Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[asterism]

Well if car insurance is compulsory, is it constitutional.

Not everyone drives a car... Insurance is compulsory if you do, though... swing and a miss...

The point is you brought up both questions 2 and 3 to back your point - rhetorical or not. If you're going to use something to illustrate your point, don't be surprised if it comes back and bites you in the butt.

Your failure to understand does not mean that the question "bit me"... pay attention... Forcing someone to buy something that isn't necessary just to pay for the people who can't afford it is unconstitutional...

That aside, to your initial 'money' question, how do you make it constitutional? Non compulsory? Then what? More of the same as it was before?

Still doesn't answer my question... Why should a healthy 20-something be forced to buy insurance that he doesn't want or need?

Try answering without asking another question... it works better that way....

Car insurance is not required, establishment of financial responsibility is. In California it's a $35,000 deposit.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d07/vc16052.htm

Insurance Requirements for Vehicle Registration

 

[Bfgrn]

I want to ask a question from the other side of the world.
Assuming that both sides of the political divide agreed that healthcare in the USA needed fixing, why could they not work together to a solution...a bipartisan solution if you will?

Now I don't know for sure, but I can't recall a recent Republican president putting healthcare reform as a priority - that isn't a criticism, I guess that they were more focussed on other issues.
In any case, surely both parties would see healthcare as a fundamental issue in any democracy so why is it that, when it was obvious that it was a priority for the current administration, the other side couldn't get involved to produce a meaningful and enduring system.

Here's your answer. Former G.W. Bush speechwriter David Frum was fired by the right wing think tank AEI for revealing the truth.

Waterloo | FrumForum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

 

[Bern80]

Personally I'm still waiting for our legal 'expert', Jillian, to show us where in the constitution the federal government was granted the authority to make people buy things.......She keeps claiming there is precedent yet I can not seem to find any precedent where the fed has ever done such a thing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I want to ask a question from the other side of the world.
Assuming that both sides of the political divide agreed that healthcare in the USA needed fixing, why could they not work together to a solution...a bipartisan solution if you will?

Now I don't know for sure, but I can't recall a recent Republican president putting healthcare reform as a priority - that isn't a criticism, I guess that they were more focussed on other issues.
In any case, surely both parties would see healthcare as a fundamental issue in any democracy so why is it that, when it was obvious that it was a priority for the current administration, the other side couldn't get involved to produce a meaningful and enduring system.

Here's your answer. Former G.W. Bush speechwriter David Frum was fired by the right wing think tank AEI for revealing the truth.

Waterloo | FrumForum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

You think George bush was a right winger? thats equal to saying obama is a right winger. Neither are true.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Personally I'm still waiting for our legal expert Jillian to show us where in the constitution the federal government was granted the authority to make people buy things.......She keeps claiming there is precedent yet I can not seem to find any precedent where the fed has ever done such a thing.

Liberals think everything we do is covered by the Commerce Clause and that's the only justification they need to regulate it all.

 

[Bern80]

Personally I'm still waiting for our legal expert Jillian to show us where in the constitution the federal government was granted the authority to make people buy things.......She keeps claiming there is precedent yet I can not seem to find any precedent where the fed has ever done such a thing.

Liberals think everything we do is covered by the Commerce Clause and that's the only justification they need to regulate it all.

Then someone should tell them regulating is not a synonym for creating.

 

[boedicca]

and social security.

but they shouldn't let that confuse them.

this is the same 'let's kill the new deal' stuff the right has been doing since FDR was president. and any rational court knows what the law is on the subject.

which doesn't mean that they will actually act like judges.

yup, we pay a tax forward for benefits at a set age. no doubt of it...and?

any rational court will see this mandate for what it is- we are told to purchase a good/service. period.

you should listen to Obama during his campaign, he said it right then and there, there would be no end to what the gov. could ostensibly tell you to do. What happened to that slippery slope?


HE changed his tune (then changed it back- its a fee then its a tax now its a fee again) because he needed the money and the only way to make the shoe fit was to command everyone to buy a plan or be penalized. Does it bother you he lied...at all?

and just because you think its 'right' to command people to purchase goods and services, doesn't mean its 'right' OR justifiable.

Yes, a tax, a portion of your income is taken to pay for medicare. Just like a tax, a portion of your income will be taken if you don't buy health care coverage. They amount to the same thing.

It should be interesting watching Republicans in general assuring the elderly population that the two are somehow different.

That sounds great, except for the fact that the Obama Administration and Congress said the fine Was Not A Tax prior to the bill being passed. They can't know call it a tax to defend it as constitutional.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Medicare isn't a mandate?

