(CNN) Breaking: Florida Federal Judge Strikes Down Key Parts of Healthcare Bill as Unconstitutional

[Bliz]

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.

[aREDSKIN]

Welcome to the Supreme Court.

[redskinss]

Welcome to the Supreme Court.

or welcome to massachusetts.
we already have to have health insurance or face stiff penaltys.

[Bliz]

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.

:)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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.

[JMS]

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....

[twa]

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

[JMS]

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.

[JimboDaMan]

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.

[Larry]

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"?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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.

[redskinss]

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.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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.

[mardi gras skin]

Here's the full text of the ruling

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/Vinson_HCRuling_0131.pdf

[redskinss]

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.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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 B) 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

[December90]

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)

[JimboDaMan]

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.

[Bliz]

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.

[Popeman38]

or welcome to massachusetts.
we already have to have health insurance or face stiff penaltys.Key difference? State power vs Federal power.

[twa]

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.

[Bliz]

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.

[redskinss]

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

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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.

[redskinss]

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?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

How about simply setting limits of care available free for those uninsured?
It should not be tied to employment,otherwise it discourages working

Sounds like death panels to me. :)

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 04:17 PM ----------


if thats the case how come they can force us to buy auto insurance. is it because of the other people involved?

You choose to buy a car. You don't have to buy it. You opt into that law.

But, I'm not really defending this opinion... yet. I think its a close call, but some of the reasoning strikes me as willfully blind. Others strikes me as valid though.

[December90]

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 biggest 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. Buying across state lines does not offer a solution to that problem.

So you think a big government program will suddenly make things better? Our current system while far from perfect, is much better than some unsustainable government program.

Medical care costs so much because we keep getting better at it. As we get better at it, the new things cost money. Money provides a means by which to allocate a scarce resource. It also provides the means to which that scarce resource is improved. I trust the open market with all it failings far more than I trust faceless government bureaucrats when it comes to my options with my own medical services.

The floor you want to create for those in greatest need shouldn't also be the ceiling for those with the greatest resources..

The reason Obamacare is accurately called "socialist" is because it seeks to make everyone equal by slightly bringing up a few and greatly bringing down the rest. I guess when nobody can get an MRI, then at least we will all be equal.

[Bliz]

Which just brings me back to, this is just about "beating" Obama at this point.

Surely that wouldn't be a part of this 70+ year old Reagan appointee on senior status's decision-making process, would it?

Footnote 30, p.76

On this point, it should be emphasized that while the individual mandate

was clearly “necessary and essential” to the Act as drafted, it is not “necessary

and essential” to health care reform in general. It is undisputed that there are

various other (Constitutional) ways to accomplish what Congress wanted to do.

Indeed, 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.” See

Interview on CNN’s American Morning, Feb. 5, 2008, transcript available at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/ltm.02.html. In fact, he pointed

to the similar individual mandate in Massachusetts --- which was imposed under the

state’s police power, a power the federal government does not have --- and opined

that the mandate there left some residents “worse off” than they had been before.

See Christopher Lee, Simple Question Defines Complex Health Debate, Washington

Post, Feb. 24, 2008, at A10 (quoting Senator Obama as saying: "In some cases,

there are people [in Massachusetts] who are paying fines and still can't afford

[health insurance], so now they're worse off than they were . . . They don't have
health insurance, and they're paying a fine . . .”).

[twa]

Sounds like death panels to me. :)[COLOR="Gold"]



When you give up control what do you expect?

Somebody else determines your worth and they might not think you as valuable

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Ok, the guy really lost me when he compared the need for health care to the "need" for buying a home. Basically, the government argued that whether you buy health insurance in your life or not, you are guaranteed to need it at some point. As a living human being, you will one day require health care. He basically analogized this to buying a home. Which is a terrible analogy.

I'm still going, but his reasoning is breaking down around a lot of fancy citations and footnotes at this moment.

[redskinss]

Sounds like death panels to me. :)

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 04:17 PM ----------



You choose to buy a car. You don't have to buy it. You opt into that law.

But, I'm not really defending this opinion... yet. I think its a close call, but some of the reasoning strikes me as willfully blind. Others strikes me as valid though.

im not trying to de-rail this thread but couldnt the same argument be made for taxes that pay for fire stations and roads and schools, i mean you dont necesarily have to have any of these things but they force you into paying for them.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Ok, this is going awry:




The uninsured can only be said to have a substantial effect
on interstate commerce in the manner as described by the defendants: (i) if they
get sick or injured; (ii) if they are still uninsured at that specific point in time; (iii) if
they seek medical care for that sickness or injury; (iv) if they are unable to pay for
the medical care received; and (v) if they are unable or unwilling to make payment
arrangements directly with the health care provider, or with assistance of family,
friends, and charitable groups, and the costs are thereafter shifted to others. In my
view, this is the sort of piling “inference upon inference” rejected in Lopez, supra,
514 U.S. at 567, and subsequently described in Morrison as “unworkable if we are
to maintain the Constitution’s enumeration of powers.”

I mean, why would you buy insurance ever if you didn't have to and you could just buy it when you got sick? And the last part about people just agreeing to pay with the health care provider what they can? Is this chicken lady stuff?

[aREDSKIN]

I'm skimming the opinion online now... a few rambling thoughts:

2) It does appear that he's just ignoring a lot of case law he doesn't like, e.g. Gibbons v. Ogden



Can you help a non- lawyer out??

From Gibbons-

"While the commerce power does not stop at the external boundary of a State, it does not extend to commerce which is completely internal. State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating transportation and the internal commerce of a State fall within the state police power and are not within the power granted to Congress."


http://www.lawnix.com/cases/gibbons-ogden.html

[elkabong82]

I cannot understand why people want the government involved in this issue in the first place. )

Because of how badly the private system abuses people, and because government intervention is likely the only way to put a stop to that abuse.

I for one think they should just set it up as they do with schools. Have both a private and a gov't option. The gov't option should be real cheap but only cover basics, as that will force the private companies to conform to their customers demands else they lose busniess to the cheap version. The cheap version then gives millions of uninsured a viable option, plus people still have the option of going private if they can afford to rather than rely on basic level gov't insurance.

I think at this point the costs of health insurance, and the cost to tax payers for those who don't have insurance but are treated, means that we should mandate everyone have health coverage. Similar to auto insurance being mandated because the cost to the state for those who don't have insurance and have a costly accident or can't settle debts to someone they injured is very burdening.

There are positive aspcts to Obama's plan, specifically pre-existing conditions and the patient bill of rights, and we need to make sure these stay enacted. That's why I'm in favor of restructuring it, but opposed to a complete repeal.

Maybe mandating that each state provide a certain number of non-profit insurance companies/available coverage based on population figures would help and be a way to keep the government out of healthcare. I don't knwo if that would work though, just brainstorming.

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 04:34 PM ----------


When you give up control what do you expect?

Somebody else determines your worth and they might not think you as valuable

That was happening under the private insurance industry as well

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Ok, I skimmed enough. I am not a constitutional law scholar. But my thoughts are that the reasoning breaks down and 2) that the judge does a lot of selective precedent stating. He discusses precedent as if he gets to pick which cases he has to follow and which he doesn't. Which isn't how it works. He's supposed to analyze them all and try to reconcile all of them and then apply them. I sorta disagree with his application of law. Its too selective, and short on analysis.

Ultimately, and even though I'm not enamored with the judge, I think this is a VERY close call. I think the government is right, but I would not be shocked if the law was held unconstitutional by the SC. I think some of the ramifications for this are really big though: medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. I think the fed SHOULD tell the states to go to hell on the medicaid subsidies if they lose this though, as well as on all the other subsidies they send them. The opinion is loaded with "personal motivations." Which is not to suggest bias. I think its harder than most people think to put personal politics aside on such an issue, as it forms our own perspectives. Perhaps I'm doing it now. But, I think the analysis is too dismissive of both the arguments and the case law, and simple too pedestrian. And I do not think that this opinion will be upheld.

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 04:43 PM ----------


Can you help a non- lawyer out??

From Gibbons-

"While the commerce power does not stop at the external boundary of a State, it does not extend to commerce which is completely internal. State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating transportation and the internal commerce of a State fall within the state police power and are not within the power granted to Congress."


http://www.lawnix.com/cases/gibbons-ogden.html

Can't pluck one line out of any opinion and think you got it. You have to read the whole thing and parse out what the meaning is. While that line may sound "limited" it is actually pretty expansive if you put it into context of what the question presented was, etc. Also, Gibbons is often noted (and noted by this judge) as basically saying that the limits of the commerce clause should be decided by elections, not the courts.

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 04:45 PM ----------


im not trying to de-rail this thread but couldnt the same argument be made for taxes that pay for fire stations and roads and schools, i mean you dont necesarily have to have any of these things but they force you into paying for them.

Specific powers are granted to the states by their constitutions. What you refer to is generally called "the police power," and I wouldn't hesitate to guess that every state Constituiton has a police power clause. But, I doubt very much that health insurance falls into any state constitution's enumerated powers like what you just listed does.

[Mickalino]

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.

How is the new healthcare law supposed to alleviate situations like that ?

[redskinss]

How is the new healthcare law supposed to alleviate situations like that ?
i didnt mean to suggest that it would but i think if we could figure out a way to eliminate the abuse health care would at least be cheaper.

[nonniey]

..Which just brings me back to, this is just about "beating" Obama at this point.

Actually the best thing that can happen for Obama is his health care bill gets thrown out by the courts. Right now Obamacare is an albatross around his and his parties necks, if the courts kill it that anchor is gone.

[shk75]

So you think a big government program will suddenly make things better? Our current system while far from perfect, is much better than some unsustainable government program.

Medical care costs so much because we keep getting better at it. As we get better at it, the new things cost money. Money provides a means by which to allocate a scarce resource. It also provides the means to which that scarce resource is improved. I trust the open market with all it failings far more than I trust faceless government bureaucrats when it comes to my options with my own medical services.

The floor you want to create for those in greatest need shouldn't also be the ceiling for those with the greatest resources..

The reason Obamacare is accurately called "socialist" is because it seeks to make everyone equal by slightly bringing up a few and greatly bringing down the rest. I guess when nobody can get an MRI, then at least we will all be equal.

Do you support the VA system? You do realize that is one of the most "socialist" health systems in the world, yet we use it for our soldiers, our patriots. If it is good enough for them, would it not be good enough for you? The VA health system is consistently rated very well by its users much higher then the general public rates its health system, yet is is government run. I find it ironic that those opposed to universal care call it socialist but are often the first to use the unpatriotic label for other issues.

[twa]

Do you support the VA system? .

Enlist if ya want it...then you will be good enough for it

[SnyderShrugged]

Do you support the VA system? You do realize that is one of the most "socialist" health systems in the world, yet we use it for our soldiers, our patriots. If it is good enough for them, would it not be good enough for you? The VA health system is consistently rated very well by its users much higher then the general public rates its health system, yet is is government run. I find it ironic that those opposed to universal care call it socialist but are often the first to use the unpatriotic label for other issues.


links please

[RansomthePasserby]

i didnt mean to suggest that it would but i think if we could figure out a way to eliminate the abuse health care would at least be cheaper.

Fine them for abuse of the system.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Do you support the VA system? You do realize that is one of the most "socialist" health systems in the world, yet we use it for our soldiers, our patriots. If it is good enough for them, would it not be good enough for you? The VA health system is consistently rated very well by its users much higher then the general public rates its health system, yet is is government run. I find it ironic that those opposed to universal care call it socialist but are often the first to use the unpatriotic label for other issues.

Okay, I gotta step in here. As a memeber of the military I don't think you can cherry pick the "what's good for them is good enough for us" argument here. After all, I can go to jail for telling someone my boss is a douche nozzle. I can be charged twice for a DUI (military and civililian courts). Technically I cannot say I support a politician and tell someone my occupation at the same time. So if military/veteran health care is good enough for the general public, is the rest of our guidelines good enough for you also?

[shk75]

Okay, I gotta step in here. As a memeber of the military I don't think you can cherry pick the "what's good for them is good enough for us" argument here. After all, I can go to jail for telling someone my boss is a douche nozzle. I can be charged twice for a DUI (military and civililian courts). Technically I cannot say I support a politician and tell someone my occupation at the same time. So if military/veteran health care is good enough for the general public, is the rest of our guidelines good enough for you also?

That is not the point I am making. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those that state government run health care is socialist and unacceptable yet at the same time they seem to have no problem that one of the most socialist systems in the world is in charge of our soldiers.

[SnyderShrugged]

That is not the point I am making. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those that state government run health care is socialist and unacceptable yet at the same time they seem to have no problem that one of the most socialist systems in the world is in charge of our soldiers.


maybe because they arent comparable at all?

[shk75]

maybe because they arent comparable at all?

How are they not comparable?

[Larry]

Dumb question, re: Interstate commerce and health insurance.

IS health insurance interstate commerce? Or does, say, Blue Cross have a subordinate company in every state they do business in, which offers insurance specific to that state, to comply with all of the state's regulations?

[twa]

TheGreatBuzz ain't it funny how people always want things w/o earning them?

[shk75]

links please

In 2005, VA achieved a satisfaction score of 83 (out of 100) on the ACSI for inpatient care and 80 (out of 100) for outpatient care, compared with averages for private-sector providers of 73 for inpatient care and 75 for outpatient care. In 2004, the ratings were higher for both VA and the private sector. For VA, the scores for inpatient and outpatient care were 84 and 83, respectively, while the average scores for the private sector were 79 and 81

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8892/MainText.3.1.shtml

[SnyderShrugged]

How are they not comparable?

because one is a benefit gained by volunteering to serve in the nations military and the other is an involuntary medical insurance program.

The only relation is that they are both Government run (and I use that loosely because the bulk of VA medical benefits are administered by private insurers.

[twa]

Dumb question, re: Interstate commerce and health insurance.

IS health insurance interstate commerce? Or does, say, Blue Cross have a subordinate company in every state they do business in, which offers insurance specific to that state, to comply with all of the state's regulations?

Each state governs/regulates it's own

[shk75]

because one is a benefit gained by volunteering to serve in the nations military and the other is an involuntary medical insurance program.

The only relation is that they are both Government run (and I use that loosely because the bulk of VA medical benefits are administered by private insurers.

But you are getting off topic. My reply was to the poster who stated that big government could not run health insurance, that it would inevitably fail and private markets are better suited to provide care. My reply is that those same people who make this argument are often those that will be the first to call someone unpatriotic for not "supporting the troops." Yet at the same time these very same troops are being taken care of by a "socialist" system.

[TheGreatBuzz]

maybe because they arent comparable at all?


Just what I was thinking.....apples and oranges

[SnyderShrugged]

But you are getting off topic. My reply was to the poster who stated that big government could not run health insurance, that it would inevitably fail and private markets are better suited to provide care. My reply is that those same people who make this argument are often those that will be the first to call someone unpatriotic for not "supporting the troops." Yet at the same time these very same troops are being taken care of by a "socialist" system.



except that they arent "being taken care of by a socialist system"

[shk75]

So if big government cannot run health care, if private markets are so much better suited to run the health of the general population, why then are countries with universal systems experiencing better health outcomes. It is not because they spend more, their populations are not genetically healthier, they do not spend more than we do on their systems. Why then are their populations healthier if government run care not an acceptable option?

[Bliz]

Actually the best thing that can happen for Obama is his health care bill gets thrown out by the courts. Right now Obamacare is an albatross around his and his parties necks, if the courts kill it that anchor is gone.

Strongly disagree.

The "stain" of the bill is still there, without any of the benefits. That is the worst thing that could happen for Obama. The best thing that could happen for Obama (pertaining to healthcare) is if the Republicans continue pushing for wholesale repeal, instead of only targeting narrow and poor/unpopular provisions. If they do that, it opens them up to the "those guys want # children to lose health insurance, and to ensure their buddies in the insurance industry can deny you coverage for preexisting conditions to further fatten their wallet..."

It's not an accident that the most popular provisions are the first ones to go into effect, and that they all hit before the next election.

[shk75]

except that they arent "being taken care of by a socialist system"

Wait so you are saying that the PPACA is more socialist than the VA system, because it is not. Like I said my response was not to you but the original poster. The VA system is definitely more socialist than the system in Switzerland, or Germany, or even France.

[Larry]

Each state governs/regulates it's own

I know each state has it's own (no doubt really complicated) regulations. My question is, right now, is health insurance sold across state lines? Or is all health insurance, right now, sold strictly within a state?

Although, granted, that's probably not enough to escape the modern-day version of the interstate commerce clause. I guess the government could argue that if somebody from New York gets sick while they're at Disney, then their insurance will pay for it, therefore insurance is interstate commerce.

[SnyderShrugged]

In 2005, VA achieved a satisfaction score of 83 (out of 100) on the ACSI for inpatient care and 80 (out of 100) for outpatient care, compared with averages for private-sector providers of 73 for inpatient care and 75 for outpatient care. In 2004, the ratings were higher for both VA and the private sector. For VA, the scores for inpatient and outpatient care were 84 and 83, respectively, while the average scores for the private sector were 79 and 81

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8892/MainText.3.1.shtml



probably should use 2010 figures for accuracy.

http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=238&Itemid=261

http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=147&Itemid=155&i=Health+Insurance

VA scores 72 in 2010 and the average of all other private insurers is 73. No significant difference in satisfaction scores.

