Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[Immanuel]

Well if car insurance is compulsory, is it constitutional.

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.

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?

there is no "right" to drive a car
it is a privilege granted by the state, it comes with rules

There is no 'right' to have medical care either in your constitution? Is there?

Isn't that the whole point of the discussion regarding Health Care Reform? The liberals want to make it a right. They want to force everyone to have it, whether or not it is needed or affordable.

Immie

 

[boedicca]

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?

It is neither the government's nor society's responsibility to derisk individuals from all of life's miseries and accidents.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Except for the fact that they specifically said it wasn't a tax during the legislative "deliberation".

 

[Bfgrn]

there is no "right" to drive a car
it is a privilege granted by the state, it comes with rules

There is no 'right' to have medical care either in your constitution? Is there?

Isn't that the whole point of the discussion regarding Health Care Reform? The liberals want to make it a right. They want to force everyone to have it, whether or not it is needed or affordable.

Immie

Hey Immie, did you ever watch this?

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

 

[Immanuel]

I disagree with your assessment. If a non-driver NEVER drives then why would he need insurance. However, a human being, as some stage in live, will need health care. I have yet to meet a human who has never died.

However I have met a few who have never driven....

Does a person NEED healthcare insurance at 20-ish with low risk and no history of any life threatening diseases? I say no and it should NOT be the gubmint's decision that he must...

Why are some people "exempt" from 0bamacare?

Insurance only works if it contains both low and higher risk customers. If there are only high risk customers, then premiums increase forcing all but the highest risk customers from the pool which pushes premiums even higher forcing more people out of the pool. As the young grow older and decide they aren't going to live forever, they find insurance too expensive. When they have serious health problems they deplete their savings and often have to rely on society to pay their medical bills. This is no win situation for all but the very lucky.

Is that really grounds for forcing the young to buy insurance today?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

There is no 'right' to have medical care either in your constitution? Is there?

Isn't that the whole point of the discussion regarding Health Care Reform? The liberals want to make it a right. They want to force everyone to have it, whether or not it is needed or affordable.

Immie

Hey Immie, did you ever watch this?

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

No, I have not seen it. I have just scanned the first half of the transcripts. I do not have much time today.

Is your point that we should not fear government involvement in health care? That is what Wendell Potter said. I hate to say this, but that does not change my opinion. I still fear government involvement. I simply no longer trust the corrupted individuals who call D.C. their home while they supposedly serve the nation.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

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

Exemptions from the coverage requirement are allowed for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months during a calendar year, aliens not lawfully present in the United States, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of household income, those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2010, the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 is $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples) and those residing outside of the United States.

April 5 2010

 

[Ravi]

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.

Except for the fact that they specifically said it wasn't a tax during the legislative "deliberation".

Immaterial.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Except for the fact that they specifically said it wasn't a tax during the legislative "deliberation".

Immaterial.

It is immaterial that our elected officials lied to us?

Immie

 

[hboats]

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.

Except for the fact that they specifically said it wasn't a tax during the legislative "deliberation".

Immaterial.

From you very link posted above.

The 2010 health care reform legislation contains two fundamental mandates: (i) most individuals must have qualifying health coverage or pay a penalty; and (ii) certain employers must offer and contribute to their workers’ health insurance or pay a penalty.

Now I wonder why it doesn't say tax instead of "penalty?"

Rick

 

[hboats]

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

Exemptions from the coverage requirement are allowed for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months during a calendar year, aliens not lawfully present in the United States, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of household income, those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2010, the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 is $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples) and those residing outside of the United States.

April 5 2010

Ok, this law firm that you linked to says that there are all of these exemptions from the individual mandate. I'll take their word for it for now, even though I have yet to see it from the text of the actual law.

So, if the above exceptions are true, then we're right back in the same place we started before this law was passed. Because the people who couldn't afford health insurance before still won't be able to afford it, and they're excluded from being forced to purchase it or pay the "penalty."

So, we're still going to have all of these exceptions to the individual mandate uninsured. Where exactly is the fix to our current health care problem?

Rick

 

[Ravi]

Except for the fact that they specifically said it wasn't a tax during the legislative "deliberation".

Immaterial.

It is immaterial that our elected officials lied to us?

Immie

No, it is immaterial as to the constitutionality of the bill.

 

[boedicca]

So, we're still going to have all of these exceptions to the individual mandate uninsured. Where exactly is the fix to our current health care problem?

Rick

The objective isn't to fix health care. The purpose is to funnel more income and wealth from group 4 to groups 1-3:

1. Public Employee Unions
2. The Poor
3. The Ruling Elite
4. The rest of us who work hard and take responsibility for ourselves and our families

 

[Ravi]

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

Exemptions from the coverage requirement are allowed for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months during a calendar year, aliens not lawfully present in the United States, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of household income, those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2010, the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 is $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples) and those residing outside of the United States.

April 5 2010

Ok, this law firm that you linked to says that there are all of these exemptions from the individual mandate. I'll take their word for it for now, even though I have yet to see it from the text of the actual law.

So, if the above exceptions are true, then we're right back in the same place we started before this law was passed. Because the people who couldn't afford health insurance before still won't be able to afford it, and they're excluded from being forced to purchase it or pay the "penalty."

So, we're still going to have all of these exceptions to the individual mandate uninsured. Where exactly is the fix to our current health care problem?

