Vinson issues stay of his own ruling

[midcan5]

"What a cage is to the wild beast, law is to the selfish man." Herbert Spencer

Legislating from the bench, talk about activist ideologues. This is what happens when ideologues rather than lawyers are selected for positions of power, all law is their law.

"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty." Henry M. Robert

 

[American Horse]

Vinson’s original order on January 31 could not have been clearer: He declared the entire law unconstitutional and specifically said that, because he presumed that officials of the executive branch would adhere to the law as declared by a court, his declaratory judgment striking the law down was the functional equivalent of an injunction. ...

Judge Vinson issued a new order in response to a bizarre and obtuse “motion to clarify” that the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed on February 17. ... [His order] requires them to cease implementing Obamacare with respect to the 26 states that are plaintiffs and the National Federation of Independent Business. ...

Vinson said ... “t was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to ‘clarify.” ...

[He] also wrote of the government’s legal citation in its most recent motion “borders on misrepresentation.”...

He went on to “clarify” his order that he expected his declaratory judgment to “be treated as the ‘practical’ and ‘functional equivalent of an injunction.”

Judge Vinson [...] offered a clever compromise to the Obama Administration: He granted a stay for seven days but only on the condition that the Administration file an appeal within that period that requests expedited appellate review, either in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit or in the Supreme Court. Judge Vinson also noted that the appeal could be expedited because the briefing on the underlying legal issues was already submitted in his court. ...

[It ... ] is also a clever suggestion to the appellate courts that will next hear these claims: The Administration’s dilatory tactics should not trump the rule of law. ...“t is very important to everyone in this country that this case move forward as soon as practically possible.”

Judge Vinson to Obama: Speed up the Appeal or Stop Implementing Obamacare | The Foundry

 

[jillian]

The obvious issue is the WH & the DOJ do not want it to reach the SC quit so fast, all of this dribble about Vinson's ruling is useless, he achived what he set out to do, put it in front of the SC as fast as possible. Like it or not, Obamacare will more than likely end up in the trash can....

it will get to the supreme court at the same rate as every other case.

and no the health care law won't ...

and if you keep trying it, now that people actually are starting to see its benefits, you're gonna have lots of 'splainin' to do come 2012.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What benefits? The higher insurance premiums? The loss of choices in the market? The blatant favoritism and politics being played in awarding exemptions to unions and insurance companies that supported the new law? Are those the benefits you are talking about?

 

[The T]

What benefits? The higher insurance premiums? The loss of choices in the market? The blatant favoritism and politics being played in awarding exemptions to unions and insurance companies that supported the new law? Are those the benefits you are talking about?

700 plus companies exempt from Obamacare

As of today, a total of 733 waivers have been granted for 2011. Key facts about annual limits waivers:

HHS SITE LINK

 

[Polk]

What benefits? The higher insurance premiums? The loss of choices in the market? The blatant favoritism and politics being played in awarding exemptions to unions and insurance companies that supported the new law? Are those the benefits you are talking about?

What utter nonsense. The law won't result in higher insurance premiums beyond what they would have been without the law (since insurances have to justify rate increases now). As for loss of choices, that "loss" has been from the removal of policies that don't protect against anything.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The obvious issue is the WH & the DOJ do not want it to reach the SC quit so fast, all of this dribble about Vinson's ruling is useless, he achived what he set out to do, put it in front of the SC as fast as possible. Like it or not, Obamacare will more than likely end up in the trash can....

it will get to the supreme court at the same rate as every other case.

and no the health care law won't ...

and if you keep trying it, now that people actually are starting to see its benefits, you're gonna have lots of 'splainin' to do come 2012.

"ObamaCare Benefits" don't start until 2014 Jillian. Until then there is only ObamaCare Tax Collection.

 

[Trajan]

The obvious issue is the WH & the DOJ do not want it to reach the SC quit so fast, all of this dribble about Vinson's ruling is useless, he achived what he set out to do, put it in front of the SC as fast as possible. Like it or not, Obamacare will more than likely end up in the trash can....

it will get to the supreme court at the same rate as every other case.

and no the health care law won't ...

and if you keep trying it, now that people actually are starting to see its benefits, you're gonna have lots of 'splainin' to do come 2012.

can you explain the benefits we have seen please?

 

[The T]

The obvious issue is the WH & the DOJ do not want it to reach the SC quit so fast, all of this dribble about Vinson's ruling is useless, he achived what he set out to do, put it in front of the SC as fast as possible. Like it or not, Obamacare will more than likely end up in the trash can....

it will get to the supreme court at the same rate as every other case.

and no the health care law won't ...

and if you keep trying it, now that people actually are starting to see its benefits, you're gonna have lots of 'splainin' to do come 2012.

can you explain the benefits we have seen please?