[elkabong82]

TheGreatBuzz ain't it funny how people always want things w/o earning them?

about as funny as people who side step the actual point of an argument because it's inconvenient to their opinion.

if scoailized medicine/health coverage is so bad/evil for this country, if it's an impractical system which forces people to settle for substandard doctors, creates "death panels," etc.; then why is socialized medicine/health coverage a viable institution in the military, congress, and for gov't employees, if inded that is the case?

If anythng the argument you seem to be making, that military personnel earn socialized medicine, is in favor of socialized medcine and holds it up as the system we should strive for, hence it has to be earned.

[SnyderShrugged]

So if big government cannot run health care, if private markets are so much better suited to run the health of the general population, why then are countries with universal systems experiencing better health outcomes. It is not because they spend more, their populations are not genetically healthier, they do not spend more than we do on their systems. Why then are their populations healthier if government run care not an acceptable option?


They arent experiencing better health outcomes. They are experiencing better health access (which is a major component of the WHO metric) They also measure very differently than we do.

[Burgold]

So, it's not that government run healthcare won't work or is ineffecient or that we can't handle the numbers or the expense. it isn't that it will result in death panels or that the current system is so effecient, cost effective and patient centric... your opposition is based upon the fact that you just don't like the idea of the government running healthcare.

At least that's what I'm getting from the VA aspect of this argument.

[SnyderShrugged]

Wait so you are saying that the PPACA is more socialist than the VA system, because it is not. Like I said my response was not to you but the original poster. The VA system is definitely more socialist than the system in Switzerland, or Germany, or even France.


I have no idea what PPACA is, so I cant really give an opinion on it.

The VA system isnt socialist.

[Bliz]

Dumb question, re: Interstate commerce and health insurance.

IS health insurance interstate commerce? Or does, say, Blue Cross have a subordinate company in every state they do business in, which offers insurance specific to that state, to comply with all of the state's regulations?

Yes. It's interstate commerce. Because according to Supreme Court precedent, virtually everything is. Growing your own crops for personal consumption/use and not for sale? Interstate commerce per Wickard v. Fillburn. Grown your own medical mj pursuant to state law? Interstate commerce because it competes with marijuana that moves in interstate commerce (don't think about this one too much. It's bad for the brain). The only case that's really on the other side is the Lopez case (relied on heavily by this judge) which said possession of a gun near a school is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, invalidating the Gun Free School Zones Act. That was a 5-4 decision.

[SnyderShrugged]

So, it's not that government run healthcare won't work or is ineffecient or that we can't handle the numbers or the expense. it isn't that it will result in death panels or that the current system is so effecient, cost effective and patient centric... your opposition is based upon the fact that you just don't like the idea of the government running healthcare.

At least that's what I'm getting from the VA aspect of this argument.


N/M I think it was TWA

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 06:51 PM ----------


about as funny as people who side step the actual point of an argument because it's inconvenient to their opinion.

if scoailized medicine/health coverage is so bad/evil for this country, if it's an impractical system which forces people to settle for substandard doctors, creates "death panels," etc.; then why is socialized medicine/health coverage a viable institution in the military, congress, and for gov't employees, if inded that is the case?

If anythng the argument you seem to be making, that military personnel earn socialized medicine, is in favor of socialized medcine and holds it up as the system we should strive for, hence it has to be earned.

Miltary medicine isnt socialist.

[aREDSKIN]

Dumb question, re: Interstate commerce and health insurance.

IS health insurance interstate commerce? Or does, say, Blue Cross have a subordinate company in every state they do business in, which offers insurance specific to that state, to comply with all of the state's regulations?



It's my understanding that BCBS is an association of separate companies that provide health insurance and other products & services in a given state based on that state's laws & regs. Nothing federal about it.

[shk75]

probably should use 2010 figures for accuracy.

http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=238&Itemid=261

http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=147&Itemid=155&i=Health+Insurance

VA scores 72 in 2010 and the average of all other private insurers is 73. No significant difference in satisfaction scores.

Just out of curiosity, where did you find the VA system number because all I see is the the department of Veteran Affairs and not the portion which is in charge of the health system.

[SnyderShrugged]

Just out of curiosity, where did you find the VA system number because all I see is the the department of Veteran Affairs and not the portion which is in charge of the health system.


I used the Department of Veterans Affairs one for that reason (not sure if they break out VA medical as a separate item)

[Burgold]

Miltary medicine isnt socialist.

Of course it is, in its purest sense. It is care given to the collective military based on monies collected and redistributed by the government for the use of any who are in need regardless of their ability to pay. Public Education is socialist too. So, are quite a few things we cherish in the U.S. culture. In fact, the military itself is a socialist entity as are the police. All are protected and the means comes from a public redistribution of funds.

[shk75]

They arent experiencing better health outcomes. They are experiencing better health access (which is a major component of the WHO metric) They also measure very differently than we do.

I am not going to get into a more intricate argument about health outcomes since it will deviate from the topic at hand. Let us just use the most basic health metric, life expectancy. The US had one of the highest life expectancies in the world and then other nations implemented universal care systems and have since seen their life expectancy rise higher than ours. My question is if it is not because of the system itself than why this increase?

Also the PPACA is the official term for obamacare (I do not like the use of labels so I prefer to call it by its official name)

[elkabong82]

N/M I think it was TWA

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 06:51 PM ----------



Miltary medicine isnt socialist.

Some in here claim it is, some claim it is not. I do not know 100% if it is or isn't, which is why I added the caveat of "if indeed that is the case" in the post which you quoted and responded to.

[twa]

about as funny as people who side step the actual point of an argument because it's inconvenient to their opinion.



If anythng the argument you seem to be making, that military personnel earn socialized medicine, is in favor of socialized medcine and holds it up as the system we should strive for, hence it has to be earned.

Look Ma I can dance too

They certainly earn it....I don't think it is a system we should strive to implement for free(nor could we afford it)

I have argued often for basic socialized clinic level care funded by a general tax though

[SnyderShrugged]

Of course it is, in its purest sense. It is care given to the collective military based on monies collected and redistributed by the government for the use of any who are in need regardless of their ability to pay. Public Education is socialist too. So, are quite a few things we cherish in the U.S. culture. In fact, the military itself is a socialist entity as are the police. All are protected and the means comes from a public redistribution of funds.

I dont believe we are discussion pure socialism, but thats beside the point. The military isnt socialist by modern definitions because veterans serve a contract in return for pay and benefits. One of those benefits being VA care for those that qualify.

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 07:00 PM ----------


Some in here claim it is, some claim it is not. I do not know 100% if it is or isn't, which is why I added the caveat of "if indeed that is the case" in the post which you quoted and responded to.

Fair point. I missed the caveat and offer apologies

[Burgold]

Who do the military protect? Everyone equally? All U.S. citizens? Where does their funding come from? A collected pool of taxes redistributed for the betterment of the masses. You can't get more socialist than that! It is the very definition.

[shk75]

Who do the military protect? Everyone equally? All U.S. citizens? Where does their funding come from? A collected pool of taxes redistributed for the betterment of the masses. You can't get more socialist than that! It is the very definition.

And that is what it boils down to. The philosophy of many that governments sole job is to protect us from outside threats and thus even though the military maybe socialist we have entered a social contract as a population in which we are better served by a military to protect us than by protecting ourselves. These same people feel that this ideology does not hold true for health care and it is not government's job to make sure its population is healthy and thus no social contract should be entered by the public.

[SnyderShrugged]

Who do the military protect? Everyone equally? All U.S. citizens? Where does their funding come from? A collected pool of taxes redistributed for the betterment of the masses. You can't get more socialist than that! It is the very definition.

No, its not. As I explained already. Using your logic, every single federal employee would be "socialist", regardless of the fact that they are earning a benefit through employment rather than by the virtue of being either sick or poor.

[elkabong82]

Look Ma I can dance too

They certainly earn it....I don't think it is a system we should strive to implement for free(nor could we afford it)

I have argued often for basic socialized clinic level care funded by a general tax though

See now we're talking!

I agree we do need to have a bottom line for absolute coverage, because those without insurance wind up being a drain on the system. But if such a system is so bad for us, can you explain why it works on the military level but wouldn't work on a nationwide level? I'm being serious here, because I usually only see rheorical arguments warning of possible dangers, I don't really see, or haven't heard, arguments as to why specifically it won't work on a nationwide level. I do see cases where it does it work, Hawaii has such a system IIRC.

I've personally argued that we should have both private and socialized healthcare so they can keep each other in check, which would also in turn limit the amount the government needed to provide for in its socialized healthcare. I liken it to the public vs. private school system. Do you think that could work?

[shk75]

No, its not. As I explained already. Using your logic, every single federal employee would be "socialist", regardless of the fact that they are earning a benefit through employment rather than by the virtue of being either sick or poor.

The point being made is not whether or not the VA system is socialist. It is that in comparison to the PPACA and other proposed reforms that are being called socialist, the VA system is indeed socialist. It is about the comparison models and not about truth models.

[Burgold]

The problem is that "social contract" or "socialist" has become a dirty word and with pretty good reason. What many of us forget is the reason that Marx was wrong and his revolution did not occur in the U.S. is two fold 1) the U.S. adopted and stole several of Marx's best ideas and encorporated them into our concept of democrasy 2) Pure socialism can only exist on a very small scale (family unit... maybe neighborhood) before it breaks down. It's a utopian system that depends on man to be better and more selfless and more sacrificing than he generally is.

That doesn't mean that it ain't a good idea in some aspects of our lives (like public education, the military, and in my opinion... healthcare). Again, the government developed was not socialist/universal health care, but a Frankenstein monster which has the potential to wreck havoc.

[Bliz]

Can we all be grown ups for just one second and acknowledge that not everything socialist or semi-socialist is "bad"?

No? Okay. nevermind. carry on.



I'd like to see one "socialism" yelling politician with the cojones to run on a platform of wholesale elimination of social security, unemployment benefits, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, public health, public spending on education and the environment, etc. Wonder how they'd do?

[twa]

I've personally argued that we should have both private and socialized healthcare so they can keep each other in check, which would also in turn limit the amount the government needed to provide for in its socialized healthcare. I liken it to the public vs. private school system. Do you think that could work?

You run into costs problems as well as issues of control,I have never objected to a public option(though I have serious doubts costs could be controlled)

How's public schooling working in that regard?

[shk75]

You run into costs problems as well as issues of control,I have never objected to a public option(though I have serious doubts costs could be controlled)

How's public schooling working in that regard?

Other nations have private care within their universal system but these private providers, hospitals, insurers must follow strict government guidelines. However the US has dueling private and public systems not constrained by the same guidelines and this is considered one of the reasons health care costs in the US are so high: administrative costs due to dueling systems fuel these higher costs.

[SnyderShrugged]

The point being made is not whether or not the VA system is socialist. It is that in comparison to the PPACA and other proposed reforms that are being called socialist, the VA system is indeed socialist. It is about the comparison models and not about truth models.


They arent comparison models either.

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 07:28 PM ----------


Can we all be grown ups for just one second and acknowledge that not everything socialist or semi-socialist is "bad"?

No? Okay. nevermind. carry on.



I'd like to see one "socialism" yelling politician with the cojones to run on a platform of wholesale elimination of social security, unemployment benefits, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, public health, public spending on education and the environment, etc. Wonder how they'd do?


I'd vote for that one.

[Burgold]

Other nations have private care within their universal system but these private providers, hospitals, insurers must follow strict government guidelines. However the US has dueling private and public systems not constrained by the same guidelines and this is considered one of the reasons health care costs in the US are so high: administrative costs due to dueling systems fuel these higher costs.

Yeah, I don't buy that either. We have public schools and some still chose to pay to send their children to private schools. Universal healthcare would wind up have the same systems. There would still be public and private.

[elkabong82]

You run into costs problems as well as issues of control,I have never objected to a public option(though I have serious doubts costs could be controlled)

How's public schooling working in that regard?

Public school works in the regard that all citizens are able to attain basic education. Ideally, a public health program would do the same and could be set-up in similar fashion, key word is ideally.

I think having a private industry will reduce how much socialized medicine the gov't needs to cover.

Then again because it's peoples lives/health we're discussing if I had my way I'd make all health insurance companies be non-profit orgs. and set aside a portion of fed. grants to go to those company's R&D programs, but that's because I'm not comfortable in the first place with the idea of people trying to make money off of people's health.

[twa]

Other nations have private care within their universal system but these private providers, hospitals, insurers must follow strict government guidelines. However the US has dueling private and public systems not constrained by the same guidelines and this is considered one of the reasons health care costs in the US are so high: administrative costs due to dueling systems fuel these higher costs.

How many of these other nations systems are going broke or delivering rationed care?
US care is higher because of the higher level technology and treatments available

[shk75]

How many of these other nations systems are going broke or delivering rationed care?
US care is higher because of the higher level technology and treatments available

Yes that is also true that their costs are rising, although at a slower rate than ours, and it is true that medical technology is fueling this rise, but you cannot ignore the fact that the US has much higher administrative costs and the effect this has on total health care costs.

[elkabong82]

Other nations have private care within their universal system but these private providers, hospitals, insurers must follow strict government guidelines. However the US has dueling private and public systems not constrained by the same guidelines and this is considered one of the reasons health care costs in the US are so high: administrative costs due to dueling systems fuel these higher costs.

I think if they can make a sustainable public system that it will force private companies to drop their costs else they lose customers. Right now the private companies don't want any form of socialized medicine because they'll lose customers, so they jack up their rates (and let's be honest, they are ALWAYS looking for ways to jack up their rates) in response to piss people off and get them on their side.

Our private healthcare system is an overly abusive sham. While I think we could have a better plan for a public system in place I have absolutely zero faith in the GOP to ever bring about any kind of regulation in the private system in order to curb the abuse, so we have to go with the Dems plan else we revert back to a terrible system that robs Americans blind and even let's ones die because of "pre-existing conditions," or at the very least refuses to cover citizens for truly needed operations.

[twa]

Public school works in the regard that all citizens are able to attain basic education. Ideally, a public health program would do the same and could be set-up in similar fashion, key word is ideally.

I think having a private industry will reduce how much socialized medicine the gov't needs to cover.

Then again because it's peoples lives/health we're discussing if I had my way I'd make all health insurance companies be non-profit orgs. and set aside a portion of fed. grants to go to those company's R&D programs, but that's because I'm not comfortable in the first place with the idea of people trying to make money off of people's health.

I actually agree with your last point if you meant providers

However the school analogy would have to be extended to graduate college to be fair(which we do not do)
Expecting high level healthcare for all is prohibitively expensive....expanded basic care would not be

[shk75]

I think if they can make a sustainable public system that it will force private companies to drop their costs else they lose customers. Right now the private companies don't want any form of socialized medicine because they'll lose customers, so they jack up their rates (and let's be honest, they are ALWAYS looking for ways to jack up their rates) in response to piss people off and get them on their side.

Our private healthcare system is an overly abusive sham. While I think we could have a better plan for a public system in place I have absolutely zero faith in the GOP to ever bring about any kind of regulation in the private system in order to curb the abuse, so we have to go with the Dems plan else we revert back to a terrible system that robs Americans blind and even let's ones die because of "pre-existing conditions," or at the very least refuses to cover citizens for truly needed operations.

This is something that many scholars have addressed and call it implementation analysis. The fact is that the US has a history of incremental reform and a Big Bang type of approach would be near impossible to achieve politically. Therefore you get reforms like the PPACA in which you try to incrementally change the system by addressing what you think can feasibly be passed and the same time improve the problem at hand.

If public health care is to take away providers from private insurers they have to be made available to the public and right now unless you are a VA member, on Medicare/Aid, or SCHIP, you do not have access to public care (emergency rooms notwithstanding). You are correct that private insurers want to keep it this way and is why they were against the public option and signed off on the current version because they know the US history of incrementalism will buy them time to continue to operate in the current arena since it will likely be a while until another serious reform is passed.

[elkabong82]

I actually agree with your last point if you meant providers

However the school analogy would have to be extended to graduate college to be fair(which we do not do)
Expecting high level healthcare for all is prohibitively expensive....expanded basic care would not be

Yes, I meant "providers making money off peopl's health" should have been more specific.

I used the school example mainly just as a way to put public and private systems in competition with one another, meaning the existence of both keeps both in check. Admittedly perhaps the only way for that to be viable is if it were income-based, but then it's viewed as a wellfare program. It's not an easy solution, that's for sure, lol.

I think if the country also started regulating it's food better through the FDA and started treating obecity as a serious epidimc that it would drastically cut down on health costs as claims would be reduced. By this I mean that the country should be looking for many ways in which to drive down health claims by making the population healthier in general.

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 08:07 PM ----------


This is something that many scholars have addressed and call it implementation analysis. The fact is that the US has a history of incremental reform and a Big Bang type of approach would be near impossible to achieve politically. Therefore you get reforms like the PPACA in which you try to incrementally change the system by addressing what you think can feasibly be passed and the same time improve the problem at hand.

.