Are you forced to sign up for Medicare?

You're forced to pay into it if you work. It's an insurance; you're required to pay a premium towards it.

It's not an insurance. It's a tax.
Obamacare drains $500 billion rom medicare....Just in case you were wondering where some of the funding( Ha! That's amusing) will come from.
Then the rest comes from US....That's right. 18% of our gross income for those of us who earn over $62k per year.
That means if the household income is $90k per year, their Obamacare....Just where the hell are we supposed to get THAT?!!!!!
My family medical insurance will go from $400 per month to about $1300 per month. Yeah, $1,300 per month. That's BEFORE taxes....
No Free Lunch: The True Cost of ObamaCare
the speculation that this Obamacare is a job killer is this. Those families who have incomes just above the federal subsidy threshold will drop one of their incomes in order to qualify for federal subsidies. That takes people out of the job market meaning fewer people paying income taxes, fewer people paying into the Obamacare funding ....the rest is pretty easy to understand. The will be a lowering of the American Standard of living. We will see a dramatic slowdown in our economy.
All this so a more people can live off the taxpayer tit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Personally I'm still waiting for our legal expert Jillian to show us where in the constitution the federal government was granted the authority to make people buy things.......She keeps claiming there is precedent yet I can not seem to find any precedent where the fed has ever done such a thing.

Liberals think everything we do is covered by the Commerce Clause and that's the only justification they need to regulate it all.

yeah..I am waiting for the federal government to invent a "fart" tax....You know....Carbon emissions.
Yeah, boopie keeps leaving cryptic messages on here that she is some kind of legal expert.
she provides nothing to support that claim other than she just "says so"...
She has argued that Judge Vinson's ruling is "stupid" and there is no precedent for that ruling.
She ignores the fact that the law has no severability clause. She denies the judge can make such a decision. yet she can provide no evidence no support for her claim.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I want to ask a question from the other side of the world.
Assuming that both sides of the political divide agreed that healthcare in the USA needed fixing, why could they not work together to a solution...a bipartisan solution if you will?

Now I don't know for sure, but I can't recall a recent Republican president putting healthcare reform as a priority - that isn't a criticism, I guess that they were more focussed on other issues.
In any case, surely both parties would see healthcare as a fundamental issue in any democracy so why is it that, when it was obvious that it was a priority for the current administration, the other side couldn't get involved to produce a meaningful and enduring system.

Simple. The formerly democrat controlled House of Representatives refused to allow ANY input from the minority party.
There were several GOP proposals. Each one was summarily rejected.
There are a few simple things that can be done to improve access to health insurance.

 

[Bfgrn]

I want to ask a question from the other side of the world.
Assuming that both sides of the political divide agreed that healthcare in the USA needed fixing, why could they not work together to a solution...a bipartisan solution if you will?

Now I don't know for sure, but I can't recall a recent Republican president putting healthcare reform as a priority - that isn't a criticism, I guess that they were more focussed on other issues.
In any case, surely both parties would see healthcare as a fundamental issue in any democracy so why is it that, when it was obvious that it was a priority for the current administration, the other side couldn't get involved to produce a meaningful and enduring system.

Here's your answer. Former G.W. Bush speechwriter David Frum was fired by the right wing think tank AEI for revealing the truth.

Waterloo | FrumForum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

You think George bush was a right winger? thats equal to saying obama is a right winger. Neither are true.

Your reading comprehension is running at full capability... preschool level.

But as long as you asked...

Puppets don't have 'wings', they have 'strings'

 

[Missourian]

To highlight what can happen when you choose not to be insured.

What happens when he can't pay out of his own pocket?

He'll file bankruptcy. Fortunately that doesn't happen very often.
Any other irrelevant points you'd lke to make? What happens when a 12yr old steals a car and he isn't an insured driver? Maybe we need to force people to buy insurance for non drivers as well. What happens if..... The possibilities are endless.

Who pays his medical bills when he files for bankruptcy?

Slippery slope Art.
I could step out of this Diner and be killed by the #8 bus.
I don't have enough savings and my wife can't pay the bills. She loses the house and the car, has to fille bankruptcy and give in HUD housing, get food stamps and welfare and medicaid for the kids.
So, should the government mandate Life Insurance for every American...just it case?
How about disability insurance?

 

[Flopper]

I want to ask a question from the other side of the world.
Assuming that both sides of the political divide agreed that healthcare in the USA needed fixing, why could they not work together to a solution...a bipartisan solution if you will?

Now I don't know for sure, but I can't recall a recent Republican president putting healthcare reform as a priority - that isn't a criticism, I guess that they were more focussed on other issues.
In any case, surely both parties would see healthcare as a fundamental issue in any democracy so why is it that, when it was obvious that it was a priority for the current administration, the other side couldn't get involved to produce a meaningful and enduring system.

