Another blow to Obamacare, this time its - U.S. appeals court in Atlanta

[piasabird]

If you strike down the mandatory insurance it cripples the public option. It also cripples any kind of penalty for not having the mandatory insurance. So yes it completely cripples the health care bill.

Do you have any idea the cost this will cause for every employer to issue proof of insurance? Not to mention the need to find one more federal tax form to send in with your taxes!

 

[BarneyFife]

Way to swallow the corporatist scraps. How about some of us strive for a working system instead of the same old tired crap?

Because everyone knows that a single payer system is the only true option but Blue Cross and the rest of the insurance companies want no part of it. Only country in the world where corporations run everything. We are all their bitches.

 

[BarneyFife]

If you strike down the mandatory insurance it cripples the public option. It also cripples any kind of penalty for not having the mandatory insurance. So yes it completely cripples the health care bill.

Do you have any idea the cost this will cause for every employer to issue proof of insurance? Not to mention the need to find one more federal tax form to send in with your taxes!

Give me a fucking break. A piece of paper from HR is not going to mean shit. Don't go there with your stupid business costs bullshit. That is the dumbest thing I read today.

 

[trenchfoot]

Interesting how the judicial branch of gov't has been corrupted as bad as the legislative branch.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hogwash! Social Security is mandated insurance that everyone that works is forced to purchase. It has been around for 75 years and not been deemed unconstitutional.

And before you go trying to claim SS isn't insurance it's a retirement fund do a little research. What people commonly refer to as the SS trust fund is actually two funds.
OASI (Old Age Security Insurance)
DI (Disability Insurance)

Social security is a tax that you pay for something you get. The provision in question is a tax you pay for NOT getting something. Would you like to pay for not having a firearm? How about for not voting? For not buying the right kind of car? For not standing on your head? That's the thing. Since government isn't "forcing" you to buy anything you can't say that you would have to shave your head. Just pay the 50K if you don't. Ridiculous? Not in the context that you can be destroyed financially if you don't do as you are ordered.

 

[fskimospy]

Social security is a tax that you pay for something you get. The provision in question is a tax you pay for NOT getting something. Would you like to pay for not having a firearm? How about for not voting? For not buying the right kind of car? For not standing on your head? That's the thing. Since government isn't "forcing" you to buy anything you can't say that you would have to shave your head. Just pay the 50K if you don't. Ridiculous? Not in the context that you can be destroyed financially if you don't do as you are ordered.

Silliness. Someone can live their entire lives without participating in the firearm market. No one lives their life without participating in the health care market. Congress is regulating the participation that is already occurring by governing how that participation takes place.

This is the basic argument that most legal experts accept on the issue, and it's the argument that roughly half the courts who have ruled on the issue have accepted. As best as I've read, most experts expect a 6-3 or 7-2 ruling by the USSC upholding the individual mandate.

 

[Doppel]

The concept of mandatory paying just for existing in the country or else you get a penalty is stupid and ill-conceived.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Silliness. Someone can live their entire lives without participating in the firearm market. No one lives their life without participating in the health care market. Congress is regulating the participation that is already occurring by governing how that participation takes place.

This is the basic argument that most legal experts accept on the issue, and it's the argument that roughly half the courts who have ruled on the issue have accepted. As best as I've read, most experts expect a 6-3 or 7-2 ruling by the USSC upholding the individual mandate.

Very well. Everyone eats, therefore you can be coerced to eat what the government tells you. As far as firearms "no one lives their life without participating in the health care market" is not a Constitutional boundary. Effectively there isn't one and it's only because some in Congress want this is that it's health care and their issue.

Silliness is giving government the power to ruin you for things you don't do because it's your hearts desire. Precisely where in the Constitution does it say that you cannot be punished for not having a hand gun? Is that the "this only affects health care" amendment? No.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Funny how conservatives latch onto this rather than the (overwhelmingly popular) pre-existing conditions and lifetime cap provisions.

Have they proposed getting rid of the health insurance requirement and keeping these other parts, or are they all equally evil?