Excellent point, the battle for civil rights was won in increments as well, same with women's rights, same with worker's rights. The disheartening thing is that you see how long it took for non-white males in this country to be guaranteed equal protection under the law and it makes you wonder just how long it will be before the country's healthcare system doesn't put it's citizens in the poor house when they fall seriously ill. For a democracy this country is really stubborn-headed when it comes to social change.

[twa]

I like this review of the decision....naturaly

http://volokh.com/2011/01/31/todays-florida-district-court-ruling-striking-down-the-obamacare-individual-mandate/

Today’s Florida district court ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional is by far the best court opinion on this issue so far. Judge Roger Vinson provides a thorough and impressive analysis of the federal government’s arguments claiming that the mandate is authorized by the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, and explains the flaws in each. He had already rejected the government’s claim that the mandate is constitutional because it is a tax in a previous ruling. So far, all three federal courts that have considered the tax argument have rejected it, instead ruling (in my view correctly) that the mandate is a penalty.

This is perhaps the most important of all the anti-mandate lawsuits because the plaintiffs include 26 state governments and the National Federation of Independent Business.

One of the best parts of today’s opinion is Judge Vinson’s critique of the federal government’s argument that the mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause because the Clause gives it the power to regulate “economic decisions”:

The problem with this legal rationale, however, is it would essentially have unlimited application. There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort. The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that — when aggregated with similar economic decisions — affect the price of that particular product or service and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. To be sure, it is not difficult to identify an economic decision that has a cumulatively substantial effect on interstate commerce; rather, the difficult task is to find a decision that does not....

The important distinction is that “economic decisions” are a much broader and far-reaching category than are “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce” [which Supreme Court precedent allows Congress to regulate]. While the latter necessarily encompasses the first, the reverse is not true. “Economic” cannot be equated to “commerce.” And “decisions” cannot be equated to “activities.” Every person throughout the course of his or her life makes hundreds or even thousands of life decisions that involve the same general sort of thought process that the defendants maintain is “economic activity.” There will be no stopping point if that should be deemed the equivalent of activity for Commerce Clause purposes.

Judge Vinson has a similarly compelling answer to the government’s claim that choosing not to purchase health insurance is an “economic activity” because everyone participates in the health care market at some point:

[T]here are lots of markets — especially if defined broadly enough — that people cannot “opt out” of. For example, everyone must participate in the food market. Instead of attempting to control wheat supply by regulating the acreage and amount of wheat a farmer could grow as in Wickard, under this logic, Congress could more directly raise too low wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread adversely affect prices in the wheat market. Or, as was discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system. Similarly, because virtually no one can be divorced from the transportation market, Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business....

As Vinson explains, both the “economic decisions” argument and the “health care is special” argument ultimately amount to giving Congress the power to mandate virtually anything, and therefore conflict with the text of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. I addressed both arguments in more detail here. Judge Vinson also notes that the scenarios he raises are not merely a “parade of horribles,” but have a realistic basis, a point that I discussed in this recent post. more@ link

[luckydevil]

This decision will ultimately backfire in the long run. I expect the dems to push medicare for all, then we will really have socialized health care.

[twa]

This decision will ultimately backfire in the long run. I expect the dems to push medicare for all, then we will really have socialized health care.

Well maybe then we will at least know what is in the bill before they attempt to pass it.:silly:

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/wp-content/gallery/random/pelosiclown.jpg

[Madison Redskin]

However the school analogy would have to be extended to graduate college to be fair(which we do not do)

But we do. Many states offer fantastic undergraduate and graduate level programs (e.g., VA has UVA). Are they totally free? No, but they're heavily subsidized and damn cheap compared to private schools.

[SnyderShrugged]

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 B) 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


I thought his citation of the ratification debates and the federalist papers were perfectly in tune with this ruling and case overall.

What a refreshing circumstance to have a well respected federal judge rule based on nothing but the intent of the framers and in respect for the 10th ammendment! This seems so rare in the modern age!

What may be even more important overall is that in squashing the opinion that the states are being coerced with this bill, he reinforced the notion that states can leave their voluntary contracts with the feds at any time, but have chosen not to.

This is huge to me because I think the states have been cedeing their power to congress out of laziness, cowardness and greed. State legislatures should be called out right aloing with the feds IMHO

[Bliz]

I thought his citation of the ratification debates and the federalist papers were perfectly in tune with this ruling and case overall.

What a refreshing circumstance to have a well respected federal judge rule based on nothing but the intent of the framers and in respect for the 10th ammendment! This seems so rare in the modern age!


translation: I like judicial activism when it's activism in favor of my position.

Ruling on nothing but the intent of the framers and in respect for the 10th amendment is just code for an activist judge completely ignoring the precedent by which he is bound and ruling based on his own opinion of what HE THINKS the framers' intent was and what HE THINKS the 10th amendment means in order to justify a political decision, instead of simply following the law.

The Supreme Court can break with precedent. A federal judge is bound by it. It's as simple as that. TSF is 100% correct - this is a judge who decided to just ignore the precedent he didn't like.

[SnyderShrugged]

translation: I like judicial activism when it's activism in favor of my position.

Ruling on nothing but the intent of the framers and in respect for the 10th amendment is just code for an activist judge completely ignoring the precedent by which he is bound and ruling based on his own opinion of what HE THINKS the framers' intent was and what HE THINKS the 10th amendment means in order to justify a political decision, instead of simply following the law.

The Supreme Court can break with precedent. A federal judge is bound by it. It's as simple as that. TSF is 100% correct - this is a judge who decided to just ignore the precedent he didn't like.

No, the judge went to the ORIGINAL precedent. He used the actual words of the framers to justify what the 10th ammendment actually means rather than what folks want to make it mean.

There is nothing even remotely close to so called "judicial activism" here, in fact it is almost completely the opposite. This judge did his job as he is supposed to, and that is rule based on core constitutional principles. Regardless of the emotions you wantto inject, he is saying and doing what he believes is his job as a Federal Judge.


Either way, this is a fascinating ruling and one that may go down in history as a case study for the ages.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

No, the judge went to the ORIGINAL precedent. He used the actual words of the framers to justify what the 10th ammendment actually means rather than what folks want to make it mean.

There is nothing even remotely close to so called "judicial activism" here, in fact it is almost completely the opposite. This judge did his job as he is supposed to, and that is rule based on core constitutional principles. Regardless of the emotions you wantto inject, he is saying and doing what he believes is his job as a Federal Judge.


Either way, this is a fascinating ruling and one that may go down in history as a case study for the ages.

Haha... that's comical. The district court judge went to the "original precedent." Clearly he doesn't have to interpret the law the way in which the Supreme Court has for 100's of years.

If the SC issued this decision, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I think it is a close call. I think the government is right, but I think its close. But this judge was just figuring out a way to throw out the law as quickly and as powerfully as he could.

Its one thing to quote the Federalist Papers when explaining the overarching principle you are keeping in mind, its another to cite to them as precedent, which they aren't. Don't forget what the Federalist Papers are: a debate about what should be in the Constitution. They were never designed to be the "answer" to anything. They were sort of aspirations as to what should be in the Constitution. And papers argue both sides of pretty much everything in the Constitution. So, just citing to them as precedent and relying on them is really just showboating, because they don't have the force of law.

Edit:

I just re-read your post. Do you think the original framers thought that lower court judges could or should ignore Supreme Court precedent? Was that their intent? No, c'mon. You like this decision, I get it. But you don't get to claim its "true originalist" or something when its not. Just accept that this is a district court judge ignoring binding law on him, at least in some instances. And the SC may follow suit, but that's their decision, not his.

[SnyderShrugged]

Haha... that's comical. The district court judge went to the "original precedent." Clearly he doesn't have to interpret the law the way in which the Supreme Court has for 100's of years.

If the SC issued this decision, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I think it is a close call. I think the government is right, but I think its close. But this judge was just figuring out a way to throw out the law as quickly and as powerfully as he could.

Its one thing to quote the Federalist Papers when explaining the overarching principle you are keeping in mind, its another to cite to them as precedent, which they aren't. Don't forget what the Federalist Papers are: a debate about what should be in the Constitution. They were never designed to be the "answer" to anything. They were sort of aspirations as to what should be in the Constitution. And papers argue both sides of pretty much everything in the Constitution. So, just citing to them as precedent and relying on them is really just showboating, because they don't have the force of law.

Edit:

I just re-read your post. Do you think the original framers thought that lower court judges could or should ignore Supreme Court precedent? Was that their intent? No, c'mon. You like this decision, I get it. But you don't get to claim its "true originalist" or something when its not. Just accept that this is a district court judge ignoring binding law on him, at least in some instances. And the SC may follow suit, but that's their decision, not his.

I think its fact that the framers intended judges to rule based on law and that law alone was to supply the basis for decision, In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton defended the proposed Constitution on this very ground: that an independent judiciary would help ensure that “nothing would be consulted [in thecourts] but the constitution and the laws.

He didnt disregard case law as you claimed btw, he had plenty of case law references within the ruling. He simply didnt use what you felt were applicable case law (and in that regard, I must bow to your law expertise)

Also, he didnt quote the federalist papers as precedent really, he quoted them as the intent of the founders as an explanation for the basis of law.

lastly, your gripe that it wasnt the SC issueing this ruling is unfounded, as the case hasnt made it to the SC yet. he ruled within his province and at the level of his power specifically as a Federal judge.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I think its fact that the framers intended judges to rule based on law and that law alone was to supply the basis for decision, In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton defended the proposed Constitution on this very ground: that an independent judiciary would help ensure that “nothing would be consulted [in thecourts] but the constitution and the laws.

He didnt disregard case law as you claimed btw, he had plenty of case law references within the ruling. He simply didnt use what you felt were applicable case law (and in that regard, I must bow to your law expertise)

Also, he didnt quote the federalist papers as precedent really, he quoted them as the intent of the founders as an explanation for the basis of law.

lastly, your gripe that it wasnt the SC issueing this ruling is unfounded, as the case hasnt made it to the SC yet. he ruled within his province and at the level of his power specifically as a Federal judge.

I think the definition of judicial activism is failing to follow precedent and making your own law. In essence, this judge decided he was not going to follow the 75 - 100 years of cases that state the commerce clause is an expansive power, instead he was going to limit the commerce clause. There's no question he chose to ignore some case law and apply others. And even relied pretty heavily on the Federalist Papers, which aren't law.

The supreme court can do that because they are the final authority on the Constitution. The district court judge is not supposed to do that. That's called "activism." Basically, he did not "rule within his province as a federal judge." He was supposed to "follow the Constitution and the laws" including SC precedent, which is law.

[Bliz]

No, the judge went to the ORIGINAL precedent. He used the actual words of the framers to justify what the 10th ammendment actually means rather than what folks want to make it mean.

There is nothing even remotely close to so called "judicial activism" here, in fact it is almost completely the opposite. This judge did his job as he is supposed to, and that is rule based on core constitutional principles. Regardless of the emotions you wantto inject, he is saying and doing what he believes is his job as a Federal Judge.

Either way, this is a fascinating ruling and one that may go down in history as a case study for the ages.

I'm speechless.

Precedent is binding and mandatory, in this situation. A lower federal court is COMPELLED to honor findings of law made by the US Supreme Court. Ignoring precedent about what the constitution means (a lower federal court judge in effect "overturning" Supreme Court precedent in favor of how that judge would have interpreted the constitution) is the very definition of judicial activism, in the truest sense of the phrase. It is a judge allowing his personal views to guide his decision, instead of following the law. He has no authority whatsoever to simply disregard Supreme Court precedent, and this idea about "the original precedent" is a fabrication. It's not how the law works.

Supreme Court decisions about what the 10th does and does not mean are read into the law, and are a part of the law until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I'm speechless.

Precedent is binding and mandatory, in this situation. A lower federal court is COMPELLED to honor findings of law made by the US Supreme Court. Ignoring precedent about what the constitution means (a lower federal court judge in effect "overturning" Supreme Court precedent in favor of how that judge would have interpreted the constitution) is the very definition of judicial activism, in the truest sense of the phrase. It is a judge allowing his personal views to guide his decision, instead of following the law. He has no authority whatsoever to simply disregard Supreme Court precedent, and this idea about "the original precedent" is a fabrication. It's not how the law works.

Supreme Court decisions about what the 10th does and does not mean are read into the law, and are a part of the law until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

For what its worth, I recently had a juge throw out a case on me because he was bound by precedent, but he didn't want to. His ruling was something like "I am going to dismiss the case because I think I have to. But I think you have a good appellate argument so maybe you can make some new law up above me. But I don't get to do that, I'm just a circuit court judge." (Vinson is equal to a circuit court judge's level in this court, its just jargon). But that judge did what he should have done, and this one didn't.

(Oh, and we got it overturned above :) )

[SnyderShrugged]

I think the definition of judicial activism is failing to follow precedent and making your own law. In essence, this judge decided he was not going to follow the 75 - 100 years of cases that state the commerce clause is an expansive power, instead he was going to limit the commerce clause. There's no question he chose to ignore some case law and apply others. And even relied pretty heavily on the Federalist Papers, which aren't law.

The supreme court can do that because they are the final authority on the Constitution. The district court judge is not supposed to do that. That's called "activism." Basically, he did not "rule within his province as a federal judge." He was supposed to "follow the Constitution and the laws" including SC precedent, which is law.


curious why you didnt underline "follow the constitution" as well?

again, its not "activism" to rule based on the constitution. If the SC court agrees with you, they will first have to agree that they should even rule in this event (something that may be surprisingly up in the air) and then they would have to agree that the judge was wrong in applying specific constitutional principles as outlined by the words of the framers before applying pieces and parts of case law (point in part that in this regard there is case law that supports each side of the debate, which to me, would indicate an even greater need to rely on the original intent and principles of the constitution)

again, I wouldnt presume to be more informed or in tune with legal workings like you are. You are a professional in this field and I respect that.

This is turning into what I think may ultimately become a pivotal point in constitutional law. (IMHO)

---------- Post added February-1st-2011 at 09:51 AM ----------


I'm speechless.

Precedent is binding and mandatory, in this situation. A lower federal court is COMPELLED to honor findings of law made by the US Supreme Court. Ignoring precedent about what the constitution means (a lower federal court judge in effect "overturning" Supreme Court precedent in favor of how that judge would have interpreted the constitution) is the very definition of judicial activism, in the truest sense of the phrase. It is a judge allowing his personal views to guide his decision, instead of following the law. He has no authority whatsoever to simply disregard Supreme Court precedent, and this idea about "the original precedent" is a fabrication. It's not how the law works.

Supreme Court decisions about what the 10th does and does not mean are read into the law, and are a part of the law until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

Glad you are speechless. You should do more of that! (J/K)

I guess if the SC agrees with you, they will have to listen to this case. Should be interesting to watch.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

curious why you didnt underline "follow the constitution" as well?

again, its not "activism" to rule based on the constitution. If the SC court agrees with you, they will first have to agree that they should even rule in this event (something that may be surprisingly up in the air) and then they would have to agree that the judge was wrong in applying specific constitutional principles as outlined by the words of the framers before applying pieces and parts of case law (point in part that in this regard there is case law that supports each side of the debate, which to me, would indicate an even greater need to rely on the original intent and principles of the constitution)

again, I wouldnt presume to be more informed or in tune with legal workings like you are. You are a professional in this field and I respect that.

This is turning into what I think may ultimately become a pivotal point in constitutional law. (IMHO)

Well, I don't have much else to say. I disagree with you that its not activism. I think the judge has to follow the constitution and the laws. Both. The Constitution is not as clear as you think though, which is why we have SC decisions that interpret the Constitution. Those are both supposed to be followed.

I agree its a big issue, and (one more time) I think its a close call for the SC. But, its for the SC. It doesn't really matter in the long run because the SC will get it, but this absolutely was "activism."

One more thing, I don't always think activism is wrong or bad. Sometimes its the "right" thing to do. I think usually the judges do a better job distinguishing prior case law, as this judge sort of even admitted he just wasn't going to follow some of it because he thought the commerce clause was being abused.

I didn't underline "Constitution" because you were only focusing on that word, and not the whole sentence. I was pointing out to you what you were missing, not what you were seeing.

[Bliz]

curious why you didnt underline "follow the constitution" as well?

again, its not "activism" to rule based on the constitution. If the SC court agrees with you, they will first have to agree that they should even rule in this event (something that may be surprisingly up in the air) and then they would have to agree that the judge was wrong in applying specific constitutional principles as outlined by the words of the framers before applying pieces and parts of case law (point in part that in this regard there is case law that supports each side of the debate, which to me, would indicate an even greater need to rely on the original intent and principles of the constitution)

again, I wouldnt presume to be more informed or in tune with legal workings like you are. You are a professional in this field and I respect that.

This is turning into what I think may ultimately become a pivotal point in constitutional law. (IMHO)

---------- Post added February-1st-2011 at 09:51 AM ----------



Glad you are speechless. You should do more of that! (J/K)

I guess if the SC agrees with you, they will have to listen to this case. Should be interesting to watch.

lol

You do have it backwards though. The lower court has to respect precedent and rely upon it to predict how the Supreme Court would rule. Now the Supreme Court may decide this guy predicted wrong, but the judge still has to rely on precedent to try to reach the correct decision. He doesn't get to say "I think the Supreme Court was wrong to rule xyz so I'm going to disagree with them and rule abc, and if they still like xyz they can overrule me." That's not how it works.

