Virgiana lawsuit vs. Healthcare bill clears first hurdle!!

[Navy1960]

RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia’s lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s health care reform law has cleared its first legal hurdle.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson on Monday denied the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the lawsuit.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claims that Congress does not have the authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to require citizens to buy health insurance or pay a penalty
Virginia lawsuit vs. Obama’s health care reform clears 1st hurdle - BostonHerald.com

 

[Claudette]

Lets hope the other 25 States that filed suite get the same results.

 

[Navy1960]

I made no comment on the issue but this provision that requires people to purchase healthcare IMHO should be struck down. If a states citizens decide through the ballot that they wish this to be a matter of state law then so be it, I do believe that healthcare should be available at reasonable costs to those that need it and those that want it. The current healthcare law that was rammed through congress last year IMO has many hurdles to cross this just being one of them and is NOT IMO the way to bring reasonable healthcare to those that wish to have it. So in the end, i'm glad the judge has decided to let this go to trial where it needs to be heard.

 

[Tech_Esq]

As a citizen of the Commonwealth, I'm glad Ken Cuccinelli is pursuing this. There is a long way to go, but hopefully he will demonstrate that there is actually a limit to how far the Commerce Clause can be perverted.

In the small world category, I used to work at the same law firm as the Attorney General and the judge went to the same law school as me.....cool...

 

[Navy1960]

I just heard that the same Attny. General issued a ruling that permitted Va. state law enforcement to inquire about immigration status as well. So it does appear that Va. has jumped into the debate along with ours.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This time next year the Roberts court will issue their ruling declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional

 

[Tech_Esq]

I just heard that the same Attny. General issued a ruling that permitted Va. state law enforcement to inquire about immigration status as well. So it does appear that Va. has jumped into the debate along with ours.

Prince William County Virginia has been enforcing a law much like the AZ law for 3 years now.

This ruling is an attempt to take the Prince William law state-wide. Hopefully, it will do for the state what it did for our county. The illegals fled like there was a farmer with a shotgun full of rock salt after them.

The slight variation in the Prince William law from the AZ law is that here, the police can only inquire about immigration status after an arrest. I'd be happy with that change to the AZ law if that makes the courts happy. Because the thing to know is that once the law is passed the illegals will deport themselves (at least to another state).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

OH boy here we go. will obama have this judge removed?
Challenge to Health Care Law Advances - Law Blog - WSJ

 

[Greenbeard]

I made no comment on the issue but this provision that requires people to purchase healthcare IMHO should be struck down. ... The current healthcare law that was rammed through congress last year ... and is NOT IMO the way to bring reasonable healthcare to those that wish to have it.

Do you believe that those who wish to purchase health insurance should be able to do so without facing discrimination based on gender or medical history?

 

[Oddball]

Do you believe that those who wish to purchase health insurance should be able to do so without facing discrimination based on gender or medical history?

Discrimination?...What kind of discrimination would that be?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now maybe obama will haveto tell the truth about this law and it will be ruled unconstitutional.
On a side note Nancy will findly be able to find out whats in the law.

The ruling represents a setback that will force the Obama administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the law. The suit, filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (pictured), alleges that the law’s requirement that its residents have health insurance violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I made no comment on the issue but this provision that requires people to purchase healthcare IMHO should be struck down. ... The current healthcare law that was rammed through congress last year ... and is NOT IMO the way to bring reasonable healthcare to those that wish to have it.

Do you believe that those who wish to purchase health insurance should be able to do so without facing discrimination based on gender or medical history?

That hardly matters. There is no proper justification for violating the Constitution. If this case proves the law violates the constitution, then it should be struck down.

 

[Greenbeard]

That hardly matters. There is no proper justification for violating the Constitution. If this case proves the law violates the constitution, then it should be struck down.

If I'm not mistaken, Virginia's suit is aimed squarely at the individual mandate. That's not what I'm asking about, at least not directly. I'm asking whether Navy1960 supports insurance market regulation to "bring reasonable healthcare to those that wish to have it" or if he favors some particular alternative.

 

[hortysir]

Now maybe obama will haveto tell the truth about this law and it will be ruled unconstitutional.
On a side note Nancy will findly be able to find out whats in the law.

The ruling represents a setback that will force the Obama administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the law. The suit, filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (pictured), alleges that the law’s requirement that its residents have health insurance violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

He's already had to admit it, in our case in Florida.
Their defense is to claim that states can't interfere with taxation.
No mention of the commerce clause as their defense.

 

[Oddball]

I'm asking whether Navy1960 supports insurance market regulation to "bring reasonable healthcare to those that wish to have it" or if he favors some particular alternative.

Dude...You're a Randian antagonist, straight out of "Atlas Shrugged"!

Who gets to define "reasonable healthcare"?

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'm asking whether Navy1960 supports insurance market regulation to "bring reasonable healthcare to those that wish to have it" or if he favors some particular alternative.

Dude...You're a Randian antagonist, straight out of "Atlas Shrugged"!

Who gets to define "reasonable healthcare"?

