Supreme Court Bound! Health Care Reform Law Unconstitutional

[Wicked Jester]

Right on!

Once again, the attempts by this inept President and administration to shit on the constitution are being exposed.

Bottom line in this ruling, you can't force people to buy anything, and you cannot punish them for not buying.

Sounds about right!

It's going to be a great thing for this great country when this fiasco of a healthcare bill is shitcanned through repeal.

 

[jillian]

oh pooh...

 

[Liability]

I don't know that it will go to the SC anytime soon. This decision was a slam dunk. As obvious as it could be.

The SC will be petitioned but I bet they let the ruling stand without hearing the case.

I dunno. Since other Federal Judges have not reached the same conclusion -- I'd venture the guess that the Supremes are gonna see fit to iron it out after due course.

 

[loosecannon]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?

Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.

What are you talking about? Requiring healthy people to buy private insurance is a subsidy for sick people and Medicare. It's exactly the opposite of what you describe.

no.. it's to make sure that the good parts of the law get paid for. plain and simple. it's called spreading around the cost. there are many such affirmative requirements. thinking this one is separate and apart seems disingenuous.

except for the private insurance role.....

This ruling would apply to social security were it not for the fact that social security isn't brokered thru private insurance companies.

Requiring healthy people to pay too much for care they don't need is a direct subsidy for private industry legislated by the feds: patently unconstitutional.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let me pull out my crystal ball......

If it goes to the Supreme Court it will lose.......ummm lets see...5-4

I don't know what you mean by lose, but I'm going with Jillian on this one....

If they find against Obamacare, they admit the over-use of the commerce clause, and we may see it tested ad infinitum.

Further, they would be affronting two othe branches of the government, and, actually, letting the Congress off the hook...

No, this is the job of the folks in Congress who claim that they hear the American people. Let's see what they do.

Am I just a pessimist?

 

[Madeline]

It has to go to the Fourth Circuit first, and that will only happen if there is a conflict among the districts. You people are reacting as if SCOTUS will hear this case tomorrow....fastest I'd suppose that could happen would be more like 2 years from now.

 

[Intense]

Let me pull out my crystal ball......

If it goes to the Supreme Court it will lose.......ummm lets see...5-4

I don't know what you mean by lose, but I'm going with Jillian on this one....

If they find against Obamacare, they admit the over-use of the commerce clause, and we may see it tested ad infinitum.

Further, they would be affronting two othe branches of the government, and, actually, letting the Congress off the hook...

No, this is the job of the folks in Congress who claim that they hear the American people. Let's see what they do.

Am I just a pessimist?

If you are looking for a happy ending here, figuratively or literally, Forget about it!

 

[Madeline]

What are you talking about? Requiring healthy people to buy private insurance is a subsidy for sick people and Medicare. It's exactly the opposite of what you describe.

no.. it's to make sure that the good parts of the law get paid for. plain and simple. it's called spreading around the cost. there are many such affirmative requirements. thinking this one is separate and apart seems disingenuous.

except for the private insurance role.....

This ruling would apply to social security were it not for the fact that social security isn't brokered thru private insurance companies.

Requiring healthy people to pay too much for care they don't need is a direct subsidy for private industry legislated by the feds: patently unconstitutional.

"Too much"? Do you not understand how insurance works, loosecanon?

 

[KissMy]

I hope I don't see this healthcare bill end up being a tax.

That is their ultimate play here, to make it a tax.

They had best hurry before the republicans take office or healthcare is D.O.A.

 

[jillian]

I dunno. Since other Federal Judges have not reached the same conclusion -- I'd venture the guess that the Supremes are gonna see fit to iron it out after due course.

you know that's more than a guess. they will have to resolve the disparate decisions of the various circuits if they don't agree... and we don't know what the circuit ct in VA is going to decide, either.

 

[RDD_1210]

What are you talking about? Requiring healthy people to buy private insurance is a subsidy for sick people and Medicare. It's exactly the opposite of what you describe.

no.. it's to make sure that the good parts of the law get paid for. plain and simple. it's called spreading around the cost. there are many such affirmative requirements. thinking this one is separate and apart seems disingenuous.

except for the private insurance role.....

This ruling would apply to social security were it not for the fact that social security isn't brokered thru private insurance companies.

Requiring healthy people to pay too much for care they don't need is a direct subsidy for private industry legislated by the feds: patently unconstitutional.

Maybe you're missing the concept of insurance. You don't buy insurance when a problem comes up. You actually buy it before hand to ensure that you are protected in the event you do get sick. So requiring people to be personally responsible and purchase protection for themselves before a major incident occurs is exercising a little personal responsibility and the very thing the right LOVE to whine about.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I say strike down the mandate. That will throw the insurance companies in to unrest when their "meager" profits shrink and hopefully lead to their downfall. Single-payer, here we come!