If the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue, it's fine for the judge to personally disagree, but if he rules based on his differing interpretation, that is activism.

[artmonkforHOF]

why do people jump all over this news like it is the first step in "defeating" Obamacare? US Federal and State Laws are not always in tune with each other, just look at California, Colorado and marijuana, legal by the state, illegal by the Feds. When the DEA comes and knocks down your door for possession of marijuana, you can't go to the State Troopers and say "they took my dope" and hope to get it back, so why do people think that appealing to their state will kill Obamacare? It is a Federal program, so if you want it repealed, then get in contact with your Federal Government, your State Government is pretty much useless in this matter.

[twa]

These are federal judges,though I believe two state ones have ruled against it to a degree.

Fun reading the criticisms though

SS I wouldn't get to excited on the judges application of states rights since he confirmed states may not opt out of medicare provisions in this bill.
If it survives of course

[mcsluggo]

No, the judge went to the ORIGINAL precedent. He used the actual words of the framers to justify what the 10th ammendment actually means rather than what folks want to make it mean.

There is nothing even remotely close to so called "judicial activism" here, in fact it is almost completely the opposite. This judge did his job as he is supposed to, and that is rule based on core constitutional principles. Regardless of the emotions you wantto inject, he is saying and doing what he believes is his job as a Federal Judge.


Either way, this is a fascinating ruling and one that may go down in history as a case study for the ages.

careful... you are going to throw your back out

[SnyderShrugged]

careful... you are going to throw your back out

If that made sense at all I would laugh

[twa]

Any of the legal eagles want to explain where the limits of govt are?

"It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place," the judge wrote. "If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain."

It would be difficult to recognize any limits on federal power, he added. Defenders of the law said the founders couldn't have envisioned Medicare or Social Security either.

added

What would you think of a large penalty to enlist in health ins with pre-existing conditions if you have opted out?
Wouldn't that accomplish more than the pissant fine with the current mandate for non participation?

[SnyderShrugged]

These are federal judges,though I believe two state ones have ruled against it to a degree.

Fun reading the criticisms though

SS I wouldn't get to excited on the judges application of states rights since he confirmed states may not opt out of medicare provisions in this bill.
If it survives of course


I may have read it wrong or at least differently, but I thought i saw where he said that since the programs are voluntary at the state level (thus having an "opt out" if so chosen), he had to put the kaibash on the states that were claiming coersion?

Are we dicussiong two diferent things?


Oh, btw, it isnt the ruling itself that excites me, and believe it or not, I'm not even interested because it supports my personal beliefs. What gets me excited about this ruling is that it will be highly educational for anyone who follows the procedings and next steps from a historical government perspective.

[December90]

Yes that is also true that their costs are rising, although at a slower rate than ours, and it is true that medical technology is fueling this rise, but you cannot ignore the fact that the US has much higher administrative costs and the effect this has on total health care costs.

how much of these "administrative costs" stem from complying with overly burdensome government regulations? How much of these "administrative costs" stem from medical offices simply documenting in painstaking detail, what they did and why they did it to both improve patient care and protect against litigation?

Will patient care improve if we put a cap on administrative costs?

[Wrong Direction]

From the Washington Post:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/left_unreasoned_and_unprepared.html


Liberals are particularly perturbed by Judge Vinson's ruling on severability, the determination as to whether the individual mandate is so central to the law as to make the law unrecognizable and unenforceable without it. But here, the left has only the administration and the Democratic Congress to blame. From the opinion (the defendants are the Obama officials):


Having determined that the individual mandate exceeds Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, and cannot be saved by application of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the next question is whether it is severable from the remainder of the Act. In considering this issue, I note that the defendants have acknowledged that the individual mandate and the Act's health insurance reforms, including the guaranteed issue and community rating, will rise or fall together as these reforms "cannot be severed from the [individual mandate]."

Oops. Not some crazy judge, but the administration was the source of the notion that the individual mandate can't be severed from the rest of the law.

Note, I'm not constitutional lawyer but I find it funny that so many speak so confidently about the constitutionality of the mandate. Has the SC ruled on an exactly comparable issue before (seriously asking)? Does the regulation of inactivity not expand previous opinions of the commerce clause (again, seriously asking)?

One way or the other, with 26 states petitioning the federal government and a plausible legal argument affecting 1/6 of the US economy, this certainly needs to go to the Supreme Court.


EDIT: I saw this quote on a message board. I assume it is part of the ruling:


To now hold that Congress may regulate the so-called “economic decision” to not purchase a product or service in anticipation of future consumption is a “bridge too far.” It is without logical limitation and far exceeds the existing legal boundaries established by Supreme Court precedent.”

[shk75]

how much of these "administrative costs" stem from complying with overly burdensome government regulations? How much of these "administrative costs" stem from medical offices simply documenting in painstaking detail, what they did and why they did it to both improve patient care and protect against litigation?

Will patient care improve if we put a cap on administrative costs?

The high costs stem from the complexity of the system, the multitude of payers, and the thousands upon thousands of pages of rules and regulations that no other country in the world comes close to. Complying with government regulations does not have to be expensive or burdensome, as seen in other nations with universal systems. It becomes burdensome when providers do not understand the rules because the system has become so convoluted and complex.

Some feel that patient care can be improved if a cap is placed on administrative costs because it will force payers to focus more of their efforts on patient costs, in fact the PPACA has a provision aimed at this problem by raising how much insurers must spend on the medical loss (medical costs of patients). We will see if it has an impact or not although it will not be easy to measure because of the many confounding variables in play.

---------- Post added February-1st-2011 at 12:00 PM ----------

I just find it odd that congress cannot directly mandate something but people are OK with indirect mandates. Your child is not allowed to starve or else they will be taken away from you, therefore you are mandated to buy food for your child. This is seen as something that is for the greater good of the public since children dying from starvation would not be a good thing for the country. In trying to improve the health of the country you are being forced to get insurance. You can decide not to buy it and face penalties just like you can decide not to feed your child and face penalties.

[December90]

The high costs stem from the complexity of the system, the multitude of payers, and the thousands upon thousands of pages of rules and regulations that no other country in the world comes close to. Complying with government regulations does not have to be expensive or burdensome, as seen in other nations with universal systems. It becomes burdensome when providers do not understand the rules because the system has become so convoluted and complex.

Some feel that patient care can be improved if a cap is placed on administrative costs because it will force payers to focus more of their efforts on patient costs, in fact the PPACA has a provision aimed at this problem by raising how much insurers must spend on the medical loss (medical costs of patients). We will see if it has an impact or not although it will not be easy to measure because of the many confounding variables in play.


So you are saying that the Govt makes rules complex for private insurance companies and health providers, but when the Govt becomes the insurance company or provider, suddenly the rules will not be as burdensome?

[shk75]

So you are saying that the Govt makes rules complex for private insurance companies and health providers, but when the Govt becomes the insurance company or provider, suddenly the rules will not be as burdensome?

No that is not what I am saying. In the US the complexity of the system the fact that each insurance company, each medical office, each provider has their own set of rules and regulations and the lack of standardization across local, state, and national levels fuels the increase in administrative costs.

For example if you are a patient with blue cross and you get fired, you then get a COBRA plan, then get hired at a new job but now you have AETNA. The process of switching insurers, having your records transferred, getting a new provider, maybe having to switch treatments because certain things are not covered, fighting with your new insurer to cover them. These are all things that drive our high administrative costs.

[twa]

[/COLOR]I just find it odd that congress cannot directly mandate something but people are OK with indirect mandates. Your child is not allowed to starve or else they will be taken away from you, therefore you are mandated to buy food for your child. This is seen as something that is for the greater good of the public since children dying from starvation would not be a good thing for the country. In trying to improve the health of the country you are being forced to get insurance. You can decide not to buy it and face penalties just like you can decide not to feed your child and face penalties.

The govt can and does mandate many things legally(or close enough to avoid challenge)

The problem they ran into is fining or penalizing economic inactivity by justification under commerce clause
The govt could require every household to buy a gun,but not under the commerce clause
Not feeding your child results in criminal charges...again under different justification.

[Wrong Direction]

What a beautiful political play. Here's a proposed SD law requiring everyone 21 or over to buy a gun for their own safety. Is that constitutional?

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun

[twa]

That would depend on the state constitution

[Wrong Direction]

That would depend on the state constitution

Yeah, I see that now.

[mardi gras skin]

What a beautiful political play. Here's a proposed SD law requiring everyone 21 or over to buy a gun for their own safety. Is that constitutional?

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun

The comments are hilarious. They don't realize this is a dig at the health care law and they're going nuts that the government is forcing citizens to buy something.

[Thirtyfive2seven]

Power grab fail

[Wrong Direction]

The comments are hilarious. They don't realize this is a dig at the health care law and they're going nuts that the government is forcing citizens to buy something.

Yeah, they absolutely are hilarious. The responses to the comments are also hilarious. It looks like 35 to 7 also didn't read it, unless I'm just not picking up what he's putting down.

[Teller]

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).

Hell, let's just kill all welfare, food stamps, and all that crap too. If you can't afford food, you don't get any, suckers!!!

[Enzo]

I'm still waiting of all the republicans that keep telling us that government healthcare is bad & unconstitutional to give up their government healthcare. If it is a socialist plot to take over the country then why do they have it. BTW, the proper term would be government health insurance. In countries like Canada & France they don't have socialized medicine, they have socialized health insurance. Of course most of us just don't get it. We don't realize that socialism is this evil communist nazi plot & is only good when we are bailing out the big Wall Street Banks, or giving free land to big box stores like WalMart, or letting Oil Companies drill on federal lands free of charge, or when we're subsidizing corporate farms & the drug industry. But don't forget that any government program that will help the poor or middle class is completely evil.

---------- Post added February-2nd-2011 at 04:38 AM ----------

I have some bad needs for everyone we already have socialized healthcare in this country. When someone goes to the hospital & they die or end up not paying, those cost are passed down to everyone else. Part of the money that we pay for products in this country goes towards the healthcare cost of that companies employees (Including executives that could afford to pay for their own healthcare). The insurance companies over charge everyone to make up the money that they have to sometimes pay out because of claims that they can't avoid paying. The pharmacutical companies get millions a year in tax payer subsidies.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm still waiting of all the republicans that keep telling us that government healthcare is bad & unconstitutional to give up their government healthcare. If it is a socialist plot to take over the country then why do they have it. BTW, the proper term would be government health insurance. In countries like Canada & France they don't have socialized medicine, they have socialized health insurance. Of course most of us just don't get it. We don't realize that socialism is this evil communist nazi plot & is only good when we are bailing out the big Wall Street Banks, or giving free land to big box stores like WalMart, or letting Oil Companies drill on federal lands free of charge, or when we're subsidizing corporate farms & the drug industry. But don't forget that any government program that will help the poor or middle class is completely evil.

---------- Post added February-2nd-2011 at 04:38 AM ----------

I have some bad needs for everyone we already have socialized healthcare in this country. When someone goes to the hospital & they die or end up not paying, those cost are passed down to everyone else. Part of the money that we pay for products in this country goes towards the healthcare cost of that companies employees (Including executives that could afford to pay for their own healthcare). The insurance companies over charge everyone to make up the money that they have to sometimes pay out because of claims that they can't avoid paying. The pharmacutical companies get millions a year in tax payer subsidies.


Hate to break it to you but your may be surprised to know that the Pharma companies and GE health are making out like bandits with this bill. Much more than they would have benefited before it was passed. It;s a huge windfall for them. (thats how they ended up supporting it)

[aREDSKIN]

A good analysis from people with sufficient credentials.



Consider the problems posed by the insurance mandate. The Obama administration argued that it was supported by the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. True enough, insurance is commerce, but not buying insurance is the antithesis of commerce. Commerce has always been understood as requiring economic activity. This was the rationale Judge Hudson adopted in striking down the individual mandate in the Virginia case.

The government's lawyers in the Florida case insisted that not buying health insurance was somehow different from a failure to buy other products like clothes or food. They said health insurance was "unique" because, eventually, everyone will seek and obtain health care. And if they aren't insured, the costs will be shifted onto others, thus substantially affecting commerce.


Judge Vinson rejected this argument, recognizing that "not consuming" other products, such as food, is also unavoidable and can have substantial effects on other commercial markets. "There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort," he wrote. "The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that—when aggregated with similar economic decisions—affect the price of that particular product or service and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce."



Rest........http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576117913097891574.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[Tulane Skins Fan]

A good analysis from people with sufficient credentials.



Consider the problems posed by the insurance mandate. The Obama administration argued that it was supported by the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. True enough, insurance is commerce, but not buying insurance is the antithesis of commerce. Commerce has always been understood as requiring economic activity. This was the rationale Judge Hudson adopted in striking down the individual mandate in the Virginia case.

The government's lawyers in the Florida case insisted that not buying health insurance was somehow different from a failure to buy other products like clothes or food. They said health insurance was "unique" because, eventually, everyone will seek and obtain health care. And if they aren't insured, the costs will be shifted onto others, thus substantially affecting commerce.


Judge Vinson rejected this argument, recognizing that "not consuming" other products, such as food, is also unavoidable and can have substantial effects on other commercial markets. "There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort," he wrote. "The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that—when aggregated with similar economic decisions—affect the price of that particular product or service and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce."



Rest........http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576117913097891574.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Actually, that's not a particularly good analysis. It is after all an opinion piece in the WSJ. But, I'm not slamming anyone's credentials. It was just written to persuade, obviously.

Here's a good analysis by the DC Bar: http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/january_2011/obamacare.cfm

Very fair and I think descriptive of the issues.

Edit: this actually came out before the latest ruling, but the issues are well-explained.

[redskin56]

I've read the opinion and, all politics aside, I think he made the right legal conclusion.

[Bliz]

I've read the opinion and, all politics aside, I think he made the right legal conclusion.

2 questions, no offense intended whatsoever: 1) are you an attorney with constitutional law experience beyond 1st year of law school? 2) have you read any of the decisions that came down on the other side?

Most judges (and their clerks) are smart and convincing. If you can read a decision without a dissent and not be swayed by the judge's persuasiveness, then it usually means you have a preexisting base of knowledge. If you don't have that base and there is no dissent, you will almost always come out thinking the judge made the right call.

[DieselPwr44]

9shGzvP1Jho

[aREDSKIN]

Great find DP44.

LOL Oh my, the absolute hypocrisy is palpable.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

That's not hypocritical. Obama COMPROMISED on this bill. He didn't want a mandate, he wanted this first: http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20081104/obama-wins-what-it-means-for-health-care

But, the mandate was actually a republican idea. It was just slapped around by the republicans because Obama proposed it.

Anyway, its a distraction from this thread at this point.

[aREDSKIN]

But, the mandate was actually a republican idea. It was just slapped around by the republicans because Obama proposed it.

.

Link for this??

[RedskinsFan44]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/an_interview_with_mark_pauly_t.html
You can also look up an op-ed by Newt Gingrich in 2008 in an Iowa paper and see Mitt Romney's plan. I don't know if it was exclusively a Republican idea but there has certainly been Republican support for it.

[aREDSKIN]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/an_interview_with_mark_pauly_t.html
You can also look up an op-ed by Newt Gingrich in 2008 in an Iowa paper and see Mitt Romney's plan. I don't know if it was exclusively a Republican idea but there has certainly been Republican support for it.

Thanks.

[mardi gras skin]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/an_interview_with_mark_pauly_t.html

This was interesting:


Was the constitutionality of the provision a question, either in your deliberations or after it was released?

I don’t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax. You either paid the tax and got insurance that way or went and got it another way. So I've been surprised at that argument. But I’m not an expert on the Constitution. My fix would be to simply say raise everyone’s taxes by what a health insurance policy would cost -- Congress definitely has the power to do that -- and then tell people that if they obtain insurance, they'll get a tax break of the same amount. So instead of a penalty, it’s a perfectly legal tax break. But this seems to me to angelic pinhead density arguments about whether it’s a payment to do something or not to do something.

That gets to one of the central questions in this argument, which is whether the individual mandate is a penalty for economic inactivity or whether it's part of a broader system of regulations affecting a market for health care that we're all participating in, whether we're buying insurance that day or not.

I see it in the latter way. We thought it was a good idea to do everything possible to encourage people to get insurance. Subsidies will probably pick up the great bulk of the population. But the point of the mandate was that there are a few Evil Knievals who won’t buy it and this would bring them into the system. In our version, the penalty was effectively equal to the premium of a policy. You paid the penalty and you got the insurance. That’s one of my puzzlements here: In the new law, the actual level of the penalty is quite small compared to the price of a policy. It’s only about 20 percent of the cost of a policy.

[redskin56]

[QUOTE=Bliz;8140779]2 questions, no offense intended whatsoever: 1) are you an attorney with constitutional law experience beyond 1st year of law school? 2) have you read any of the decisions that came down on the other side?

Yes I am a lawyer and I have constitutional experience.

