BREAKING NEWS: Appeals court rules part of President Obama’s health care law unconsti

[Ali777]

Score is still in favor of the mandates. This will be decided by the SC.

How Antonin Scalia May Save The Individual Mandate

This isn't some highschool football game. There is no score kept idiot the last court ruling stands as law and the final decision UNLESS it is overturned.

Without the mandate there is no funding. Obamacare is effectively dead now.

Hahahahaha lulz

You cons crack me up. You do realize that the mandate has been held up in another decision, right? The Affordable Care Act is not dead. It will head to the SCOTUS, and despite what some delusional cons have said, the SCOTUS will not automatically go with the 11th's decision. Grow a brain. It might do you some good. Maroons, the lot of you.

It more likely that the SCOTUS will only take up whether individual mandates are constitutional. Even if it rules that they aren't, that doesn't kill the Act. It only sends it back to congress, for them to decide what to do.

 

[Ali777]

Incorrect...

Once something is ruled unconstitutional it is deemed unconstitutional... It doesn't "Stay Constitutional" because one of three or for rulings say it's ok with them...

The other ruling you libs are married to said that it wasn't unconstitutional with regards to that case and those litigants... Those parties to the lawsuit can go about their merry ways with regards to 0bamacare if they want until appeal to a higher court smacks them down...

This case and the other one before it have ruled that the individual mandate clause is unconstitutional... Legally, the parties that brought forth this lawsuit (26 states) can ignore the individual mandate without any reprocussions...

Right now, more than half the states in the country do not have to force their residents to buy health insurance if they don't want to buy it....

I'm going to presume that you know what you're talking about here. The only thing is that I was under the impression that, when two appellate courts rule inconsistently, it becomes what's called "ripe" for the SCOTUS to take up. And that pending their determination the constitutional status of the law is undecided. You're saying this is incorrect, right?

I didn't say SCOTUS wouldn't take the case... In fact, I believe they will...

My comments are only that 0bamacare has technically been ruled unconstitutional and those participating states are within their rights to tell the 0bama administration to pound salt...

It's been ruled constitution as well. The 11th circuit ruling is only binding in that jurisdiction . Not nation wide.

 

[Dr.House]

Score is still in favor of the mandates. This will be decided by the SC.

How Antonin Scalia May Save The Individual Mandate

This isn't some highschool football game. There is no score kept idiot the last court ruling stands as law and the final decision UNLESS it is overturned.

Without the mandate there is no funding. Obamacare is effectively dead now.

Hahahahaha lulz

You cons crack me up. You do realize that the mandate has been held up in another decision, right? The Affordable Care Act is not dead. It will head to the SCOTUS, and despite what some delusional cons have said, the SCOTUS will not automatically go with the 11th's decision. Grow a brain. It might do you some good. Maroons, the lot of you.

Thank you Swami JoseFuck for your most insightful prognostication... You must have used all 4 of your brain cells to come up with this gem... And so certain you seem...

Awesome work...

 

[Dr.House]

I'm going to presume that you know what you're talking about here. The only thing is that I was under the impression that, when two appellate courts rule inconsistently, it becomes what's called "ripe" for the SCOTUS to take up. And that pending their determination the constitutional status of the law is undecided. You're saying this is incorrect, right?

I didn't say SCOTUS wouldn't take the case... In fact, I believe they will...

My comments are only that 0bamacare has technically been ruled unconstitutional and those participating states are within their rights to tell the 0bama administration to pound salt...

It's been ruled constitution as well. The 11th circuit ruling is only binding in that jurisdiction . Not nation wide.

That ruling has no bearing on the case that was just ruled... I already stipulated it was for the 26 states...

 

[Greenbeard]

It should have been decided by Congress.

It was...

That's why it's law.

This case and the other one before it have ruled that the individual mandate clause is unconstitutional... Legally, the parties that brought forth this lawsuit (26 states) can ignore the individual mandate without any reprocussions...

Given that the individual mandate doesn't exist before 2014, not much has changed with regard to what's happening right now.

Now, the question is, will our law professor POTUS accept this ruling? Or will he deem it within his right to ignore it as he has all the other rulings?

What would ignoring it look like? The mandate isn't currently in effect and has little to do with any of the ongoing implementation activity. All that remains untouched by the ruling.

To survive they will need to dust off the old centrist plans of Bill Clinton.

The Health Security Act?

Without the mandate there is no funding.

The mandate has nothing to do with funding the law. This ruling hasn't altered funding for the ACA.

My comments are only that 0bamacare has technically been ruled unconstitutional and those participating states are within their rights to tell the 0bama administration to pound salt...

The ACA remains the law of the land. The Court was careful to sever the mandate (one section of the law) from the rest of the law.

Applying these principles, we conclude that the district court erred in its decision to invalidate the entire Act. Excising the individual mandate from the Act does not prevent the remaining provisions from being “fully operative as a law.” [...]

In light of the stand-alone nature of hundreds of the Act’s provisions and their manifest lack of connection to the individual mandate, the plaintiffs have not met the heavy burden needed to rebut the presumption of severability. We therefore conclude that the district court erred in its wholesale invalidation of the Act.​

 

[Ali777]

I didn't say SCOTUS wouldn't take the case... In fact, I believe they will...