As a conservative I am all for health care reform . The type that takes the burden off the public . and cuts Doctors nurses and drug cost . More like whats in Cuba would be great . Same applies to attornies . put them on government payrolls .

Beings how they are working together to defraud the american people . The american people need to make both services social on the gobberment dime.

The FDA is a joke they allow unsafe drugs on the market than the attornies do a class action backed by the drug companies so damages are reduced 1000x for the plaintive. But the attorney gets his millions . What a scam.

 

[IGBT]

As a conservative I am all for health care reform . The type that takes the burden off the public . and cuts Doctors nurses and drug cost . More like whats in Cuba would be great . Same applies to attornies . put them on government payrolls .

Beings how they are working together to defraud the american people . The american people need to make both services social on the gobberment dime.

The FDA is a joke they allow unsafe drugs on the market than the attornies do a class action backed by the drug companies so damages are reduced 1000x for the plaintive. But the attorney gets his millions . What a scam.

"gobberment dime."..........that's the tax payer your mumbling about. The only money the "gobberment" has is the money they confiscate under the guise of "TAXES".

 

[1prophet]

If it's a fundamental right it has already violated for decades in the form of, say, state-mandated auto insurance. The distinction isn't particularly germane, that's why it has been thrown out so many times.



There is a tax penalty if you don't have auto insurance. And again, the "individual choice" isn't one at all for millions of Americans, when it comes to auto insurance. The simple logic on mandates is inescapable.

And auto insurance goes up , way up if you are considered high risk and it is perfectly legal, funny how they leave that part out when using the auto insurance comparison.

 

[Double Trouble]

Silliness. Someone can live their entire lives without participating in the firearm market. No one lives their life without participating in the health care market. Congress is regulating the participation that is already occurring by governing how that participation takes place.

This is the basic argument that most legal experts accept on the issue, and it's the argument that roughly half the courts who have ruled on the issue have accepted. As best as I've read, most experts expect a 6-3 or 7-2 ruling by the USSC upholding the individual mandate.

Interesting, is there some link to a gallup poll of legal experts or something? Most of the time when some news organization says "most experts", they mean "the expert we use as our source". I'm not an expert, but there's zero doubt in my mind that it's going to be a 5-4 ruling. Which way depends on Kennedy - as usual. I'd guess the court is going to go along with this most recent ruling: mandate purchasing a product is not OK, but the health care laws themselves are OK.

I wish they'd just go back to the drawing board, throw this steaming pile of garbage health care bill overboard, and create something useful.

 

[Ausm]

Then the government can pass a healthcare tax and make all Americans pay it and use it to cover the cost of the uninsured.

Like that would happen in only a fantasy world...

 

[fskimospy]

Very well. Everyone eats, therefore you can be coerced to eat what the government tells you. As far as firearms "no one lives their life without participating in the health care market" is not a Constitutional boundary. Effectively there isn't one and it's only because some in Congress want this is that it's health care and their issue.

Silliness is giving government the power to ruin you for things you don't do because it's your hearts desire. Precisely where in the Constitution does it say that you cannot be punished for not having a hand gun? Is that the "this only affects health care" amendment? No.

Uhmm, actually everyone participating in an interstate health care market is most certainly a constitutional boundary. Additionally, Congress cannot regulate your act of eating, but they can regulate what food you can buy. (they already do this all the time) Similarly Congress cannot force you to undergo a medical procedure, but they can regulate how you go about purchasing medical care.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[werepossum]

Very well. Everyone eats, therefore you can be coerced to eat what the government tells you. As far as firearms "no one lives their life without participating in the health care market" is not a Constitutional boundary. Effectively there isn't one and it's only because some in Congress want this is that it's health care and their issue.

Silliness is giving government the power to ruin you for things you don't do because it's your hearts desire. Precisely where in the Constitution does it say that you cannot be punished for not having a hand gun? Is that the "this only affects health care" amendment? No.