Rick

They will qualify for medicaid...which many in those income groups don't, as of now. There are also tax credits for low income people that will pay for their insurance. So, no, it isn't right back where we started from.

 

[Bern80]

The notion that the mandate is constitutional because the government has the authority to collect taxes may be some of the more impressive mental gymnastics undertaken so far. Are liberals really trying to argue that government has the authority to make people do whatever they want as long as they collect a 'tax' for non-compliance? Sounds a bit more absurd stated a different way doesn't it libs. But that is exactly what you're saying government has the power to do.

Many libs have attempted to cite various parts of the constitution such as the general welfare clause oar the their taxing power. The reality is few 'experts' have argued those positions. The constitutionality question has always centered around the commerce clause. While government may have the authority to regulate commerce, I fail to see how that allows them to create commerce.

 

[Trajan]

I am still amazed this conversation is going on frankly.....the obama that was voted for by one and all here has already gone on record ..HE AGREES that the mandate et al is, well, not a good idea and took Hilary to task for it…on national TV. I’ll let him tell it in the vids and commentary below.



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-1SMV3ok58&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


and


OBAMA: Let’s break down what she really means by a mandate. What’s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she’s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That’s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

CNN.com - Transcripts

oh and the Ellen DeGeneres show....

Eyeblast.tv




So, time to pony up the integrity- those of you who like to toss around the term(s) wingnut(s), lugnuts, kooky cons and all such , heres your chance to take a similar insert expletive here Nut to task…have at it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Isn't that the whole point of the discussion regarding Health Care Reform? The liberals want to make it a right. They want to force everyone to have it, whether or not it is needed or affordable.

Immie

Hey Immie, did you ever watch this?

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

No, I have not seen it. I have just scanned the first half of the transcripts. I do not have much time today.

Is your point that we should not fear government involvement in health care? That is what Wendell Potter said. I hate to say this, but that does not change my opinion. I still fear government involvement. I simply no longer trust the corrupted individuals who call D.C. their home while they supposedly serve the nation.

Immie

Just watch it when you have the time and make your own determinations.

 

[Samson]

I am still amazed this conversation is going on frankly.....the obama that was voted for by one and all here has already gone on record ..HE AGREES that the mandate et al is, well, not a good idea and took Hilary to task for it…on national TV. I’ll let him tell it in the vids and commentary below.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-1SMV3ok58&feature=player_embedded


and


OBAMA: Let’s break down what she really means by a mandate. What’s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she’s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That’s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

CNN.com - Transcripts

oh and the Ellen DeGeneres show....

Eyeblast.tv




So, time to pony up the integrity- those of you who like to toss around the term(s) wingnut(s), lugnuts, kooky cons and all such , heres your chance to take a similar insert expletive here Nut to task…have at it.

Health Judge Uses Obama's Words Against HimTuesday, 01 Feb 2011 09:19 AM Article Font Size

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Health Judge Uses Obama's Words Against Him
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

 

[Liability]

I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.

you can like it all you want. it's not an accurate statement of law that any responsible jurist would put forth.

Although I think Jilly's conclusion that the Judge is irresponsible is absurd, I must nevertheless agree with her in part.

The absence of a severability clause in an Act does NOT mean that if one part is determined to be in violation of the Constitution, the entire legislation must get tossed. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. ___ (2010).

“Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional
flaw in a statute, we try to limit the solution to the problem,”
severing any “problematic portions while leaving the
remainder intact.” Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of
Northern New Eng., 546 U. S. 320, 328–329 (2006). Because
“[t]he unconstitutionality of a part of an Act does not
necessarily defeat or affect the validity of its remaining
provisions,” Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation
Comm’n of Okla., 286 U. S. 210, 234 (1932), the “normal
rule” is “that partial, rather than facial, invalidation is the
required course,” Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472
U. S. 491, 504 (1985).

Id.

There, the SCOTUS said (pretty clearly) otherwise. See it here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-861P.ZO (Look at p. 28 for the quoted excerpt, above.)

 

[Trajan]

I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.

you can like it all you want. it's not an accurate statement of law that any responsible jurist would put forth.

Although I think Jilly's conclusion that the Judge is irresponsible is absurd, I must nevertheless agree with her in part.

The absence of a severability clause in an Act does NOT mean that if one part is determined to be in violation of the Constitution, the entire legislation must get tossed. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. ___ (2010).

“Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional
flaw in a statute, we try to limit the solution to the problem,”
severing any “problematic portions while leaving the
remainder intact.” Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of
Northern New Eng., 546 U. S. 320, 328–329 (2006). Because
“[t]he unconstitutionality of a part of an Act does not
necessarily defeat or affect the validity of its remaining
provisions,” Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation
Comm’n of Okla., 286 U. S. 210, 234 (1932), the “normal
rule” is “that partial, rather than facial, invalidation is the
required course,” Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472
U. S. 491, 504 (1985).

Id.

There, the SCOTUS said (pretty clearly) otherwise. See it here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-861P.ZO (Look at p. 28 for the quoted excerpt, above.)

The absence of a severability clause in an Act does NOT mean that if one part is determined to be in violation of the Constitution, the entire legislation must get tossed.

Yes I see that HOWEVER the BILL and its progenitors said many times and openly the mandate is the one imperative in the bill that is a MUST, its a "lynch pin"........see my point?
Its in the amicus brief pdf I posted a few pages back...