There aren't ANY...only droves of Companies asking for waivers...Rising costs...even before it's fully implimented (2014)...

It's a valid question you ask...

 

[The T]

the obvious issue is the wh & the doj do not want it to reach the sc quit so fast, all of this dribble about vinson's ruling is useless, he achived what he set out to do, put it in front of the sc as fast as possible. Like it or not, obamacare will more than likely end up in the trash can....

it will get to the supreme court at the same rate as every other case.

And no the health care law won't ...

And if you keep trying it, now that people actually are starting to see its benefits, you're gonna have lots of 'splainin' to do come 2012.

"obamacare benefits" don't start until 2014 jillian. Until then there is only obamacare tax collection.

*bingo*

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What benefits? The higher insurance premiums? The loss of choices in the market? The blatant favoritism and politics being played in awarding exemptions to unions and insurance companies that supported the new law? Are those the benefits you are talking about?

What utter nonsense. The law won't result in higher insurance premiums beyond what they would have been without the law (since insurances have to justify rate increases now). As for loss of choices, that "loss" has been from the removal of policies that don't protect against anything.

I am so glad you mentioned the requirement to "justify" rate increases, it gives me a chance to show just how ignorant you are.`

Section 2794 is a puzzle. It requires HHS to review premium increases “in conjunction with the States,” but does not specify the responsibilities of either HHS or state governments. It requires HHS to “review” premium increases, but does not authorize HHS to reject them. It authorizes review of “unreasonable” premium increases, but proceeds to require insurers to “submit . . . a justification for an unreasonable premium increase prior to the implementation of the increase,” suggesting that a premium increase could be both unreasonable and justifiable.

Implementing Health Reform: The Premium Review Regulation – Health Affairs Blog

You can have unreasonable and justified increases? Can we try that again?

The proposed regulation attempts to sort out this puzzle. It begins by establishing a threshold level above which premium increases must be justified preliminarily. For 2011 this threshold will be 10 percent; for 2012 and later it will be either 10 percent or a state-specific threshold (which could be higher or lower) determined by the costs of health care and insurance in a particular state. Any issuer that proposes a rate increase in excess of this threshold must submit a preliminary justification for the rate increase before it goes into effect to HHS and to the applicable state. HHS will post this information on its website. If the applicable state has a rate review program determined by HHS to be “effective,” the state will review the rate request and report to HHS, which will accept its decision. If the state does not have an approved program, the insurer must submit further information to HHS and HHS will review the proposed rate increase determining whether it is “unreasonable,” defined as excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory. If HHS decides that a proposed rate increase is unreasonable, it will post this determination on its website. The insurer may then withdraw its proposed increase, propose a lower increase (which must also be reviewed if it is above the threshold), or implement the proposed “unreasonable” increase. Whether or not an insurer can implement an increase determined to be unreasonable by a state will, of course, depend on state law.

Look at that, even if HHS determines a rate increase is unreasonable and unjustified, they cannot do a thing about it. You are so right, once people understand how all of this works they are just going to love it. I might as well settle in and accept that I am just a grumpy old man totally opposed to change.

Thank you for giving me a chance to prove just how stupid the regulations you think will save the world are.

 

[Greenbeard]

Look at that, even if HHS determines a rate increase is unreasonable and unjustified, they cannot do a thing about it.

I'm genuinely impressed. You've discovered for yourself one of the key aspects of the ACA: it's not about federal authority. It's state-driven. The rate review provisions are simply one example of that; states choose (with federal support, if they want it) how and whether to revamp their state premium oversight laws and infrastructure. Those that have or acquire the authority to halt unjustified premium increases over the next three years can do so; otherwise the state will have to rely on the real deterrent, the threat of exclusion from the exchange, which every state's exchange will be empowered to employ if necessary. But if a state's exchange doesn't want to use that particular tool, then it won't get used. Those decisions are left to the state.

Reform will look different in different states because states will be doing things differently from each other. Beyond sketching out broad contours, HHS isn't the one deciding what reform will look like in your state, your state's leadership is.

So kudos. There are still a great many folks who haven't figured out that health reform is federated, not centralized.

 

[GWV5903]

The obvious issue is the WH & the DOJ do not want it to reach the SC quit so fast, all of this dribble about Vinson's ruling is useless, he achived what he set out to do, put it in front of the SC as fast as possible. Like it or not, Obamacare will more than likely end up in the trash can....

it will get to the supreme court at the same rate as every other case.

and no the health care law won't ...

and if you keep trying it, now that people actually are starting to see its benefits, you're gonna have lots of 'splainin' to do come 2012.