My comments are only that 0bamacare has technically been ruled unconstitutional and those participating states are within their rights to tell the 0bama administration to pound salt...

It's been ruled constitution as well. The 11th circuit ruling is only binding in that jurisdiction . Not nation wide.

That ruling has no bearing on the case that was just ruled... I already stipulated it was for the 26 states...

I must have missed that stipulation. Of course it has a bearing on the case that was ruled. It's one of the reasons why the issue is now "ripe" for a SCOTUS to take up.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Well let's recap. Were several pages in and still NO IDEAS FROM THE LEFT.

Not that I expected any lol

 

[elvis]

So it goes to the supreme court now?

 

[Zander]

It should have been decided by Congress.

It was...

That's why it's law.

This case and the other one before it have ruled that the individual mandate clause is unconstitutional... Legally, the parties that brought forth this lawsuit (26 states) can ignore the individual mandate without any reprocussions...

Given that the individual mandate doesn't exist before 2014, not much has changed with regard to what's happening right now.



What would ignoring it look like? The mandate isn't currently in effect and has little to do with any of the ongoing implementation activity. All that remains untouched by the ruling.



The Health Security Act?

Without the mandate there is no funding.

The mandate has nothing to do with funding the law. This ruling hasn't altered funding for the ACA.

My comments are only that 0bamacare has technically been ruled unconstitutional and those participating states are within their rights to tell the 0bama administration to pound salt...

The ACA remains the law of the land. The Court was careful to sever the mandate (one section of the law) from the rest of the law.

Applying these principles, we conclude that the district court erred in its decision to invalidate the entire Act. Excising the individual mandate from the Act does not prevent the remaining provisions from being “fully operative as a law.” [...]

In light of the stand-alone nature of hundreds of the Act’s provisions and their manifest lack of connection to the individual mandate, the plaintiffs have not met the heavy burden needed to rebut the presumption of severability. We therefore conclude that the district court erred in its wholesale invalidation of the Act.​

Who are you shilling for anyway?

 

[Greenbeard]

Who are you shilling for anyway?

I found the most interesting thing about today's ruling to be that it reversed the lower court's invalidation of the ACA and was instead careful to sever the individual mandate from the rest of the law. That fact seems to have been overlooked by some of the more overzealous posters around here.

 

[Full-Auto]

Who are you shilling for anyway?

I found the most interesting thing about today's ruling to be that it reversed the lower court's invalidation of the ACA and was instead careful to sever the individual mandate from the rest of the law. That fact seems to have been overlooked by some of the more overzealous posters around here.

With no penalty.

I just have to say.

MAKE ME.

 

[Immanuel]

The country is on fire with problems and BO hasn't a clue as to which way to run so he will go on vacation next week. Many Americans can't afford vacations this year because of him and his buddies.

He is never on vacation.

Ever work at a job were you were on call 24/7? Well, take that experience and multiply it by say 100. The man does not get a vacation for 4 years. He is on the job for every minute of every day for the entire length of his term even while taking a crap.

Immie

Poor guy. He'll be able to take a real vacation soon.

Fine with me, but I would like to see his replacement be something other than a party insider. None of last night's "contenders" inspired me one bit. It seems pretty evident that whether or not Barack Obama is sent packing 2013 through 2016 are going to be just more of the same.

Immie

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Who are you shilling for anyway?

I found the most interesting thing about today's ruling to be that it reversed the lower court's invalidation of the ACA and was instead careful to sever the individual mandate from the rest of the law. That fact seems to have been overlooked by some of the more overzealous posters around here.

Obamacare is dead without the mandate. That seems to be overlooked by you

 

[elvis]

The country is on fire with problems and BO hasn't a clue as to which way to run so he will go on vacation next week. Many Americans can't afford vacations this year because of him and his buddies.

He is never on vacation.

Ever work at a job were you were on call 24/7? Well, take that experience and multiply it by say 100. The man does not get a vacation for 4 years. He is on the job for every minute of every day for the entire length of his term even while taking a crap.

Immie

Poor guy. He'll be able to take a real vacation soon.

really? who's gonna beat him?

 

[Greenbeard]

With no penalty.

I just have to say.

MAKE ME.

Right, with no penalty. If upheld, this decision would strip from the ACA the piece that some found so ideologically galvanizing. Perhaps then it could be left up to states to prevent adverse selection in their Exchanges. Those that don't want to won't. Not ideal policy, but okay. Life could then go on.

Obamacare is dead without the mandate. That seems to be overlooked by you

Thanks for the analysis, provocative.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Re: Repealing the Individual Mandate Is a Terrible Idea - By Mario Loyola - The Corner - National Review Online

Re: Repealing the Individual Mandate Is a Terrible Idea

July 22, 2011 3:56 P.M. By Mario Loyola
Avik, you write that repealing the individual mandate in Obamacare, without repealing the rest of the law, would be a terrible idea. Well, not necessarily: As Eisenhower used to say, in order to solve a problem, it is sometimes necessary to enlarge it.

