that's the status quo and it's proven to be unsustainable. Buying coverage across state lines is only a start. One of the big problems that people always refuse to acknowledge is this: You have a class of uninsured. Currently those people have no primary access so they go to the hospital for all kinds of minor crap, and they don't get regular checkups. Hospitals can't just turn them away. So, what should the taxpayers pay for? Should we pay for a regular checkup and a cholesterol med prescription? Or should we pay for a cardiac surgeon and a hospital bed? Which do you prefer? THAT'S why people want the government involved. Because absent the "let the uninsured die in the street" idea, we're just going to keep on paying billions of unnecessary costs for preventable illness. Too many people without insurance DON'T pay as they go. That's the problem. They file bankruptcy (or already are bankrupt). Buying across state lines does not offer a solution to that problem. Nor does eliminating prexisting condition exclusions or lifetime caps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 or welcome to massachusetts. we already have to have health insurance or face stiff penaltys. Key difference? State power vs Federal power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 No, I'm not really serious. It's why I don't object to the mandate, because NOBODY will refuse care in that situation. It is, in effect, a form of free insurance we already provide to those without policy coverage. EVERYONE in America already has this "coverage" so I have no problem charging them for it if they can afford it. An environment where we just let the uninsured die instead of providing emergency care isn't going to happen here. They are getting charged now if they have money There is a difference between simply letting them die and providing millions of dollars of care gratis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 How about simply setting limits of care available free for those uninsured?It should not be tied to employment,otherwise it discourages working I'm a fan of the concept generally, but I think it's a slippery slope where drafting the list of what is available is a nightmare because everyone's particular illness becomes a lobbying point. So you've got the asthma lobby, the diabetes lobby, etc. all working to make sure the things they want/need are covered, and you end up creating another huge bureaucracy whose job it is to research, evaluate, decide (and respond to legal challenges about) what should or should not be covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinss Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Key difference? State power vs Federal power. yeah it doesnt bother me though i have always had insurance and hopefully always will, and the fines are just taken out of your taxes at the end of the year if you cant prove you have insurance and from what i hear the penaltys arent very severe. like i said before its not the uninsured that bother me as much as the abusers, every once in a while they get people come in on the ambulance and leave imediately a.m.a just because they wanted a ride into the city. its complete b.s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Key difference? State power vs Federal power. Why do you think that's a difference? You'd have to know what the precept is for the judges' opinions, and you'd have to be familiar with the state's constitution. I doubt very much that there is a clause in the Mass State Constitution which says it can regulate health care, or force people to buy a commodity. The "outrage" of this argument comes from the idea that the federal government is "forcing" people to buy something. I dont see how a state has that authority where the fed doesn't. Another few meanderings of the opinion: This guy would have to throw out Social Security and Medicare based upon his reasoning. So, tea party, you're up on those two next. Which just brings me back to, this is just about "beating" Obama at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinss Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Why do you think that's a difference? You'd have to know what the precept is for the judges' opinions, and you'd have to be familiar with the state's constitution. I doubt very much that there is a clause in the Mass State Constitution which says it can regulate health care, or force people to buy a commodity.The "outrage" of this argument comes from the idea that the federal government is "forcing" people to buy something. I dont see how a state has that authority where the fed doesn't. Another few meanderings of the opinion: This guy would have to throw out Social Security and Medicare based upon his reasoning. So, tea party, you're up on those two next. Which just brings me back to, this is just about "beating" Obama at this point. if thats the case how come they can force us to buy auto insurance. is it because of the other people involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.