We will see, don't be surprised if it melts away....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Look at that, even if HHS determines a rate increase is unreasonable and unjustified, they cannot do a thing about it.

I'm genuinely impressed. You've discovered for yourself one of the key aspects of the ACA: it's not about federal authority. It's state-driven. The rate review provisions are simply one example of that; states choose (with federal support, if they want it) how and whether to revamp their state premium oversight laws and infrastructure. Those that have or acquire the authority to halt unjustified premium increases over the next three years can do so; otherwise the state will have to rely on the real deterrent, the threat of exclusion from the exchange, which every state's exchange will be empowered to employ if necessary. But if a state's exchange doesn't want to use that particular tool, then it won't get used. Those decisions are left to the state.

Reform will look different in different states because states will be doing things differently from each other. Beyond sketching out broad contours, HHS isn't the one deciding what reform will look like in your state, your state's leadership is.

So kudos. There are still a great many folks who haven't figured out that health reform is federated, not centralized.

I have no real problem with the PPACA as such, other than we cannot afford it. My problem has always been with the attempt to force people to buy a product from a private company. Even Obama had a problem with that before he realized he is a lying politician at heart.

By the way, since every single state has to meet the federal guidelines, and they cannot opt out for a less extensive reform. That actually makes it centralized, not federated, but nice try.

 

[RDD_1210]

The obvious issue is the WH & the DOJ do not want it to reach the SC quit so fast, all of this dribble about Vinson's ruling is useless, he achived what he set out to do, put it in front of the SC as fast as possible. Like it or not, Obamacare will more than likely end up in the trash can....

it will get to the supreme court at the same rate as every other case.

and no the health care law won't ...

and if you keep trying it, now that people actually are starting to see its benefits, you're gonna have lots of 'splainin' to do come 2012.

"ObamaCare Benefits" don't start until 2014 Jillian. Until then there is only ObamaCare Tax Collection.

10000000% False. But coming from you? What else should be expected.

Unlike you, I'll provide actual proof to back up my statement.

Implementation Timeline - Kaiser Health Reform

 

[RDD_1210]

it will get to the supreme court at the same rate as every other case.

and no the health care law won't ...

and if you keep trying it, now that people actually are starting to see its benefits, you're gonna have lots of 'splainin' to do come 2012.

can you explain the benefits we have seen please?

There aren't ANY...only droves of Companies asking for waivers...Rising costs...even before it's fully implimented (2014)...

It's a valid question you ask...

Actually, it's not a valid question. See my post above.

You loons make it so easy to discredit your far-fetched nightmare scenarios.

 

[code1211]

That's a bit amusing:

A federal judge in Florida on Thursday issued a stay of his own ruling against the Obama health care act, allowing the law to remain fully in effect while being appealed, eventually to the Supreme Court.

The Florida case is one of two in which judges have found a central provision of the law unconstitutional. But it is the only case in which a judge struck down the entire law, and suggested that implementation should halt during an appellate process that could stretch for two years.

Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, who ruled on Jan. 31 that the entire law was invalid, issued the stay without a specific request from the Obama administration. The Justice Department, which represents the administration, had asked Judge Vinson to clarify his January ruling, which the judge had characterized as the “functional equivalent” of an injunction to suspend the law.

Apparently he wrote his ruling against the law with the assumption that 1) it would halt implementation, 2) it would immediately result in a stay being issued by someone else, resuming implementation, with the ultimate practical result that 3) implementation would never actually cease.

Since, to his annoyance, that didn't happen, he granted the administration a stay of his ruling today without them asking him for one. So nothing has changed, except the handful of governors who wanted to use Vinson's decision as cover for ceasing implementation (some of them in contradiction to independent legal opinions offered by their state governments) no longer have that cover.

A ruling by any judge in any Federal Court immediately becomes law. The Obama Administration in defiance of the law, ignored the ruling and waited two weeks to submit a querry.

The judge in response gave them a week to implement his ruling or to appeal to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court. When the week has elapsed, he will release any party to the suit to ignor the Obamamcare Legislation.

The supreme court will not hear this in one week. Obamacare is soon to be unenforcable in 26 states.

The Obama Administration is acting in definace of the constitution which each and every one of them has taken an oath to protect.

It's funny how the Libs and Dems screamed to the heavens that Bush was breaking the law and then circuitously tried to prove it leaping from one assumption to the next. The Big 0 obviously and literally is breaking the law and they just can't seem to see it.