And that's one of the many reasons why this law sucks. I have to lose my insurance because it doesn't have shit I don't need but that the government now says I do. For instance, nobody in my family is having any babies anymore, so I don't have coverage for maternity care. Well, daddy government isn't happy about that. Now it will be mandated.

So, I lose my health insurance that I privately contract for, and have to get some more expensive insurance that isn't what I want. Thanks 'Bama!!

 

[Oddball]

I'm asking whether Navy1960 supports insurance market regulation to "bring reasonable healthcare to those that wish to have it" or if he favors some particular alternative.

Dude...You're a Randian antagonist, straight out of "Atlas Shrugged"!

Who gets to define "reasonable healthcare"?

And that's one of the many reasons why this law sucks. I have to lose my insurance because it doesn't have shit I don't need but that the government now says I do. For instance, nobody in my family is having any babies anymore, so I don't have coverage for maternity care. Well, daddy government isn't happy about that. Now it will be mandated.

So, I lose my health insurance that I privately contract for, and have to get some more expensive insurance that isn't what I want. Thanks 'Bama!!

That's why the in-state quasi-monopoly is so expensive; "must insure" mandates, which force insurers to cover things like chiropractic, alcohol/drug rehab, etcetra.

But somehow or another, forcing everyone to purchase coverage for relatively inexpensive treatments and self-inflicted "illness" is supposed to make coverage cheaper for everyone else?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Dude...You're a Randian antagonist, straight out of "Atlas Shrugged"!

Who gets to define "reasonable healthcare"?

And that's one of the many reasons why this law sucks. I have to lose my insurance because it doesn't have shit I don't need but that the government now says I do. For instance, nobody in my family is having any babies anymore, so I don't have coverage for maternity care. Well, daddy government isn't happy about that. Now it will be mandated.

So, I lose my health insurance that I privately contract for, and have to get some more expensive insurance that isn't what I want. Thanks 'Bama!!

That's why the in-state quasi-monopoly is so expensive; "must insure" mandates, which force insurers to cover things like chiropractic, alcohol/drug rehab, etcetra.

But somehow or another, forcing everyone to purchase coverage for relatively inexpensive treatments and self-inflicted "illness" is supposed to make coverage cheaper for everyone else?

Yep, Voodoo health care economics.

 

[Navy1960]

I made no comment on the issue but this provision that requires people to purchase healthcare IMHO should be struck down. ... The current healthcare law that was rammed through congress last year ... and is NOT IMO the way to bring reasonable healthcare to those that wish to have it.

Do you believe that those who wish to purchase health insurance should be able to do so without facing discrimination based on gender or medical history?

I think I made my position pretty clear, if it be a man or a woman that wishes to purchase health insurance for themselves and their family they should have affordable options available to them. Medical history, while I do not think anyone should be denied medical converage based on medical history, I do feel that once the factors that actually ahave an effect on the high cost of medical care are aactually addressed there will be little change in the high cost of providing health insurance to those with pre-existing conditions. Personally, I believe that it would take little effort to provide a catastrophic health insurance program , much like life insurance for everyone at a low cost through Medicare. If people wish to go beyond that, such as continuing care, then in a well regulated market place let people make the choice as to what and who they would purchase that healthcare from. The advantages of such a system are this, if young people who are for the most part healthy purcahse that insurance that they will in momst cases never use then that money will offset the costs of those in the system that are not so healthy as well as help pay for system in general through regual payroll deductions. In no such case would I EVER support a system that would mandate ANYONE have healthcare insurance, because that is completely out of the scope of constitutional powers given the Federal Govt. Let me give you an example, should we all decide that the Govt. can mandate the purcahse of a private service or good, then they can mandate you purcahse a solar panel for your home, or a GM car, as it is the same principle and violates our form of limited Govt. My position is that if the incentives are there then this silly notion of mandates will not be needed and young people as well as older Americans will sign up for a regular payroll deduction for a catastrophic policy at the very least.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I listened to Attorney General Cuccinelli last night and this morning talking about this decision and what the ruling of the judge was.

First, there were four motion, on the part of the Federal Government, to strike. If the Feds one on any one of them Virginia would have been required to appeal the ruling to the 4th Circuit (at a minimum) before the substance of the case could be heard.

Basically, the feds said Virginia was not harmed (didn't have standing to sue). That, even if there would be harmed, they weren't yet (the case was not ripe). That the feds had the power to tax and the states had no standing to challenge that (Federal preemption). And, finally, that the commerce clause permits Congress to enact such laws, so Virginia's objection is moot (federal power).

The judge denied each of these motions to strike. In fact, the judge said that on the Commerce Clause and taxing power arguments, the federal government had never before been so far afield from settled law. That these were extraordinary powers that the government was trying to assume. (This coming from the judge is encouraging for when the judge rules on the Summary Judgment motion that Virginia will present. Basically, that's when the judge will make a ruling on the Constitutionality of the Federal law).

Additionally, in the over 2200 pages that made up the health care law, nobody thought to put in a severability clause. That means if one provision is found unconstitutional, the whole thing goes down in flames. They have to start over, with a Republican House.