I have not read the decision that came down on the other side; however, this judge's opinion actually cites and explores the other opinions that came down before his and he distinguishes his opinion from the other ones and explains why he believes the other opinions were incorrect. From a purely historical point, you should read the opinion. He gives a recitation of the history of the commerce clause and most of the landmark supreme court opinions that dealt expressly with the commerce clause.

Below is a link to the opinion.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/___Politics_Today_Stories_Teases/PPM153_vin.pdf

[Wrong Direction]

This was interesting:

The quote itself has some issues and is miscasting the argument.


Was the constitutionality of the provision a question, either in your deliberations or after it was released?
...
But I’m not an expert on the Constitution. My fix would be to simply say raise everyone’s taxes by what a health insurance policy would cost -- Congress definitely has the power to do that -- and then tell people that if they obtain insurance, they'll get a tax break of the same amount.

First, the issue at hand has nothing to do with how to fix the law and everything to do with declaring it unconstitutional. If D's went this route originally, it would have been a non-starter because Obama's original contention was that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class.

If Obama wanted a fix, he'd have to make MAJOR compromises with R's to the point that the law itself would not look anything like this one. Even then, he'd have to have a willing partner in Republicans, and I'd wager there's no pulse in the R party supporting the idea of giving Obama a major legislative victory before the next election even if he were willing to go this route. This is still politics.


So instead of a penalty, it’s a perfectly legal tax break. But this seems to me to angelic pinhead density arguments about whether it’s a payment to do something or not to do something.

The penalty is one issue, but it's not the constitutional issue. That issue is the mandate that everyone purchase something which they may or may not use. To cast this as an issue over a penalty is a misunderstanding of the issue.


That gets to one of the central questions in this argument, which is whether the individual mandate is a penalty for economic inactivity or whether it's part of a broader system of regulations affecting a market for health care that we're all participating in, whether we're buying insurance that day or not.

The mandate itself isn't a penalty, it's just enforced with a penalty. Either way, the premise above is wrong because not everyone does participate in the health insurance marketplace. A lot of people are healthy, or are willing to pay out of pocket. This law is forcing them to buy into a marketplace whether or not they want or need to do so.

Note, this is different than in Part D as well. In that program, beneficiaries only incur a penalty if they choose to participate eventually. There's no mandate to participate however.

An irony that I just remembered a few days ago...

A few years back, I went to a baseball game with my brother's friend from Mass. He hated Romney specifically because of the penalty in Mass. He was genuinely livid about anyone supporting Romney. He was a R who would vote for Obama or Hillary over Romney and the R's because of that issue. I bet he's regretting that vote now.

[Stadium-Armory]

This is somewhat off topic, but I didn't think it required its own thread.

A real estate friend of mine called my attention to this explanation on factcheck.org about a new "sales tax" that goes in to effect in 2013 when you sell your house. It sounds like capital gains to me, but the thing that REALLY caught my attention is the fact that its part of the health care bill. What does capital gains tax modifications have to do with health care reform?

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/


A 3.8 Percent “Sales Tax” on Your Home?
April 22, 2010

Q: Does the new health care law impose a 3.8 percent tax on profits from selling your home?
A: No, with very few exceptions. The first $250,000 in profit from the sale of a personal residence won’t be taxed, or the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple. The tax falls on relatively few — those with high incomes from other sources.
FULL QUESTION
I received this e-mail:
This should help stimulate the Real Estate market!
UNDER THE NEW HEALTH CARE BILL - DID YOU KNOW THAT ALL REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO A 3.8% “SALES TAX”?
YOU CAN THANK NANCY, HARRY & BARACK (AND YOUR LOCAL CONGRESSMAN) FOR THIS ONE.
IF YOU SELL YOUR $400,000 HOME, THIS WILL BE A $15,200 TAX.
Verified
Higher taxes on real estate investments. The 3.8% Medicare surtax would hit average, middle-class investors in real estate. A middle-class taxpayer who happens to sell real estate for a gain in a particular year would be liable for this new tax, regardless of how low her income might be in other, more typical years.
FULL ANSWER
We’ve been flooded with queries about this one ever since the health care bill became law. At the last minute, Democratic lawmakers decided on a new 3.8 percent tax on the net investment income of high-income persons. But the claim that this would amount to a $15,200 tax on the sale of a typical $400,000 home is utterly false.
The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won’t apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home.
We can understand how this misconception got started. The law itself is couched in highly technical language that only a qualified tax expert can fully grasp. (This provision begins on page 33 of the reconciliation bill that was passed and signed into law.) And it does say the tax falls on "net gain … attributable to the disposition of property." That would include the sale of a home. But the bill also says the tax falls only on that portion of any gain that is "taken into account in computing taxable income" under the existing tax code. And the fact is, the first $250,000 in profit on the sale of a primary residence (or $500,000 in the case of a married couple) is excluded from taxable income already. (That exclusion doesn’t apply to vacation homes or rental properties.)
The Joint Committee on Taxation, the group of nonpartisan tax experts that Congress relies on to analyze tax proposals, underscores this in a footnote on page 135 of its report on the bill. The note states: "Gross income does not include … excluded gain from the sale of a principal residence."
And just to be sure, we checked with William Ahern, director of policy and communications for the nonprofit, pro-business Tax Foundation. "Some home sales would see a tax increase under this bill," Ahern told us, "but it would have to be a second home or a principal residence generating [a gain of] more than $250,000 ($500,000 for a couple)."
So there you have it. The sort of people who would have to pay the tax might include, for example:
A single executive making $210,000 a year who sells his $300,000 ski condo for a $50,000 profit. His tax on the sale of that vacation home would amount to $1,900, in addition to the capital gains tax he would have paid anyway.
An "empty nester" couple with combined income of over $250,000 a year who sell their $1 million primary residence to move to smaller quarters. If they cleared $600,000 on the sale, they would be taxed on $100,000 of the profit (the amount over the half-million-dollar exclusion). Their health care tax on the sale would amount to $3,800 over and above the usual capital gains levy.
However, a typical home sale would not incur any tax. In March, for example, half of all existing homes sold for $170,700 or less, according to the National Association of Realtors. Obviously, none of those sales could possibly generate a $250,000 profit, and so none would be subject to the tax.
Thus, for the vast majority, the 3.8 percent tax won’t apply. The Tax Foundation, in a report released April 15, said the new tax on investment income (including real estate) "will hit approximately the top-earning two percent of families" when it takes effect in 2013.
Footnote: Some of the chain e-mails that claim ordinary home sales will be taxed include a copy of an article written by Paul Guppy, a policy analyst with the conservative Washington Policy Institute (that’s Washington state, not Washington, D.C.). The article appeared March 28 as an op-ed in the Spokane, Wash., Spokesman-Review, and Guppy claimed that "[m]iddle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are ‘rich’ for only one day." That brought a quick rebuttal from Sara Orrange, the government affairs director of the local Realtors association. She wrote a letter to the newspaper calling Guppy’s article "inaccurate" and saying, "Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made." In a news article the next day, business reporter Bert Caldwell confirmed that only "a very few" home sellers would pay the 3.8 percent tax.
The Internal Revenue Service says that to qualify for the $250,000/$500,000 exclusion, a seller must have owned the home and lived there as the seller’s "main home" for at least two years out of the five years prior to the sale.
– Brooks Jackson

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This is somewhat off topic, but I didn't think it required its own thread.

A real estate friend of mine called my attention to this explanation on factcheck.org about a new "sales tax" that goes in to effect in 2013 when you sell your house. It sounds like capital gains to me, but the thing that REALLY caught my attention is the fact that its part of the health care bill. What does capital gains tax modifications have to do with health care reform?

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/

I think the very simple answer is that the health bill has to be paid for, and there are taxes in it to pay for it.

Theres no requirement that you only tax the industry or profession that you are regulating.

[Bliz]

[QUOTE=Bliz;8140779]2 questions, no offense intended whatsoever: 1) are you an attorney with constitutional law experience beyond 1st year of law school? 2) have you read any of the decisions that came down on the other side?

Yes I am a lawyer and I have constitutional experience.

I have not read the decision that came down on the other side; however, this judge's opinion actually cites and explores the other opinions that came down before his and he distinguishes his opinion from the other ones and explains why he believes the other opinions were incorrect. From a purely historical point, you should read the opinion. He gives a recitation of the history of the commerce clause and most of the landmark supreme court opinions that dealt expressly with the commerce clause.

Below is a link to the opinion.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/___Politics_Today_Stories_Teases/PPM153_vin.pdf

I had read the opinion. I don't have con law experience beyond law school/studying for the bar. But for those who do your opinion carries a lot more weight (with me at least) than a layman reading the opinion.

[nonniey]

I think this is pretty lucid and easy to understand take on this ruling and the Presidents reaction to Judge Vinson. From USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-02-03-turley03_ST_N.htm
"
After this week's decision striking down the entire federal health care law as unconstitutional, the White House went into a full convulsive rage at Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida.
Borrowing an attack that has more often been heard from Republican administrations, Stephanie Cutter, a senior adviser to President Obama, issued a statement denouncing Vinson as a "judicial activist." That charge was quickly picked up by Democratic lawmakers. The evidence cited for this charge was the fact that Vinson "declared that the entire law is null and void even though the only provision he found unconstitutional was the (individual mandate) provision," which requires every citizen to buy health insurance.

What the White House does not mention is that it played a game of chicken over health care with the court and lost a critical battle in Florida. Instead of inserting a "severability clause" designed to protect an act from this type of global rejection, the legislation was rammed through a divided Congress with diminishing public support.

The absence of the clause was just one of the flaws in this legislation, which even sponsors now admit must be amended to address serious problems ranging from paperwork overload to uncertain costs to questions over what plans will count under the law. Even for some of us who support national health care, the bill unnecessarily triggered the constitutional fight that led to its rejection in two federal courts. There were alternatives to achieve the same end, but what was lacking was a willingness to reconsider these provisions with the approach of the new Congress.

A standard feature
Yet the failure of lawmakers to insert a boilerplate severability clause is the most puzzling. The standard clause — pardon the legalese — states, "If any particular provision of this act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the act and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby." It is generally on a short list of basic elements for legislation, such as putting a title and preamble on a bill.

The national health care bill contained such a provision, but it was removed before passage. Of course, even without such a clause, judges can still avoid striking down an entire law and confine their rulings to a specific provision. That is what Judge Henry Hudson did last year in Virginia after finding the individual mandate unconstitutional. Hudson was right to do so, in my view, but that does not make Vinson a judicial activist.

The charge of activism sounds like the lament of every bad gambler after being discouraged from playing a high-risk hand.

The risk was always there
Many — including yours truly — had raised concerns over the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Even the respected Congressional Research Service noted that such objections might have merit. Ultimately, public officials in 26 states have challenged the law.

Even if one accepts that the removal of the clause was just some colossal, inexplicable blunder, it was the blunder of the White House and Congress — not the courts. The result was a Ford Pinto law — a fast and cheap vehicle that would explode with even low-speed collisions.

The Justice Department undermined its own case by repeatedly warning Vinson in court that if he struck down the individual mandate, the law would be fundamentally crippled. Without the mandate (and young healthy people forced to buy insurance), the plan is fatally underfunded. It appeared to the court that the administration was arguing that it was an "all-or-nothing" proposition. Vinson's ruling: Nothing it is.

Of course, the law could be ultimately saved by the U.S. Supreme Court, where it is clearly heading. In the end, however, it seems a bit forced for the Obama administration to throw around the old cry of "judicial activism" when it pushed through a law that removed the critical safety provision for severability.

The problem with games of chicken is that sometimes the other guy does not jump before the cliff."

[SnyderShrugged]

[QUOTE=redskin56;8142461]

I had read the opinion. I don't have con law experience beyond law school/studying for the bar. But for those who do your opinion carries a lot more weight (with me at least) than a layman reading the opinion.

wouldnt the judge qualify as an expert too?

[Wrong Direction]

The evolution of the discussion in this thread tells me either that the supporters of ObamaCare don't know how to refute the case or that they're just not around. Not sure which, but they've disappeared, from this thread at least.

[Bliz]

wouldnt the judge qualify as an expert too?


well played


But so are the two judges who upheld the law.

It is interesting, if sadly predictable, that the two who upheld it were Dem appointees and the two who ruled against it were Pub appointees.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The evolution of the discussion in this thread tells me either that the supporters of ObamaCare don't know how to refute the case or that they're just not around. Not sure which, but they've disappeared, from this thread at least.

Its the 10th page of the thread. so, the arguments have been made.

[Predicto]

[QUOTE=Bliz;8142843]

wouldnt the judge qualify as an expert too?


So would the other judges, the ones that found it wasn't unconstitutional. :whoknows: Its going to go to the Supreme Court, precisely because it is actually a close isse.

[mardi gras skin]

Its the 10th page of the thread. so, the arguments have been made.

Actually, I'd like to hear a response to nonnie's post. Not that I think you guys are posting to keep me entertained or anything...http://www.smiley-faces.org/smiley-faces/smiley-face-whistle-2.gif (http://www.smiley-faces.org)

[SnyderShrugged]

[QUOTE=SnyderShrugged;8142985]


So would the other judges, the ones that found it wasn't unconstitutional. :whoknows: Its going to go to the Supreme Court, precisely because it is actually a close isse.


yes

[Predicto]

The evolution of the discussion in this thread tells me either that the supporters of ObamaCare don't know how to refute the case or that they're just not around. Not sure which, but they've disappeared, from this thread at least.

What could we say that would be of interest to you? I could just selectively quote from blogs that disagree with the decision, but that wouldn't be of much use.

I actually am a constitutional law expert. I do it for a living. But I usually pipe up only when I see someone mangling a constitutional issue, completely missing the meaning of a decision, or misrepresenting basic constitutional jurisprudence.

In this case, we all understand what the point is, and what the arguments are, and the question is a close one, so I don't have much to add. We will know the final answer eventually.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Actually, I'd like to hear a response to nonnie's post. Not that I think you guys are posting to keep me entertained or anything...http://www.smiley-faces.org/smiley-faces/smiley-face-whistle-2.gif (http://www.smiley-faces.org)

The USA Today op ed?

Here's what I posted earlier that is a link to an actually unbiased legal analysis of the issue: http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/january_2011/obamacare.cfm

Its from the DC Bar and it came out before Vinson's ruling. It explains both sides of the issues well.

[Wrong Direction]

Its the 10th page of the thread. so, the arguments have been made.

By the way, I read the DC Bar link you wrote and thought it was informative. Of the three primary issues they raised, I think the court will settle on the "is the penalty a tax" issue easiest. In a nutshell, but somehow not directly mentioned there, I don't believe they'll rule it is a tax precisely because it was sold to the American people as not a tax...in other words, on false pretenses if indeed it is a tax. They mention that Obama said it wasn't a tax, but they don't mention that by implication, the American people and even members of Congress were misled about what they were voting on at the time if it indeed is a tax.

Of the three arguments, I think that's going to be the Administration's toughest to make both politically and legally.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

By the way, I read the DC Bar link you wrote and thought it was informative. Of the three primary issues they raised, I think the court will settle on the "is the penalty a tax" issue easiest. In a nutshell, but somehow not directly mentioned there, I don't believe they'll rule it is a tax precisely because it was sold to the American people as not a tax...in other words, on false pretenses if indeed it is a tax. They mention that Obama said it wasn't a tax, but they don't mention that by implication, the American people and even members of Congress were misled about what they were voting on at the time if it indeed is a tax.

Of the three arguments, I think that's going to be the Administration's toughest to make both politically and legally.

Hmm. You could be right.

I can say that there is case law out there, not specifically from the SC, that basically says "don't tell me what the politics were of the law." Courts do look to legislative intent though, in the right circumstances.

Like I've said all along, I think its very close, but I think its constitutional. I would not be surprised either way.

I will point out that the score is not 2-2 though in judges. I think its actually 14-2 in favor of the bill being constitutional, because I think that 12 cases have been thrown out on the standing issue. I don't know if that is a real issue going forward but it would be a great way for the SC to punt on a highly charged political and emotional issue.

[Wrong Direction]

I also got a sense reading that of why the replace portion of the R agenda is so important. At it's simplest, if an alternative without a mandate is on the table, that makes the reasonable and necessary case somewhat harder to make.

---------- Post added February-3rd-2011 at 05:22 PM ----------


Hmm. You could be right.

I can say that there is case law out there, not specifically from the SC, that basically says "don't tell me what the politics were of the law." Courts do look to legislative intent though, in the right circumstances.

Like I've said all along, I think its very close, but I think its constitutional. I would not be surprised either way.

I will point out that the score is not 2-2 though in judges. I think its actually 14-2 in favor of the bill being constitutional, because I think that 12 cases have been thrown out on the standing issue. I don't know if that is a real issue going forward but it would be a great way for the SC to punt on a highly charged political and emotional issue.

Yeah, I'm aware of the intent issue as well.

I really don't think they'll punt on this one unless they hold off a decision until after election 2012.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I also got a sense reading that of why the replace portion of the R agenda is so important. At it's simplest, if an alternative without a mandate is on the table, that makes the reasonable and necessary case somewhat harder to make.

---------- Post added February-3rd-2011 at 05:22 PM ----------



Yeah, I'm aware of the intent issue as well.

I really don't think they'll punt on this one unless they hold off a decision until after election 2012.