I suspect that government taxing you for not eating the approved foods/weighing the approved amount is only a decade or two away. The more government controls, the more it wants to control, and once it fully takes over health care it will need both more revenue and more control over things that raise health care costs.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting, is there some link to a gallup poll of legal experts or something? Most of the time when some news organization says "most experts", they mean "the expert we use as our source". I'm not an expert, but there's zero doubt in my mind that it's going to be a 5-4 ruling. Which way depends on Kennedy - as usual. I'd guess the court is going to go along with this most recent ruling: mandate purchasing a product is not OK, but the health care laws themselves are OK.

I wish they'd just go back to the drawing board, throw this steaming pile of garbage health care bill overboard, and create something useful.

No, and a Gallup poll on them wouldn't be particularly useful. I'm talking about published legal analysis, and you're welcome to go check it out yourself. (it tilts heavily towards it being constitutional, with varying caveats by different authors). It could be 5-4, but the views of the commerce clause stated by Kennedy and Roberts a very much in line with supporting this, and Scalia is also substantially onboard with his ruling in Gonzales v. Reich.

People who say 'I wish they would just start over with something new!' aren't offering a real solution. What should they do instead? Be specific. Keep in mind that the whole 'sell insurance over state lines', 'tort reform', etc, are in no ways even remotely adequate solutions for our health care problems.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

With the falling economy and growing death, I doubt any court will rule in favor of Obamacare anymore... but lets see...

Story link

What's interesting about your post is that you are specifically calling for judicial activism. The economy and death rates have nothing to do with the constitutionality of this law, and no judge evaluating the law should factor those things in if he or she is acting neutrally in fulfillment of his or her duties.

 

[sactoking]

Uhmm, actually everyone participating in an interstate health care market is most certainly a constitutional boundary. Additionally, Congress cannot regulate your act of eating, but they can regulate what food you can buy. (they already do this all the time) Similarly Congress cannot force you to undergo a medical procedure, but they can regulate how you go about purchasing medical care.

Hope that clears things up.

Not at all. Because under the analogy, Congress could easily mandate that Americans be forced to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars each year on garlic that comes from Gilroy CA, artichokes that come from Watsonville CA, or sweet onions that come from Vidalia GA. Each of those three locations has a veritable monopoly on the product mentioned so all consumption of said product is interstate commerce. What's stopping Congress from appeasing the almighty garlic lobby and passing a bill requiring all Americans to purchase $1000 of garlic every year or face a fine?

 

[xj0hnx]

What should they do instead? Be specific. Keep in mind that the whole 'sell insurance over state lines', 'tort reform', etc, are in no ways even remotely adequate solutions for our health care problems.

And neither is the bill we got, what's your point?

 

[sactoking]

Keep in mind that the whole 'sell insurance over state lines', ..., are in no ways even remotely adequate solutions for our health care problems.

Wait, what? What do you mean by that statement?

 

[senseamp]

No true liberal I know is going to cry for the individual mandate being ruled unconstitutional. Health care should be an entitlement, not a mandate.

 

[fskimospy]

And neither is the bill we got, what's your point?

That in my opinion it does help. If you are of the mind that it does not, then provide an alternative.

 

[xj0hnx]

That in my opinion it does help. If you are of the mind that it does not, then provide an alternative.

The actual cost of health care are what needs to be addressed, not the insurance. The cost of insurance are but a by product of the insane cost of health care, and medications.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Uhmm, actually everyone participating in an interstate health care market is most certainly a constitutional boundary. Additionally, Congress cannot regulate your act of eating, but they can regulate what food you can buy. (they already do this all the time) Similarly Congress cannot force you to undergo a medical procedure, but they can regulate how you go about purchasing medical care.

Hope that clears things up.

Congress isn't regulating how people purchase health care, it is punishing people for not having a service which is not required. Likewise you can be punished for not eating your veggies. You can't be made to eat something, just pay $$$ if you do not. Food would be subject to interstate commerce, as is everything else.

 

[fskimospy]

Congress isn't regulating how people purchase health care, it is punishing people for not having a service which is not required. Likewise you can be punished for not eating your veggies. You can't be made to eat something, just pay $$$ if you do not. Food would be subject to interstate commerce, as is everything else.

It most certainly is regulating how people purchase it, as every last one of us purchases health care in our lives. The idea that someone could choose not to participate in the health care market is a dangerous fiction.