Forcing Democrats to vote on repeal of the individual mandate might be a great idea, both for political and policy reasons. First, I can’t wait to see what happens when we force them to vote on perhaps the most unpopular aspect of their own law. Second, the health-care law is unsustainable without the individual mandate, as you point out, but whose problem is that? You point out that if the mandate is repealed, the health-insurance industry will be destabilized. Actually, it will collapse. Democrats will be desperate to avoid a disaster created by their health-care law, and for which the public will blame them. Republicans will then be in a position to dictate terms.

As you point out, if we repeal the individual mandate, but leave in place the prohibition on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, an “adverse selection death spiral” will set in. If people can get health insurance whenever they want, they will tend to wait until they are sick; with a much smaller pool of healthy insured, insurance companies will raise premiums, which will force even more healthy people off the insurance rolls, which will force insurance companies to raise premiums further, and so on — that’s the “death spiral.” Well, if you remove the funding stream for universal coverage — namely the requirement that all healthy people purchase insurance — the federal government will have exactly three choices: (1) let the health insurance industry collapse, and with it, health care as we know it; (2) absorb the cost of subsidizing the health insurance companies somehow, which would bankrupt the government; or (3) repeal or revamp the entire law. Republicans will be able to eliminate option (2) by refusing to appropriate the necessary funds. That will leave Democrats with a choice between (1) and (3) — either take the blame for bankrupting the entire health insurance industry, or replace Obamacare with a new law that will require at least seven Republican votes in the Senate, and the agreement of the Republican-controlled House.

Republicans at that point could extract concessions far more sweeping than the effective repeal of Obamacare — such as giving states full authority to regulate their own health care according to market principles. We might finally have the chance to fix what’s really wrong with our health care system, problems that existed long before Obamacare came along to make them all worse.

— Mario Loyola is director of the Center for Tenth Amendment Studies at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

 

[The Rabbi]

He is never on vacation.

Ever work at a job were you were on call 24/7? Well, take that experience and multiply it by say 100. The man does not get a vacation for 4 years. He is on the job for every minute of every day for the entire length of his term even while taking a crap.

Immie

Poor guy. He'll be able to take a real vacation soon.

really? who's gonna beat him?

New sheriff in town.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

re: Repealing the individual mandate is a terrible idea - by mario loyola - the corner - national review online

re: Repealing the individual mandate is a terrible idea

july 22, 2011 3:56 p.m. By mario loyola
avik, you write that repealing the individual mandate in obamacare, without repealing the rest of the law, would be a terrible idea. Well, not necessarily: As eisenhower used to say, in order to solve a problem, it is sometimes necessary to enlarge it.

Forcing democrats to vote on repeal of the individual mandate might be a great idea, both for political and policy reasons. First, i can’t wait to see what happens when we force them to vote on perhaps the most unpopular aspect of their own law. Second, the health-care law is unsustainable without the individual mandate, as you point out, but whose problem is that? You point out that if the mandate is repealed, the health-insurance industry will be destabilized. Actually, it will collapse. Democrats will be desperate to avoid a disaster created by their health-care law, and for which the public will blame them. Republicans will then be in a position to dictate terms.

As you point out, if we repeal the individual mandate, but leave in place the prohibition on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, an “adverse selection death spiral” will set in. If people can get health insurance whenever they want, they will tend to wait until they are sick; with a much smaller pool of healthy insured, insurance companies will raise premiums, which will force even more healthy people off the insurance rolls, which will force insurance companies to raise premiums further, and so on — that’s the “death spiral.” well, if you remove the funding stream for universal coverage — namely the requirement that all healthy people purchase insurance — the federal government will have exactly three choices: (1) let the health insurance industry collapse, and with it, health care as we know it; (2) absorb the cost of subsidizing the health insurance companies somehow, which would bankrupt the government; or (3) repeal or revamp the entire law. Republicans will be able to eliminate option (2) by refusing to appropriate the necessary funds. That will leave democrats with a choice between (1) and (3) — either take the blame for bankrupting the entire health insurance industry, or replace obamacare with a new law that will require at least seven republican votes in the senate, and the agreement of the republican-controlled house.

Republicans at that point could extract concessions far more sweeping than the effective repeal of obamacare — such as giving states full authority to regulate their own health care according to market principles. We might finally have the chance to fix what’s really wrong with our health care system, problems that existed long before obamacare came along to make them all worse.

— mario loyola is director of the center for tenth amendment studies at the texas public policy foundation.

*crickets chirping*

 

[SFC Ollie]

Obamacare needs to be 100% overturned and a new plan formulated that keeps in mind the original idea of making health care more affordable instead of growing the government.

 

[Greenbeard]

Re: Repealing the Individual Mandate Is a Terrible Idea

To repeat what I just said, in the absence of a major federal provision for deterring adverse selection (risk adjustment mechanisms aside), it will fall to the states to protect their Exchanges. The law sets minimum functionalities for state Exchanges, not a maximum. States that choose not to make design changes as necessary will see their individual markets suffer.

That said, only the first of ten titles of the ACA is about private insurance markets, as the court noted today. The vast majority of the law is unrelated to this issue.