They might not. But politics is something the SC has a reputation for trying to avoid. And truthfully, this is a close legal issue, but even moreso its a political issue.

If they do rule on the commerce clause/tax clause/necessary and proper clause, no matter how they rule, its going to be a game changer.

[twa]

You would think a lawyer wouldn't count cases thrown out for standing a victory....unless he was biased :poke: :evilg:

[Wrong Direction]

What could we say that would be of interest to you? I could just selectively quote from blogs that disagree with the decision, but that wouldn't be of much use.

I actually am a constitutional law expert. I do it for a living. But I usually pipe up only when I see someone mangling a constitutional issue, completely missing the meaning of a decision, or misrepresenting basic constitutional jurisprudence.

In this case, we all understand what the point is, and what the arguments are, and the question is a close one, so I don't have much to add. We will know the final answer eventually.

Actually, with that post you've come a long way from where others are earlier in the thread.


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.

[DRSmith]

They might not. But politics is something the SC has a reputation for trying to avoid. And truthfully, this is a close legal issue, but even moreso its a political issue.

If they do rule on the commerce clause/tax clause/necessary and proper clause, no matter how they rule, its going to be a game changer.

Of late the SCOTUS seems to be becoming more political with Thomas's wife having a tea party group and Salias going to adress the tea party group at congress it is clear this will come down to justice Kennedy

[mardi gras skin]

They might not. But politics is something the SC has a reputation for trying to avoid. And truthfully, this is a close legal issue, but even moreso its a political issue.

If they do rule on the commerce clause/tax clause/necessary and proper clause, no matter how they rule, its going to be a game changer.

According to the article you posted, politics looks to be a major factor.


“You start off with proposition that the Supreme Court will bend over backward to uphold acts of Congress. That’s principle Number One. [The Court] always [has]. The smart money says that’s what they’ll do this time, because they have the doctrine of the presumption of constitutionality. They especially want to uphold the bill if it’s popular. So the smart money says, Of course they’ll uphold the bill,” Barnett says.

“Then you start changing the assumptions. If the Court perceives that the bill is unpopular, if the Court perceives that it was passed by a bare partisan majority,” Barnett says it might balk at supporting it, adding: “It’s the first substantial legislation that’s passed by a bare partisan majority.”

As for the argument that the Court has not struck down social programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and civil rights, those “all passed with bipartisan support,” Barnett notes.

“So if one or both houses of a changing Congress” weaken in their support for the legislation, “and if [the justices] see Democrats who voted for the bill running away from it, at that point I think they would be open to valid constitutional objections to the [mandate]. And since I think there are valid constitutional objections to it, I think there could be five votes to strike down. If it’s unpopular, then I think there very well could be five votes to strike this bill down,” Barnett says.

[twa]

He makes good points,and consent of the governed does factor in for good or ill

[Predicto]

Actually, with that post you've come a long way from where others are earlier in the thread.

Well, JMS does not speak for me, although he does make a good point.

The fact is, not many years ago, there would have been little question that this was constititional. However, concerted GOP efforts to appoint only the most conservative possible judges have pushed the courts steadily to the right. This is especially true on the Supreme Court and the DC Circuit, and now all sorts of established precedents are being called into question. The conservative majority currently on the Court has shown themselves to be quite the judicial activists when they want to be. So now I consider this case a very close call, where it might not have been one in the past.

You may or may not think this shift to the right is a good or necessary thing. There is no point to arguing about that. But it certainly has happened. I think that was JMS's point.

[Wrong Direction]

Well, JMS does not speak for me, although he does make a good point.

The fact is, not many years ago, there would have been little question that this was constititional. However, concerted GOP efforts to appoint only the most conservative possible judges have pushed the courts have moved steadily to the right. This is especially true on the Supreme Court and the DC Circuit, and now all sorts of established precedents are being called into question. The conservative majority currently on the Court has shown themselves to be quite the judicial activists when they want to be. So now I consider this case a very close call, where it might not have been one in the past.

You may or may not think this shift to the right is a good or necessary thing. There is no point to arguing about that. But it certainly has happened. I think that was JMS's point.

Incorrect. JMS said the judges ignored 80 years worth of precedent when they clearly not only didn't ignore it, but they addressed it as they deemed appropriate.

And yes, it's probably good that we don't get into the judicial activism conversation. We do differ, though I'm not a constitutional law expert.

[Predicto]

Incorrect. JMS said the judges ignored 80 years worth of precedent when they clearly not only didn't ignore it, but they addressed it as they deemed appropriate.



Well, when they agree with you, you say they addressed it. When they disagree with you, you say they ignored precedent. :)




And yes, it's probably good that we don't get into the judicial activism conversation. We do differ, though I'm not a constitutional law expert.

I probably should not call myself an expert, because I'm not an expert in the same sense as a published Con Law professor. I'm just an attorney who researches and writes for the judges of an appellate court. On the other hand, I do know a hell of a lot more about con law than Andrew Napolitano. :ols:

And besides, there are plenty of genuine con law experts out there who are conservative and who disagree with me on this, so I can't claim to have the absolutely correct answer. It's not a math problem, and there is no absolutely correct answer. Constitutional interpretation is tricky stuff, and it changes over time, but its still the best system of legal governance I know of.

[shk75]

Well, JMS does not speak for me, although he does make a good point.

The fact is, not many years ago, there would have been little question that this was constititional. However, concerted GOP efforts to appoint only the most conservative possible judges have pushed the courts have moved steadily to the right. This is especially true on the Supreme Court and the DC Circuit, and now all sorts of established precedents are being called into question. The conservative majority currently on the Court has shown themselves to be quite the judicial activists when they want to be. So now I consider this case a very close call, where it might not have been one in the past.

You may or may not think this shift to the right is a good or necessary thing. There is no point to arguing about that. But it certainly has happened. I think that was JMS's point.

The shift to the right is not just in the courts it is in US politics in general. The last real era of leftist politics died when LBJ was no longer in office. That is why Obama "shoved his reform down our throats" lol because any politician knows there are certain policy "windows" that only come around once every 40 or 50 years. LBJ wanted universal care but he settled for an incremental approach and only enacted Medicare/Aid. Obama wanted universal care but he settled for his reforms and he knew he had to do it quickly or else the window would close and who knows when the next opportunity would come since there has been a steady shift to the right in the last 50 years.

[aREDSKIN]

Constitutional interpretation is tricky stuff, and it changes over time, but its still the best system of legal governance I know of.



So then the issue of PRECEDENCE Is FLUID, not absolute, and not to be taken "that seriously" especially when new facts and situations occur?

[Drockvb]

I am looking forward to getting on a Government provided plan. It's way cheaper than what i pay now. :D

[Bliz]

So then the issue of PRECEDENCE Is FLUID, not absolute, and not to be taken "that seriously" especially when new facts and situations occur?

That's a very glib interpretation of what Predicto said, but in a manner of speaking, yes. The highest state and federal courts in the land (only the US Supreme Court and state equivalents, NOT the lower federal or state courts) have the authority to revisit precedent and modify or overturn it if appropriate. It is fluid only in the sense that the body of precedent is continually supplemented through each new decision that comes down, and through the occasional decision to break with precedent.

That does NOT mean it is "not to be taken 'that seriously'." The decision to abandon or overturn precedent is generally made cautiously and extremely carefully, and pretty rarely. Not willy-nilly. New facts and situations arise all the time. Precedent generally gives a pretty good roadmap of how they should be dealt with, by explaining how we have dealt with analogous questions.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

You would think a lawyer wouldn't count cases thrown out for standing a victory....unless he was biased :poke: :evilg:

Why is that biased?

[Wrong Direction]

The shift to the right is not just in the courts it is in US politics in general. The last real era of leftist politics died when LBJ was no longer in office. That is why Obama "shoved his reform down our throats" lol because any politician knows there are certain policy "windows" that only come around once every 40 or 50 years. LBJ wanted universal care but he settled for an incremental approach and only enacted Medicare/Aid. Obama wanted universal care but he settled for his reforms and he knew he had to do it quickly or else the window would close and who knows when the next opportunity would come since there has been a steady shift to the right in the last 50 years.

An interesting read, but also quite boring, is The Politics of Medicare.

This books revisits the politics of when Medicare was first passed into law. Talk about getting snookered, the R's strategy blew up big time. LBJ wanted Medicare, the healthcare equivalent to Social Security. Republicans said no. They wanted only a program for the sick and poor, and they wanted to give states control. Both parties sparred over this for a while, but the Democrats had super majorities of both houses at the time. What did LBJ do? He said ok to the Republicans and to himself, so Congress passed both Medicare and the Republican alternative, Medicaid.

Talk about a D'Oh moment for Republicans.

[aREDSKIN]

Isn't this just the end game the Dems really want??



Bernie Sanders, the “independent” but self-described socialist senator from Vermont, told MSNBC yesterday he has a novel idea for reforming health care — get rid of all the private health insurance companies:


“I hope to be able to get waivers from Congress and the White House to allow us to do so. At the end of the day, if you are going to provide health care to all of our people in a cost effective way, you have to get rid of the health insurance companies, not profiteering and bureaucracy,” he said.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sen-bernie-sanders-get-rid-of-all-private-insurance-companies/

[Predicto]

So then the issue of PRECEDENCE Is FLUID, not absolute, and not to be taken "that seriously" especially when new facts and situations occur?

That's a little bit simplistic. Let's put it this way. At one time, the Dred Scott decision was a Supreme Court precedent. Pure racial segregation in public schools was deemed perfectly constitutional. And so on.

Sometimes courts make mistakes, and they have to go back and change them.

[SnyderShrugged]

That's a little bit simplistic. Let's put it this way. At one time, the Dred Scott decision was a Supreme Court precedent. Pure racial segregation in public schools was deemed perfectly constitutional. And so on.

Sometimes courts make mistakes, and they have to go back and change them.

Just like to overreaching precedents established for the use of the commerce clause and general welfare clause?

I would love to see boundaries for those framed up.

[aREDSKIN]

That's a little bit simplistic. Let's put it this way. At one time, the Dred Scott decision was a Supreme Court precedent. Pure racial segregation in public schools was deemed perfectly constitutional. And so on.

Sometimes courts make mistakes, and they have to go back and change them.



That was my point. The history of US courts is deep in illogical, immoral, and down right political decision making. Precedence, per se, is not an absolute and driver as many purport it to be.

[Wrong Direction]

So liberals believe that Socialized Healthcare and mandated personal insurance should be a constitutional right.

So the correct ruling by the federal judge in Florida should be ignored by Obama just like he did with the ruling about the oil drilling moratorium being found unconstitutional but is still dragging his feet when it comes to giving out permits, which means he is now in Contempt of court. You can bet the house Obama Admin will be in contempt again when it comes to Obamacare.

Actually, I believe he needs to be ruled in contempt to actually be in contempt. Until then, he's just annoying the opposition. The 26 states would need to go to court seeking to find him in contempt for not following Vinson's ruling in order for that to be true.

At least, that's the story I'm making up.

[Predicto]

That was my point. The history of US courts is deep in illogical, immoral, and down right political decision making. Precedence, per se, is not an absolute and driver as many purport it to be.

That is because we are human beings. Nevertheless, precedent is very important and should only be overturned on very careful consideration. Without it, there is no certainty and reliability in the law, no "rule of law" as it were.

[Prosperity]

That was my point. The history of US courts is deep in illogical, immoral, and down right political decision making.

less than the executive and legislature at least

[twa]

Why is that biased?

If you are counting it as support for the other opinions=bias
as you know standing has nothing to do with the merits of the issues themselves

[DRSmith]

You know it is sort of sad, see cancer heart disease, strokes etc do not care if they are being rtreated with money that comes from a government insurance program or a private one.

Indivuals decide to make their living treating and helping the sick and they need payment for such and that is fine.

Profiteering off illness is bad ie insurance comany making money bby denying claims who is the insurance company more beholdent too, the people who pays their premuims or the investors?

I am not sure what is wrong with the government saying to people take responsiblity for your health care needs.

As for these groups that are right now advertising against the idea of taxing soda or other foods that are causing problems how about instead the government withdraws the subsidies for corn that make it cheap and make the high fructose corn syrup that is put in many foods and put that money into health care and your prices can rise and people will cut back.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

If you are counting it as support for the other opinions=bias
as you know standing has nothing to do with the merits of the issues themselves

I was merely saying that its not really 2-2 in court decisions. I wasn't trying to say that anyone was biased. Just saying that there is a real issue with standing, apparently. I don't know that issue, and I don't know if that issue goes to the SC, but its not really accurate to say that its 2-2 in court decisions.

[SnyderShrugged]

I was merely saying that its not really 2-2 in court decisions. I wasn't trying to say that anyone was biased. Just saying that there is a real issue with standing, apparently. I don't know that issue, and I don't know if that issue goes to the SC, but its not really accurate to say that its 2-2 in court decisions.


curious if the number of plaintiffs for the cases has any bearing at all? Does the fact that there were many more states represented in the Florida ruling mean anything?

[twa]

curious if the number of plaintiffs for the cases has any bearing at all? Does the fact that there were many more states represented in the Florida ruling mean anything?

Popular opinion(or as in this case opposition by over half the states) certainly has a effect.

No legal bearing on the facts at hand though....kinda like dismissals on standing....right TSF?;)

[turdfurguson]

Here is a simple question for all Americans.... please state, in what other area has the federal government ever regulated inactivity?

[Larry]

Here is a simple question for all Americans.... please state, in what other area has the federal government ever regulated inactivity?

Failure to file your income taxes.

Failure to yield. Or to use turn signals.

Criminal negligence.

----------

Here is a simple question for all of the people who keep frantically, desperately, running around in circles searching for some excuse to claim that this law is some kind of vast, unprecedented, Satanic affront to the very fabric of our society:

Why can't y'all just say "It's a bad law"?

Why all the pretzel twisting, tail chasing, reality ignoring effort to come up with some way to claim that it's a completely new, never been done before, attack on the Constitution?

How come you can't disagree with the law, without having to invent some fictional claim of unconstitutionality?

[twa]

It does not appear to be a fictional claim by at least two federal judges

The proposed act is indeed unprecedented...why can't you admit that?

[SnyderShrugged]

Failure to file your income taxes.

Failure to yield. Or to use turn signals.

Criminal negligence.

----------

Here is a simple question for all of the people who keep frantically, desperately, running around in circles searching for some excuse to claim that this law is some kind of vast, unprecedented, Satanic affront to the very fabric of our society:

Why can't y'all just say "It's a bad law"?

Why all the pretzel twisting, tail chasing, reality ignoring effort to come up with some way to claim that it's a completely new, never been done before, attack on the Constitution?

How come you can't disagree with the law, without having to invent some fictional claim of unconstitutionality?



I think the use of the term "inactivity" is inappropriate for this circumstance. Personally, I think he should have used the term "economic non-participation" (which none of the items you listed were)

[Larry]

I think the use of the term "inactivity" is inappropriate for this circumstance. Personally, I think he should have used the term "economic non-participation" (which none of the items you listed were)

Oh, that's right. The federal government has no authority to regulate economic acts, right?

Failure to pay your taxes.

Again: The reason why you are desperately trying to come up with some way of completing the sentence "It's Unconstitutional because . . . " is?

The reason why you are mentally incapable of opposing the law on the grounds of "It's a bad law because . . . " is?

[SnyderShrugged]

Oh, that's right. The federal government has no authority to regulate economic acts, right?

Failure to pay your taxes.

Again: The reason why you are desperately trying to come up with some way of completing the sentence "It's Unconstitutional because . . . " is?

The reason why you are mentally incapable of opposing the law on the grounds of "It's a bad law because . . . " is?


Oh there is the gumpy Larry we all know and love! Hi!!!

Not sure why you said any of that as it relates to my post.

I simply said I would have used different terminology that what turdfurguson used and I stand by that.

There isnt a precedent where the feds mandated participation in economic activity. Hint: paying taxes is considered economic activity.

Not sure what has your grumpy gander up as it was a simple statement. Maybe you need a nap?

[Prosperity]

what if it's not a mandate to participate in an economic activity, but the chance to participate in an activity to exempt your self from one particular tax? (I think you are taxed a few thousand for not getting health insurance)

[SnyderShrugged]

what if it's not a mandate to participate in an economic activity, but the chance to participate in an activity to exempt your self from one particular tax? (I think you are taxed a few thousand for not getting health insurance)

One of the main "selling" points and assurances that the pro-reform side gave was that is "wasnt a tax"

In an interview with Stephanopolis before the bill passed, he said "“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,”

What you describe is a penalty for non-participation.

[twa]

what if it's not a mandate to participate in an economic activity, but the chance to participate in an activity to exempt your self from one particular tax? (I think you are taxed a few thousand for not getting health insurance)

They could have certainly done that,but chose not too to avoid the blowback

What you speak of is basically a tax deduction for ins payments..

[Larry]

There isnt a precedent where the feds mandated participation in economic activity. Hint: paying taxes is considered economic activity.

Utter horsecrap.

1) Paying taxes is economic activity. Because it involves money.

2) Try building a gravel pit without a fence around it, and claiming that you cannot be forced to build one, or held liable if some kid wanders in and kills himself.

