Real World Event Discussions

We've done the impossible...

POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Sunday, February 20, 2011 15:39
VIEWED: 3204
PAGE 1 of 5

WULFENSTAR

Monday, January 31, 2011 9:24 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-l
awsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

1KIKI

Monday, January 31, 2011 9:27 PM

"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here," Vinson wrote.

"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Maybe we could get real health care reform, like universal Medicare.

WULFENSTAR

Monday, January 31, 2011 9:30 PM

Hey, Im all for not allowing insurance companies to kick you off for a pre-existing condition...

However, the individual mandate AND the government having access to my healthcare and medical records?

Fuck a buncha that.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

WULFENSTAR

Monday, January 31, 2011 10:14 PM

The next step is the Supreme Court.

Heres to hope.

And for those bemoaning this.. well it did bring to light that SOME things of Americas healthcare need to be changed.

Just not by forcing a good people to subject themselves to the government. (hint-hint at the British)

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

WULFENSTAR

Monday, January 31, 2011 11:14 PM

LOL

No comments from the peanut gallery?

Man, I wish I had saved some of the comments..

"Its established law.."

"You are crazy to think it could be reversed!"

etc...

So, if it get reversed, like it should (and replaced..maybe)..

What will Obama have to mark his being president?

OOOooooo, the first black president! Lets build a monument! Cus thats SOOOOOOOOOOO-ooooo important.

First dibs on the pickaxe to bring down THAT monstrosity.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NIKI2

Monday, January 31, 2011 11:44 PM

Jeeez, Wulf, you really have problems with patience, don't you? Or is it with not getting immediate attention?

Most likely it won't happen. For one thing, there are other judges who have judged it constitutional in other states. For another, the Supreme Court probably won't uphold the decision. For a third; there are any number of things which are federally mandated (such as vehicle registration, I believe?), so it will be difficult to make a distinction between them and the health care mandate. Not impossible, and I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong, but I don't think the Supremes will override it.

For one thing, we have a conservative Supreme Court, and that means they cow-tow to big business; there's too much profit in the mandate for the insurance companies to let this slide, in my opinion.

I don't think it'll be upheld, for other additional reasons. The fight will go on...and on...and on...since the Republicans are determined to keep it an issue, but the longer it goes on, the more people will like it and depend on it, so if it's around long enough, nothing will overturn it.

Mind you, I don't like the mandate either, never did. I see the logic of it; unless everyone, young and old alike, buy insurance, covering everyone will be financially unfeasible. What we REALLY needed was the public option (as in Medicare for all!). Maybe eventually we'll get it; certainly something has to be done, and the do-nothings have kept the status quo for about as long as they can get away with keeping it. Health care is bankrupting the country, and the insurance companies can get away with whatever they want, as they have been, if the new health care law is overturned.

I still don't see it happening. Time will tell. I think you're crowing a bit early, but that's never stopped you before. Does that mean when/if it's upheld, we get to crow over YOU the same childish way you do? I seem to remember many remarks about "we're in charge now", etc., etc., when all "you" are in charge of now is the weakest of the three legislative entities...and nothing's changed as far as I can see.

Where are the jobs? I thought now that Republicans won the House, everything was gonna get better...you were gonna save the country, etc., etc....ad nauseum.

What monument? Do you ever THINK before you type, or aren't you capable of that? Your consistently overblown, childish rhetoric robs you of any validity, little man.

p.s. Incorrect title: "You" haven't "done" anything, and it was never "impossible". Just hold your water before you piss all over everyone, if you can.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 5:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
there are any number of things which are federally mandated (such as vehicle registration, I believe?)

No. Your vehicle registration is in your state. There is no federal mandate.

Quote:
I don't think the Supremes will override it.

And you are again wrong. The most important vitals of Obamacare will be overturned on a 5-4 decision, with Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer being the activists.

Justice Kennedy is, in point of fact, the only justice who's opinion matters. He's the swing. The other 8 justice decisions can be predicted with virtualy no margin of error.

KWICKO

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
LOL

No comments from the peanut gallery?

Man, I wish I had saved some of the comments..

"Its established law.."

"You are crazy to think it could be reversed!"

I wish you had saved some of them, too. I'd really like to see those comments you think "the peanut gallery" made. As with the rest of your "facts", this one seems to be all in your imagination.

This ruling is part of a PROCESS. It will go to the SCOTUS. It may or may not be reversed or upheld. This was all by design.

One thing that nobody seems to make note of is that the "mandate" part of the healthcare bill was written AS PART OF THE TAX CODE. The SCOTUS has long held (and the Constitution lays out as well) that the government has the right to levy and collects taxes. And as I understand it, this "mandate" is nothing more or less than a system of tax incentives/deductions to encourage people to have health insurance. It's not a fine you pay if you DON'T have insurance - it's a deduction you're eligible for if you DO have it. That's the way I heard it explained. And if that's the case, then it will likely stand. Of course, if it doesn't, then all of you with children, homes, and spouses will be losing an awful lot of your deductions as well, right? ;)

This Space For Rent!

NIKI2

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 9:34 PM

Quote:
One thing that nobody seems to make note of is that the "mandate" part of the healthcare bill was written AS PART OF THE TAX CODE. The SCOTUS has long held (and the Constitution lays out as well) that the government has the right to levy and collects taxes. And as I understand it, this "mandate" is nothing more or less than a system of tax incentives/deductions to encourage people to have health insurance. It's not a fine you pay if you DON'T have insurance - it's a deduction you're eligible for if you DO have it. That's the way I heard it explained. And if that's the case, then it will likely stand. Of course, if it doesn't, then all of you with children, homes, and spouses will be losing an awful lot of your deductions as well, right? ;)

Mmmm, yes Mike, I'd forgotten that part, as virtually everyone seems to cheerfully do when arguing the issue. I wonder why (not!). I'd forgotten it's not really about the constitutionality of the commerce clause, but actually about the tax code. Ergo, I was thinking it was pretty much a 4-4 with Kennedy as the swing vote, too, as have many others. So, the argument that Kennedy will vote to repeal ("overrule", whatever) because he's been against mandates in the past takes a new turn, potentially...

That makes it interesting to see how SCOTUS will decide; if the argument in favor of keeping it puts it on those terms, are they really that predictable? If so, we've DEFINITELY got some "activist" judges on the right, willing to ignore that there's no "penalty" for not buying health insurance, merely the lack of ability to deduct same...will be interesting to see their argument...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

KWICKO

Thursday, February 3, 2011 2:36 AM

Charles Freid, Solicitor General under Reagan, says the mandate *IS* constitutional.

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/reagans-solicitor-general-says-he
alth-c

Quote:
I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional. … My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress’ Commerce power, “what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is—to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed.” To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate.

The mandate is a rule—more accurately, “part of a system of rules by which commerce is to be governed,” to quote Chief Justice Marshall. And if that weren’t enough for you—though it is enough for me—you go back to Marshall in 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, where he said “the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. The government which has the right to do an act”—surely, to regulate health insurance—“and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means.” And that is the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...]

I think that one thing about Judge Vinson’s opinion, where he said that if we strike down the mandate everything else goes, shows as well as anything could that the mandate is necessary to the accomplishment of the regulation of health insurance.

He also addresses the issue of severability, and why the mandate was intrinsic to the bill.

Hey, I'm not crazy about the mandate, either, but it's hardly a closed case as to whether or not it will be upheld or reversed.

This Space For Rent!