The Chicago political machine rolls forward and the crime and lies roll with it.

For your reading pleasure, an explanation of what Greenbeard does not seem to understand:

Breaking: Vinson stays ruling on ObamaCare – but just for seven days « Hot Air

<snip>
So to “clarify” my order and judgment: The individual mandate was declared unconstitutional. Because that “essential” provision was unseverable from the rest of the Act, the entire legislation was void. This declaratory judgment was expected to be treated as the “practical” and “functional equivalent of an injunction” with respect to the parties to the litigation. This expectation was based on the “longstanding presumption” that the defendants themselves identified and agreed to be bound by, which provides that a declaratory judgment against federal officials is a de facto injunction. To the extent that the defendants were unable (or believed that they were unable) to comply, it was expected that they would immediately seek a stay of the ruling, and at that point in time present their arguments for why such a stay is necessary, which is the usual and standard procedure. It was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to “clarify.”6
<snip>

 

[Polk]

What benefits? The higher insurance premiums? The loss of choices in the market? The blatant favoritism and politics being played in awarding exemptions to unions and insurance companies that supported the new law? Are those the benefits you are talking about?

What utter nonsense. The law won't result in higher insurance premiums beyond what they would have been without the law (since insurances have to justify rate increases now). As for loss of choices, that "loss" has been from the removal of policies that don't protect against anything.

I am so glad you mentioned the requirement to "justify" rate increases, it gives me a chance to show just how ignorant you are.`

Section 2794 is a puzzle. It requires HHS to review premium increases “in conjunction with the States,” but does not specify the responsibilities of either HHS or state governments. It requires HHS to “review” premium increases, but does not authorize HHS to reject them. It authorizes review of “unreasonable” premium increases, but proceeds to require insurers to “submit . . . a justification for an unreasonable premium increase prior to the implementation of the increase,” suggesting that a premium increase could be both unreasonable and justifiable.

Implementing Health Reform: The Premium Review Regulation – Health Affairs Blog

You can have unreasonable and justified increases? Can we try that again?

The proposed regulation attempts to sort out this puzzle. It begins by establishing a threshold level above which premium increases must be justified preliminarily. For 2011 this threshold will be 10 percent; for 2012 and later it will be either 10 percent or a state-specific threshold (which could be higher or lower) determined by the costs of health care and insurance in a particular state. Any issuer that proposes a rate increase in excess of this threshold must submit a preliminary justification for the rate increase before it goes into effect to HHS and to the applicable state. HHS will post this information on its website. If the applicable state has a rate review program determined by HHS to be “effective,” the state will review the rate request and report to HHS, which will accept its decision. If the state does not have an approved program, the insurer must submit further information to HHS and HHS will review the proposed rate increase determining whether it is “unreasonable,” defined as excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory. If HHS decides that a proposed rate increase is unreasonable, it will post this determination on its website. The insurer may then withdraw its proposed increase, propose a lower increase (which must also be reviewed if it is above the threshold), or implement the proposed “unreasonable” increase. Whether or not an insurer can implement an increase determined to be unreasonable by a state will, of course, depend on state law.

Look at that, even if HHS determines a rate increase is unreasonable and unjustified, they cannot do a thing about it. You are so right, once people understand how all of this works they are just going to love it. I might as well settle in and accept that I am just a grumpy old man totally opposed to change.

Thank you for giving me a chance to prove just how stupid the regulations you think will save the world are.

I'd need to go back and look at the specific text, but I was referring to the "medical loss" ratio.

 

[Polk]

Rising costs...even before it's fully implimented (2014)...

A simple analogy:

Today is Monday. A law is passed banning alcohol, effective Friday. You see people in the street with swigging malt liquor on Wednesday.

How did banning alcohol, effective Friday, cause people to drink malt liquor on Wednesday?

 

[Polk]

it will get to the supreme court at the same rate as every other case.

And no the health care law won't ...

And if you keep trying it, now that people actually are starting to see its benefits, you're gonna have lots of 'splainin' to do come 2012.

"obamacare benefits" don't start until 2014 jillian. Until then there is only obamacare tax collection.

*bingo*

You realize that both of you are dead-wrong, right?

A (partial) list of benefits already in effect:
- Temporary high-risk pools as a stop-gap until the exchanges are created
- Children can stay on their parent's insurance policy until their 26th birthday
- Elimination of pre-existing conditions for children
- Reduction in the size of the "donut hole" for seniors on Medicare Part D

As for "tax collection", the bill neither spends nor taxes a significant portion until 2013.