Most Republicans feel access to healthcare along with other basic necessities is not the responsibility of the national government. They feel, this decision should be left to the states and local communities.
Most Democrats believe that it's the of national government job to see that these basic necessities are available to all Americans regardless of where they live. These are very fundamental differences in beliefs.

To my knowledge, Republicans have never supported a national healthcare bill and probably never will. Unfortunately, the inability of the two parities to work together means that affordable healthcare will probably never be available to all Americans.

 

[hboats]

You're forced to pay into it if you work. It's an insurance; you're required to pay a premium towards it.

But, you're not forced to pay into it simply because you're alive. That's the problem with Obamacare.

If you don't earn income, you don't have to buy insurance...either medicare or private insurance. And you can't get a tax penalty for it because you earn no income so you are exempt.

B.S. There is no where in Obamacare that says that you aren't covered by the mandate if you don't work. And the penalty for not having insurance isn't a tax. It's plainly worded as a FINE.

I don't pay a FINE for medicare. I pay a TAX.

Do you really not see the difference?

Rick

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Bullshit...Citizens United is the biggest piece of judicial activism in history...

How is upholding over 100 years of precedence judicial activism?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

tell me how much you hate the fact that insurance companies can't exclude people for pre-existing conditions.

I don't care for that provision at all. All that does is result in my and your insurance costs increasing even more to make up for the lost revenue of them having to cover those pre-existing conditions of those people. Furthemore, what gives the U.S. government the authority to tell them who they have to cover in the first place?

 

[Ravi]

yup, we pay a tax forward for benefits at a set age. no doubt of it...and?

any rational court will see this mandate for what it is- we are told to purchase a good/service. period.

you should listen to Obama during his campaign, he said it right then and there, there would be no end to what the gov. could ostensibly tell you to do. What happened to that slippery slope?


HE changed his tune (then changed it back- its a fee then its a tax now its a fee again) because he needed the money and the only way to make the shoe fit was to command everyone to buy a plan or be penalized. Does it bother you he lied...at all?

and just because you think its 'right' to command people to purchase goods and services, doesn't mean its 'right' OR justifiable.

Yes, a tax, a portion of your income is taken to pay for medicare. Just like a tax, a portion of your income will be taken if you don't buy health care coverage. They amount to the same thing.

It should be interesting watching Republicans in general assuring the elderly population that the two are somehow different.

That sounds great, except for the fact that the Obama Administration and Congress said the fine Was Not A Tax prior to the bill being passed. They can't know call it a tax to defend it as constitutional.

It doesn't matter what they call it, a tax is a tax is a tax. It is a tax penalty...it is still a tax. If you didn't pay your medicare tax you would also receive a tax penalty.

 

[Ravi]

But, you're not forced to pay into it simply because you're alive. That's the problem with Obamacare.

If you don't earn income, you don't have to buy insurance...either medicare or private insurance. And you can't get a tax penalty for it because you earn no income so you are exempt.

B.S. There is no where in Obamacare that says that you aren't covered by the mandate if you don't work. And the penalty for not having insurance isn't a tax. It's plainly worded as a FINE.

I don't pay a FINE for medicare. I pay a TAX.

Do you really not see the difference?

Rick

Yes there is...

 

[hboats]

If you don't earn income, you don't have to buy insurance...either medicare or private insurance. And you can't get a tax penalty for it because you earn no income so you are exempt.

B.S. There is no where in Obamacare that says that you aren't covered by the mandate if you don't work. And the penalty for not having insurance isn't a tax. It's plainly worded as a FINE.

I don't pay a FINE for medicare. I pay a TAX.

Do you really not see the difference?

Rick

Yes there is...

Please, show me exactly where it says that. I'd really like to see it.

And why no comment on the difference between a tax and a fine? Didn't you know that Obama himself said that the fine for not having insurance is not a tax?

Rick

 

[Missourian]

tell me how much you hate the fact that insurance companies can't exclude people for pre-existing conditions.

I don't care for that provision at all. All that does is result in my and your insurance costs increasing even more to make up for the lost revenue of them having to cover those pre-existing conditions of those people. Furthemore, what gives the U.S. government the authority to tell them who they have to cover in the first place?

I agree, I'll give you a 'pre-existing conditions' exemption to age 30, after that...you gamble at your own risk.

Don't come crying at 50 years old cursing "those evil insurance companies".

That's like telling the home owners insurance company that they must sell a policy to people after their house burns down, then build thema new one.