 

[loosecannon]

It has to go to the Fourth Circuit first, and that will only happen if there is a conflict among the districts. You people are reacting as if SCOTUS will hear this case tomorrow....fastest I'd suppose that could happen would be more like 2 years from now.

They can fast track cases to the SC like they did with Bush v. Gore.

I am laughing tho, Obama is a constitutional scholar, that's his one legit strength.

But not much of one apparently.

 

[Bern80]

We also need to get past precedent, using logic and reason, there is nothing that is untouchable by virtue of it having already decided on in the past, not when it trespasses the boundary of legitimacy.

it hasn't "tresspasse[d] the bound of legitimacy" if it's been decided by the Court. and while it can be reconsidered, there has to be a basis for a reconsideration.

i doubt the supremes are going to mess with the commerce clause...

no matter what a dubya appointee says.

You believe the commerce clause grants authority to the fed to make people buy things?

 

[Bern80]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?

Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.

Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....

The right (unlike the left) is also kind of big on this thing called personal liberty.

 

[Intense]

It has to go to the Fourth Circuit first, and that will only happen if there is a conflict among the districts. You people are reacting as if SCOTUS will hear this case tomorrow....fastest I'd suppose that could happen would be more like 2 years from now.

They can fast track cases to the SC like they did with Bush v. Gore.

I am laughing tho, Obama is a constitutional scholar, that's his one legit strength.

But not much of one apparently.

 

[Foxfyre]

Jillian is right though that SCOTUS won't hear this case for some time on down the road. We CAN hold out hope that they will hear it before the worst provisions of the law kick in in 2013 and 2014. That is unless Congress comes to its senses and rescinds it, and then goes to work on putting the good provisions into a package that we all can live with. And this time I hope they make it uniform for all including the unions and members of Congress. We'll all get a much better deal that way.

 

[loosecannon]

no.. it's to make sure that the good parts of the law get paid for. plain and simple. it's called spreading around the cost. there are many such affirmative requirements. thinking this one is separate and apart seems disingenuous.

except for the private insurance role.....

This ruling would apply to social security were it not for the fact that social security isn't brokered thru private insurance companies.

Requiring healthy people to pay too much for care they don't need is a direct subsidy for private industry legislated by the feds: patently unconstitutional.

Maybe you're missing the concept of insurance. You don't buy insurance when a problem comes up. You actually buy it before hand to ensure that you are protected in the event you do get sick. So requiring people to be personally responsible and purchase protection for themselves before a major incident occurs is exercising a little personal responsibility and the very thing the right LOVE to whine about.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I say strike down the mandate. That will throw the insurance companies in to unrest when their "meager" profits shrink and hopefully lead to their downfall. Single-payer, here we come!

No I understand the concept of insurance just fine. The world you speak of would charge everybody the same rate for health insurance regardless of their personal risk. In reality health insurance for 80 yos should cost about 100 times as much as that of kids who are 19 yo. Because health care for a randomly picked senior costs 100 times more.

Forcing young healthy people to buy insurance at inflated rates is a direct subsidy of the elderly and medicare, as well as the sick.

That's why the insurance industry loved Obamacare.

 

[Intense]

no.. it's to make sure that the good parts of the law get paid for. plain and simple. it's called spreading around the cost. there are many such affirmative requirements. thinking this one is separate and apart seems disingenuous.

except for the private insurance role.....

This ruling would apply to social security were it not for the fact that social security isn't brokered thru private insurance companies.

Requiring healthy people to pay too much for care they don't need is a direct subsidy for private industry legislated by the feds: patently unconstitutional.

Maybe you're missing the concept of insurance. You don't buy insurance when a problem comes up. You actually buy it before hand to ensure that you are protected in the event you do get sick. So requiring people to be personally responsible and purchase protection for themselves before a major incident occurs is exercising a little personal responsibility and the very thing the right LOVE to whine about.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I say strike down the mandate. That will throw the insurance companies in to unrest when their "meager" profits shrink and hopefully lead to their downfall. Single-payer, here we come!

Corrupt and bankrupt the system. Good plan Comrade. If we fail here we can always return to Europe.

 

[Synthaholic]

I hope I don't see this healthcare bill end up being a tax.

That's exactly what's going to happen. It has been such a bullshit argument: "you're forcing me to buy insurance!!!", "the dang gummint can't make me buy dang insurance!!!!" and it's all semantics. Whether they/us call it a 'purchase' or a 'tax' makes no difference.

 

[RDD_1210]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?

Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.

Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....

The right (unlike the left) is also kind of big on this thing called personal liberty.

LOL, right on cue...yeah, your personal liberty which gets to interfere with mine. How noble.