3) Try driving a car without a current sticker on the license plate. Or go without paying the property tax on your home. Loudly yell that the constitution forbids the government from punishing people for failing to spend money.

4) Or, for that matter, driving a car without insurance. Or failing to carry workman's comp insurance for your employees. (Cue the "the Constitution forbids the government from passing laws that apply to everybody" lie.)

----------

I'm not at all certain that the steaming pile of sausage that made it through Congress is a good law. But boy, I'm getting tired of seeing the ever-increasing levels of bogosity that people are spewing to try to turn it into a treasonous attack on the Constitution.

So far, I've heard that it's unconstitutional because:


1) It applies to everybody, and the government can only pass laws that only apply to some people.

2) It contains a penalty for non-compliance, and the government can't pass laws that punish people for breaking the law.

3) It punishes people for not doing something.

4) And now, "it punishes people for not doing something, that involves money, but isn't related to taxation".

This law's been out there for what, a year? And these are the biggest complaints you can come up with about it? These obvious jokes?

[twa]

These obvious jokes?

You mean like equal under the law is a joke?

It is up to the govt to justify laws or fines under the rules in place...so far they are failing.:)

[Larry]

You mean like equal under the law is a joke?

Tell you what. I'll find the part of the Constitution that says that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. You find the part that says that the government cannot pass laws that apply to all citizens.


It is up to the govt to justify laws or fines under the rules in place...so far they are failing.:)

Excuse me? It's up to the government to prove that it has the authority to pass laws that apply to all citizens? You mean "we've been doing it for the entire history of our nation" doesn't count?

[SnyderShrugged]

Utter horsecrap.

1) Paying taxes is economic activity. Because it involves money.

2) Try building a gravel pit without a fence around it, and claiming that you cannot be forced to build one, or held liable if some kid wanders in and kills himself.

3) Try driving a car without a current sticker on the license plate. Or go without paying the property tax on your home. Loudly yell that the constitution forbids the government from punishing people for failing to spend money.

4) Or, for that matter, driving a car without insurance. Or failing to carry workman's comp insurance for your employees. (Cue the "the Constitution forbids the government from passing laws that apply to everybody" lie.)

----------

I'm not at all certain that the steaming pile of sausage that made it through Congress is a good law. But boy, I'm getting tired of seeing the ever-increasing levels of bogosity that people are spewing to try to turn it into a treasonous attack on the Constitution.

So far, I've heard that it's unconstitutional because:


1) It applies to everybody, and the government can only pass laws that only apply to some people.

2) It contains a penalty for non-compliance, and the government can't pass laws that punish people for breaking the law.

3) It punishes people for not doing something.

4) And now, "it punishes people for not doing something, that involves money, but isn't related to taxation".

This law's been out there for what, a year? And these are the biggest complaints you can come up with about it? These obvious jokes?



LMAO dramatic much!?

and no, just because it involves money it doesnt automatically count as economic activity. In fact taxation removes money from the economy in most cases.

sorry Larry, in my opinion you are off in this one. (like that amounts to much in your view, but thats the way it is)

---------- Post added February-6th-2011 at 02:27 PM ----------

just for clarification purposes, lets review commonly held definitions of "economic activity

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Economic+Activity
economic activity
The production and distribution of goods and services at all levels. Economic activity and expected future levels of it have an important influence on security prices because of the interrelationship between economic activity and corporate profits, inflation, interest rates, and other variables. One frequently used measure of economic activity is the gross domestic product.

same one at business section of yourdictionary.com
http://business.yourdictionary.com/economic-activity



In all of the definitions that I quickly found in Google (they were all essentially the same, btw)

The common denominator is "The production and distribution of goods and services at all levels."

Taxation neither distributes or produces a good or service, therefore it is not economic activity

[twa]

Excuse me? It's up to the government to prove that it has the authority to pass laws that apply to all citizens? You mean "we've been doing it for the entire history of our nation" doesn't count?

And the entire history is filled with over reaches that have been thrown out s unsupported or in conflict with the Constitution ans Bill of Rights.

Yes the govt has to prove both it and any other aspect if challenged.

Is this a great country or what?

[Larry]

and no, just because it involves money it doesnt automatically count as economic activity. In fact taxation removes money from the economy in most cases.

rrrriiiigggghhhhtttt.

[SnyderShrugged]

rrrriiiigggghhhhtttt.


correct, glad you acknowledge it now

[shk75]

I came across this chart from my research (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010: Reforming the Health Care Reform for the New Decade) and thought it was pretty interesting. I think it kind of shows the political shift to the right and kind of helps predict why this bill is being challenged.

45159

[Predicto]

And the entire history is filled with over reaches that have been thrown out s unsupported or in conflict with the Constitution ans Bill of Rights.

Yes the govt has to prove both it and any other aspect if challenged.

Is this a great country or what?

Actually, no. The party challenging it has the burden of proof/persuasion, actually. :)

[twa]

Lawyers, can't kill em and...

Kinda depends on what you consider challenged don't it?

Who has the burden of proof and the need to appeal this challenge?

[Larry]

Kinda depends on what you consider challenged don't it?

Roughly a third of the posts in Tailgate.

[twa]

Only a third? :)

A failed challenge ,nor cases thrown out for standing count for crap.

Who gots burden of proof now my friend?:evilg:

[Predicto]

Only a third? :)

A failed challenge ,nor cases thrown out for standing count for crap.

Who gots burden of proof now my friend?:evilg:

Clever. But this appeal isn't what you were talking about. :)

[twa]

Want more cleverness?

What happens if the govt does not defend any challenge?

[Wrong Direction]

Failure to file your income taxes. (a tax on the economic activity of earning)

Failure to yield. Or to use turn signals. (when undertaking the activity of driving)

Criminal negligence. (when participating an activity)


Aren't you an attorney? Did you read the link to the DC bar summary earlier in the thread? If not, you should. If so, why are you arguing points made by message board posters as if they're the exact legal case being made by 26 states?


Why can't y'all just say "It's a bad law"?

That was stated a million times during the debate.


Why all the pretzel twisting, tail chasing, reality ignoring effort to come up with some way to claim that it's a completely new, never been done before, attack on the Constitution?

Because this is now in the courts, and the matter of constitutionality is the matter at hand. The debate over repeal and replace is the right venue for debates on the merits of the best health reform moving forward.


How come you can't disagree with the law, without having to invent some fictional claim of unconstitutionality?

If you're honest, you'll admit that the matter of consititutionality is unsettled and appropriate in the courts.

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 10:21 PM ----------


what if it's not a mandate to participate in an economic activity, but the chance to participate in an activity to exempt your self from one particular tax? (I think you are taxed a few thousand for not getting health insurance)

Obama campaigned on not raising taxes for people under $150, $200 and $250,000 at various points. He couldn't sell the mandate as a tax, and it's specifically excluded from the enumeration of taxes in the bill. The question of whether it actually is a tax is part of the case in the courts. If it's determined not to be a tax, the bill is on shakier constitutional grounds. If it is determined to be a tax, Obama has just raised taxes on the middle class.

[Predicto]

Aren't you an attorney? Did you read the link to the DC bar summary earlier in the thread? If not, you should. If so, why are you arguing points made by message board posters as if they're the exact legal case being made by 26 states?


Larry is not an attorney, but he did stay last night at a Holiday Inn Express. :)




If you're honest, you'll admit that the matter of consititutionality is unsettled and appropriate in the courts.

I agree, though I only think it is even a close call because the courts have moved so far right in the last couple of decades, and conservatives have become judicial activists. Lots of legal issues are tossups now that never were before. After the Citizen United corporate financing case, I have no confidence that any existing precedents remain out of reach.

[Wrong Direction]

Larry is not an attorney, but he did stay last night at a Holiday Inn Express. :)



I agree, though I only think it is even a close call because the courts have moved so far right in the last couple of decades, and conservatives have become judicial activists. Lots of legal issues are tossups now that never were before. After the Citizen United corporate financing case, I have no confidence that any existing precedents remain out of reach.

For some reason I thought he was an attorney. Oh well.

I could argue your second point exactly the same way you did. The only reason this is considered to possibly be constitutional is because the courts were activist for the last 70 years of the 20th century, taking us far away from our founding principals.

But that's sort of the crux of a different argument, I guess.

[Predicto]

For some reason I thought he was an attorney. Oh well.

I could argue your second point exactly the same way you did. The only reason this is considered to possibly be constitutional is because the courts were activist for the last 70 years of the 20th century, taking us far away from our founding principals.

But that's sort of the crux of a different argument, I guess.

That certainly is the argument to make. As someone who does constititutonal law for a living, I don't happen to agree with it, but I also recognize that it is a fundamentally political argument that can never be proved or disproved. C'est la vie.

[SnyderShrugged]

Alaska's Gov now wont be enacting the law..

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ALASKA_GOVERNOR_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=RIPAW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Alaska governor refusing to enact health care law

By BECKY BOHRER
Associated Press




I

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) -- Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said Thursday that he will not implement the federal health care overhaul passed by Congress last year after a judge in Florida struck down the law as unconstitutional.

It's not immediately clear what practical impact the unusual, rather bold move would have on Alaskans, an estimated 14 percent of whom are uninsured year-round.

A major expansion of the federal law is still pending, and a legal expert and health care consumer advocate say any refusal by the states to participate in the law is an invitation to the federal government to step in and implement it for them - a point Parnell disputes.

The Republican governor, who sought the advice of his attorney general amid concerns implementing the law would violate his oath of office, told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce the state would pursue lawful, market-based solutions to making insurance affordable and accessible to Alaskans.

He said the Florida judge's ruling is the law of the land, as it pertains to Alaska, barring implementation of the federal law here. He said the state will not pursue "unlawful activity" to implement a regime deemed unconstitutional.

more at link

[Larry]

He said the Florida judge's ruling is the law of the land, as it pertains to Alaska,

Let me guess. He thinks he can see Florida from Alaska?

[SnyderShrugged]

Let me guess. He thinks he can see Florida from Alaska?
:ols::ols::silly::silly:

Awesome!!

[Predicto]

Alaska's Gov now wont be enacting the law..

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ALASKA_GOVERNOR_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=RIPAW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Alaska governor refusing to enact health care law

By BECKY BOHRER
Associated Press




I

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) -- Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said Thursday that he will not implement the federal health care overhaul passed by Congress last year after a judge in Florida struck down the law as unconstitutional.

It's not immediately clear what practical impact the unusual, rather bold move would have on Alaskans, an estimated 14 percent of whom are uninsured year-round.

A major expansion of the federal law is still pending, and a legal expert and health care consumer advocate say any refusal by the states to participate in the law is an invitation to the federal government to step in and implement it for them - a point Parnell disputes.

The Republican governor, who sought the advice of his attorney general amid concerns implementing the law would violate his oath of office, told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce the state would pursue lawful, market-based solutions to making insurance affordable and accessible to Alaskans.

He said the Florida judge's ruling is the law of the land, as it pertains to Alaska, barring implementation of the federal law here. He said the state will not pursue "unlawful activity" to implement a regime deemed unconstitutional.

more at link


He might be right to do this. As I recall (too lazy to check) the way the judge in Florida issued his order, it strikes down the whole law. Until that order is stayed by the Appeals Court, it arguably affects the whole country, not just Florida.

[SnyderShrugged]

He might be right to do this. As I recall (too lazy to check) the way the judge in Florida issued his order, it strikes down the whole law. Until that order is stayed by the Appeals Court, it arguably affects the whole country, not just Florida.

huh, I didnt realize that. How do the cases that were upheld impact it?

[Predicto]

huh, I didnt realize that. How do the cases that were upheld impact it?

Well, they DIDN'T strike down the law, so they didn't affect the law and the law went on the same way. No harm no foul. However, when the law is struck down by a different judge and he issues injunctive relief against its enforcement, then that is the way things stand until a higher court stays the lower court order.

Again, I'm kind of winging this one because I haven't researched this decision. But I certainly know how injunctions and appellate stays work (that is part of what I do for my court).

[SnyderShrugged]

Well, they DIDN'T strike down the law, so they didn't affect the law and the law went on the same way. No harm no foul. However, when the law is struck down by a different judge and he issues injunctive relief against its enforcement, then that is the way things stand until a higher court stays the lower court order.

Again, I'm kind of winging this one because I haven't researched this decision. But I certainly know how injunctions and appellate stays work (that is part of what I do for my court).


see, this is why I like it here. I learn things

[SonnySide]

You know, if Obamacare is so great, then why is the administration handing out ANY waivers?
If it's good for one of us, it's good for all of us, no?

[Predicto]

see, this is why I like it here. I learn things

We aim to please


except when we aim to irritate :ols:

---------- Post added February-17th-2011 at 06:08 PM ----------


You know, if Obamacare is so great, then why is the administration handing out ANY waivers?
If it's good for one of us, it's good for all of us, no?

Please don't :pooh: up every thread in the Tailgate.

kkthx in advance

[Larry]

see, this is why I like it here. I learn things

Me, too. I thought Appeals Court and lower rulings only applied to their jurisdiction, and only SC rulings affected the whole country. That's why I made that crack about the distance between Alaska and Florida.

[SonnySide]

We aim to please


except when we aim to irritate :ols:

---------- Post added February-17th-2011 at 06:08 PM ----------



Please don't :pooh: up every thread in the Tailgate.

kkthx in advance

Thanks for basically admitting obamacare is a farce and those who supported it were foolish....thx....

[Predicto]

Me, too. I thought Appeals Court and lower rulings only applied to their jurisdiction, and only SC rulings affected the whole country. That's why I made that crack about the distance between Alaska and Florida.

In general you are correct, but it depends on the ruling, and on the issue being litigated. In the rare case where you are ordering the Federal Government to stop doing something, then things can be different.

I really should get off my butt and look at the reality of this one. ...


Ok just checked. Nevermind. The court's decision did not direct the Federal Government to stop implementation of the law in the interim of the appeal. So the Alaska governor is probably going to lose.

---------- Post added February-17th-2011 at 06:30 PM ----------


Thanks for basically admitting obamacare is a farce and those who supported it were foolish....thx....

Shh... the grownups are talking now. Go back to the little table in the kitchen. I'll bring you some juice in a minute.

[SonnySide]

In general you are correct, but it depends on the ruling, and on the issue being litigated. In the rare case where you are ordering the Federal Government to stop doing something, then things can be different.

I really should get off my butt and look at the reality of this one. ...


Ok just checked. Nevermind. The court's decision did not direct the Federal Government to stop implementation of the law in the interim of the appeal. So the Alaska governor is probably going to lose.

---------- Post added February-17th-2011 at 06:30 PM ----------



Shh... the grownups are talking now. Go back to the little table in the kitchen. I'll bring you some juice in a minute.

Nah, that's cool, your mom brought some this morning (are you finished with the silly attacks now?)
Back to the question and IF you are capable answer this SIMPLE query:
If Obamacare is so great for the country and the economy, why are there ANY waivers being granted?

[twa]

In general you are correct, but it depends on the ruling, and on the issue being litigated. In the rare case where you are ordering the Federal Government to stop doing something, then things can be different.

I really should get off my butt and look at the reality of this one. ...


Ok just checked. Nevermind. The court's decision did not direct the Federal Government to stop implementation of the law in the interim of the appeal. So the Alaska governor is probably going to lose

They seem less sure of that being fact


Administration asks judge to tell the states that healthcare law isn't optional

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/144955-administration-wants-court-to-back-implementation-of-healthcare-law?page=2#comments

The Obama administration is asking a federal judge who struck down the healthcare reform law to clarify that states must still implement the overhaul as the appeals process plays out.

Some states are saying the Jan. 31 ruling relieves them from implementing the sweeping reform law because the federal judge in Florida found it to be unconstitutional.

The Obama administration, in a Thursday evening filing in a Northern Florida federal court, is asking the court to clarify that the 26 states who successfully challenged the law are still required to comply with it.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the law's requirement for individuals to purchase insurance is unconstitutional, and therefore, the rest of the law is unconstitutional because the provision is too central to making the law function. The administration points out that the so-called individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014, while other parts of the law have already gone into effect.

"[A] contrary understanding would threaten serious harm to many Americans currently benefiting from provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are already in effect and would significantly interfere with defendants’ statutory duty to implement the Act as Congress directed," the Justice Department wrote in its court filing.

[DCSaints_fan]

Dumb question, re: Interstate commerce and health insurance.

IS health insurance interstate commerce? Or does, say, Blue Cross have a subordinate company in every state they do business in, which offers insurance specific to that state, to comply with all of the state's regulations?

Insurers can do business across state lines, but they have to abide by the states laws in which they sell insurance. So Kaiser Permanente can sell insurance in Virgina and California, but they have to abide by Virginia and California's state laws. Republicans want to do away with this, saying that if Kaiser incorpoates in Virginia and sells insurance in California, they are exempt from California laws, like they did away with the finance laws a few years ago.

BCSB works differently because they aren't an HMO, for every state they have a different company although it doesn't appear they bear much in relation to one another. I used to have Blue Cross Blue Shield in Texas, when I moved to California I lost my insurance temporarily and when I got it again became Blue Shield California ( I could have also gotten Kaiser but they aren't close to me so I went with Blue Shield). I couldn't "transfer my policy" from one workplace to the other. I think its easier to do with an HMO like Kaiser if its the same one.

[twa]

The DOJ must file its reply to the plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition today (2-28).

plaintiff’s memorandum
http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/JDAS-8ED2PB/$file/FLMemoOppositiontoMotionToClarify2-23-11.pdf

Wonder how the judge will react to the request for clarification :ols:

[Thiebear]

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) -- Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell

I read that as Sarah Palin at first and had to do a double take...
Sean Parnell anagram Sara Pellen (close but no).


Obamacare might get a piece here or there kicked back for the wordsmiths to rework, but it ain't goin nowhere fast.

[JimboDaMan]

Insurers can do business across state lines, but they have to abide by the states laws in which they sell insurance. So Kaiser Permanente can sell insurance in Virgina and California, but they have to abide by Virginia and California's state laws. Republicans want to do away with this, saying that if Kaiser incorpoates in Virginia and sells insurance in California, they are exempt from California laws, like they did away with the finance laws a few years ago.

BCSB works differently because they aren't an HMO, for every state they have a different company although it doesn't appear they bear much in relation to one another. I used to have Blue Cross Blue Shield in Texas, when I moved to California I lost my insurance temporarily and when I got it again became Blue Shield California ( I could have also gotten Kaiser but they aren't close to me so I went with Blue Shield). I couldn't "transfer my policy" from one workplace to the other. I think its easier to do with an HMO like Kaiser if its the same one.And that is the issue Democrats have with the the Republican cure-all of allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines. They already can, although there's significant red tape involved that the Republicans would do away with. But the result would effectively strip states of the ability to regulate health insuraces. Like finance companies, the likelihood is that insurance companies would rush to incorporate in the states affording them the most favorable terms, and the remaining states would be powerless to do anything about it.

[twa]

Vinson issues 7 day stay to idiots that can't understand prior ruling.:ols:

Appeal it or else:evilg:

http://aca-litigation.wikispaces.com/file/view/Vinson+stay+order.pdf

[Predicto]

Vinson issues 7 day stay to idiots that can't understand prior ruling.:ols:

Appeal it or else:evilg:

http://aca-litigation.wikispaces.com/file/view/Vinson+stay+order.pdf

The prior ruling was poorly written, and that is on Vinson. He really shouldn't be so self-righteous about a request for clarification. He is pretty much screaming "I'm a judicial activist" right now, IMO.

You are correct that they have to appeal it now or he will drop the hammer.

In other news, another judge last week found the healthcare plan individual mandate to be fully constititutional. Of course, that has no effect on Vinson's ruling to the contrary.

http://volokh.com/2011/02/22/another-district-court-decision-on-the-constitutionality-of-the-individual-mandate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+volokh/mainfeed+(The+Volokh+Conspiracy)&utm_content=Google+Reader

[twa]

Was it poorly written or is the govt just confused or misunderstood?....I loved that line:ols:

A judicial activist that demands you appeal his ruling?....that's a neat trick

[Predicto]

Was it poorly written or is the govt just confused or misunderstood?....I loved that line:ols:

A judicial activist that demands you appeal his ruling?....that's a neat trick

Not in the least.

Vinson knows that this issue is eventually going to be addressed in lots of courts all over the country. He wants to make sure that the first appeal comes from his decision based on his reasoning and findings, rather than being taken from all of those other judges finding that the mandate is constitutional. Vinson wants the conservative 11th Circuit to be the first one to have a crack at it, and he wants them to discuss his interpretation of "first principles" and the Federalist Papers and so forth rather than the two centuries of Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause jurisprudence that he had to downplay to get to his result.

[twa]

Is it the first appeal?

(UPDATE: Shortly after the judge issued the new order, Justice Department spokesperson Tracy Schmaler announced that the Department will promptly file an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit, and will seek to have the appeal put on a fast track. Other health care appeals are proceeding on an expedited basis in the Fourth and Sixth Circuits.)

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/03/judge-hardens-health-ruling-delays-it/

[Larry]

Not in the least.

Vinson knows that this issue is eventually going to be addressed in lots of courts all over the country. He wants to make sure that the first appeal comes from his decision based on his reasoning and findings, rather than being taken from all of those other judges finding that the mandate is constitutional. Vinson wants the conservative 11th Circuit to be the first one to have a crack at it, and he wants them to discuss his interpretation of "first principles" and the Federalist Papers and so forth rather than the two centuries of Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause jurisprudence that he had to downplay to get to his result.

Does it really make a difference who goes first? I would have thought that that when the USSC takes a case like this, where multiple judges have given multiple, contradictory, rulings, that the USSC would basically suck up all of the rulings, and then issue one ruling of their own.

[Predicto]

Is it the first appeal?

(UPDATE: Shortly after the judge issued the new order, Justice Department spokesperson Tracy Schmaler announced that the Department will promptly file an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit, and will seek to have the appeal put on a fast track. Other health care appeals are proceeding on an expedited basis in the Fourth and Sixth Circuits.)

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/03/judge-hardens-health-ruling-delays-it/

And? Vinson wants his case to be the one, and not those other cases. He wants a decision from the 11th Circuit talking about Alexander Hamilton, not a decision from the 4th Circuit talking about the Raich decision from the SCOTUS last year. So he is forcing the government's hand.

By the way, it is annoying for you to claim that that "idiots couldn't understand the prior ruling" and throw around your usual smilies. No one understood the scope of the prior ruling because it was poorly written.


In the interim, states are mulling whether the law remains enforceable and are considering a request for expedited Supreme Court review, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said yesterday in a phone interview.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola left attorneys general questioning how they should handle the law in their states, said Shurtleff, a Republican whose state joined the Florida lawsuit. “The question is: Is the law stayed in the 26 states? That needs to be resolved.”

“We don’t think we can advise that this law is void,” Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a Republican who opposes the act, said yesterday in a phone interview. “It will get resolved fairly quickly with a court decision. I would hope the U.S. Supreme Court would find a way to expedite this.”



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-01/health-care-law-goes-to-appeals-courts-as-states-differ-on-statute-s-scope.html

Those are three Republican attorney generals scratching their heads about Vinson's decision a few weeks ago.

[Predicto]

Does it really make a difference who goes first? I would have thought that that when the USSC takes a case like this, where multiple judges have given multiple, contradictory, rulings, that the USSC would basically suck up all of the rulings, and then issue one ruling of their own.

It often makes a huge difference. Appellate courts review the specific findings and decisions of lower courts, not abstract principles of law. The reasoning of the lower court becomes the template for analysis of the issue.

[twa]

By the way, it is annoying for you to claim that that "idiots couldn't understand the prior ruling" and throw around your usual smilies. No one understood the scope of the prior ruling because it was poorly written.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-01/health-care-law-goes-to-appeals-courts-as-states-differ-on-statute-s-scope.html

Those are three Republican attorney generals scratching their heads about Vinson's decision a few weeks ago.

Of course it's annoying :evilg:.....The assertion they did not understand the scope of the ruling is rather weak.

Your AG example simply illustrates the uncertainty of the higher courts future ruling (which everyone knows will occur)

The highly unusual request for clarity was not needed....it has been entertaining though:ols:

Sure didn't take long for the Govt to get clarified:beatdeadhorse: :silly:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It often makes a huge difference. Appellate courts review the specific findings and decisions of lower courts, not abstract principles of law. The reasoning of the lower court becomes the template for analysis of the issue.

Dont you think the scoots will wait until there are two adverse appellate decisions, anyway? I think they are going to wait for a split in the circuits. My guess is the scoots really doesn't want this case and would be perfectly happy if the appellate circuits agreed on it without their hearing it. No?

[Predicto]

Of course it's annoying :evilg:.....The assertion they did not understand the scope of the ruling is rather weak.

Your AG example simply illustrates the uncertainty of the higher courts future ruling (which everyone knows will occur)



No it doesn't. The AG quotes specifically say that

"In the interim, states are mulling whether the law remains enforceable and are considering a request for expedited Supreme Court review, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said yesterday"

"The ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola left attorneys general questioning how they should handle the law in their states, said Shurtleff, a Republican whose state joined the Florida lawsuit. “The question is: Is the law stayed in the 26 states? That needs to be resolved.”

"“We don’t think we can advise that this law is void,” Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a Republican who opposes the act, said yesterday in a phone interview."

You aren't fooling anyone.




The highly unusual request for clarity was not needed....it has been entertaining though:ols:

Sure didn't take long for the Govt to get clarified:beatdeadhorse: :silly:


I'm glad that you know more about this legal issue than 3 Republican state attorneys general.

But you are correct about one thing. It is dangerous to ask for clarification from an activist judge. They get peevish, as we can see here.

[twa]

No it doesn't. The AG quotes specifically say that


You aren't fooling anyone.




I'm glad that you know more about this legal issue than 3 Republican state attorneys general.

But you are correct about one thing. It is dangerous to ask for clarification from an activist judge. They get peevish, as we can see here.

I'm glad you wish to try to assert it is the clarity of Vinson's ruling that is what the AG's were addressing ,when CLEARLY it was not ....even in your own link:ols:
the uncertainty was over how the appeal courts would rule and the uncertainty of how broad they would allow Vinson's jurisdiction
I'm getting worried about your reading comprehension and abilities:poke:

Funny that activist:silly: judge gave them exactly what they wished for....including the benefit of doubt that they were not idiots and simply ignoring the rule of law

[Wrong Direction]

I like NRO's take (go figure):

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261297/hands-my-mental-activity-rich-lowry


Judge Kessler, a liberal Clinton appointee, takes what has been a Commerce Clause case and practically makes it a matter for the First Amendment. It’s the most self-undermining defense of the constitutionality of a dubious statute since then–solicitor general Elena Kagan told the Supreme Court that under campaign-finance reform, the government could ban certain pamphlets. Kessler, like Kagan before her, does everyone the favor of clarifying the issue.


Under the Kessler principle, there’s no non-conduct that the federal government can’t reach. Every day, most Americans engage in non-activities that affect interstate commerce. If you decide not to buy a house, not to buy a Chrysler, or not to buy a Snuggie, you’ve impacted interstate conduct through affirmative mental actions. We’ve gone from the Constitution giving Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes,” to regulating on the basis of the mental activities of individuals deciding not to do something.

[Predicto]

I'm glad you wish to try to assert it is the clarity of Vinson's ruling that is what the AG's were addressing ,when CLEARLY it was not ....even in your own link:ols:
the uncertainty was over how the appeal courts would rule and the uncertainty of how broad they would allow Vinson's jurisdiction
I'm getting worried about your reading comprehension and abilities:poke:

Funny that activist:silly: judge gave them exactly what they wished for....including the benefit of doubt that they were not idiots and simply ignoring the rule of law

"The ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola left attorneys general questioning how they should handle the law in their states, said Shurtleff, a Republican whose state joined the Florida lawsuit. “The question is: Is the law stayed in the 26 states? That needs to be resolved.”

"The ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola left attorneys general questioning how they should handle the law in their states, said Shurtleff, a Republican whose state joined the Florida lawsuit. “The question is: Is the law stayed in the 26 states? That needs to be resolved.”

"The ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola left attorneys general questioning how they should handle the law in their states, said Shurtleff, a Republican whose state joined the Florida lawsuit. “The question is: Is the law stayed in the 26 states? That needs to be resolved.”

[twa]

From your link

title
Health-Care Law Goes to Appeals Courts, Opposing States Weigh Enforcement

Health-Care Law Goes to Appeals Courts, Opposing States Weigh Enforcement

Health-Care Law Goes to Appeals Courts, Opposing States Weigh Enforcement

in 1st paragraph (I'll skip the threepeat for now)

after federal judges split on whether it’s constitutional, is headed to three U.S. appeals courts as states examine whether the statute is enforceable.

2nd
A federal judge in Pensacola, Florida, ruled on Jan. 31 that the mandate exceeded Congress’ power to regulate commerce and invalidated the entire law.

3rd
one striking it down in part.

5th
In the interim...(KINDLY explain what interim means there other than the appeals)

note the break in the article and your quotes coming after 'the interim'

Supreme Court

in the 7th
I would hope the U.S. Supreme Court would find a way to expedite this.”

8th
While the appeals are pending, the federal government may seek to enforce the health-care law outside of judicial districts where part or all of it has been invalidated. The states involved in the Florida lawsuit discussed their options during a phone conference yesterday, Shurtleff said.

part or all to be determined by which appeal wins naturally...Vinson was clear on all
[/COLOR]Surely as a lawyer you recognize the limits of a district courts ruling??

do I need to continue?....

[Predicto]

From your link

title
Health-Care Law Goes to Appeals Courts, Opposing States Weigh Enforcement

Health-Care Law Goes to Appeals Courts, Opposing States Weigh Enforcement

Health-Care Law Goes to Appeals Courts, Opposing States Weigh Enforcement

in 1st paragraph (I'll skip the threepeat for now)

after federal judges split on whether it’s constitutional, is headed to three U.S. appeals courts as states examine whether the statute is enforceable.

2nd
A federal judge in Pensacola, Florida, ruled on Jan. 31 that the mandate exceeded Congress’ power to regulate commerce and invalidated the entire law.

3rd
one striking it down in part.

5th
In the interim...(KINDLY explain what interim means there other than the appeals)

note the break in the article and your quotes coming after 'the interim'

Supreme Court

in the 7th
I would hope the U.S. Supreme Court would find a way to expedite this.”

8th
While the appeals are pending, the federal government may seek to enforce the health-care law outside of judicial districts where part or all of it has been invalidated. The states involved in the Florida lawsuit discussed their options during a phone conference yesterday, Shurtleff said.

part or all to be determined by which appeal wins naturally...Vinson was clear on all
[/COLOR]Surely as a lawyer you recognize the limits of a district courts ruling??

do I need to continue?....

Please don't, because none of what you are saying is relevant in the least.

A District Judge absolutely has the power to enjoin the federal government from enforcing an unconstitutional law, and that ruling will apply to the federal government in all districts (unless a stay of the order is issued by a higher court).

Your claim all along has been that Vinson's January order was clear and immediately blocked the federal government from further implementation of the law, and that the Administration was idiotic for asking for clarification of the scope of the order.

If the Administration was barred from further implementation of the law by Vinson's ruling, the attorneys general in other states would not have been asking the same questions themselves - "what does this ruling mean? What is the national status of the law right now? Is it stayed pending appeal or not?"

[Larry]

I like NRO's take (go figure):

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261297/hands-my-mental-activity-rich-lowry


Under the Kessler principle, there’s no non-conduct that the federal government can’t reach. Every day, most Americans engage in non-activities that affect interstate commerce. If you decide not to buy a house, not to buy a Chrysler, or not to buy a Snuggie, you’ve impacted interstate conduct through affirmative mental actions. We’ve gone from the Constitution giving Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes,” to regulating on the basis of the mental activities of individuals deciding not to do something.

Well, you do have to admit that that ruling is consistent with over a century of "commerce clause" "interpretation". :)

[twa]

Please don't, because none of what you are saying is relevant in the least.

Your claim all along has been that Vinson's January order was clear and immediately blocked the federal government from further implementation of the law, and that the Administration was idiotic for asking for clarification of the scope of the order.

If the Administration was barred from further implementation of the law by Vinson's ruling, the attorneys general in other states would not have been asking the same questions themselves - "what does this ruling mean? What is the national status of the law right now? Is it stayed pending appeal or not?"

Your claim was Vinsons order was unclear....scope is not in question when he ruled it unconstitutional and unseverable from the whole with a declaratory judgment

Your continued ignoring of "in the interim" and it's meaning to the AG's is weak sauce,similar to the weakness in the govt's request for clarity

[Predicto]

Your claim was Vinsons order was unclear....scope is not in question when he ruled it unconstitutional and unseverable from the whole with a declaratory judgment

Your continued ignoring of "in the interim" and it's meaning to the AG's is weak sauce,similar to the weakness in the govt's request for clarity

I give up. I can no longer even understand what you are trying to argue.

[twa]

That your supporting quotes from the AG's are out of the context of their statements.

You blatantly ignore the uncertainty was not from Vinson's wording of the ruling,but rather from the conflict with Hudson's and the appeals in the works.

[Predicto]

That your supporting quotes from the AG's are out of the context of their statements.

You blatantly ignore the uncertainty was not from Vinson's wording of the ruling,but rather from the conflict with Hudson's and the appeals in the works.

Oh, now I see what you are saying.

But you are wrong. The conflict with Hudson's decision and the other decisions cannot be understood without understanding the scope of Vinson's ruling. And if Vinson's ruling clearly barred any further implementation of the law by the Feds - then the attorneys general would have understood what to do, at least for the time being.

The fact that two courts issue different rulings would not matter if one of the courts says: "the law is fine" and the other court says: "the law is not fine and I prohibit the Federal Government from making any of the states implement it." A higher court would eventually have to resolve the issue, but until then, the law would not be implemented. Everyone was trying to figure out if that was the situation or not. And only Vinson knew the answer.

At this point we are splitting hairs. You want to continue to believe that only "idiots" would have found Vinson's prior ruling confusing or would have dared ask for clarification. I don't think that is accurate. I guess we are done.

[twa]

Their request for clarification was in effect a request for a stay...the scope was clear,but the future of it surviving appeals was not.

it's been fun