23
   

Fed judge rules health insurance reform unconstitutional

 
 
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 12:14 pm
A Virginia federal judge, Henry E. Hudson, ruled today that the portion of the health insurance reform bill passed by congress (sometimes referred to as "Obamacare") that required all citizens to purchase health insurance exceeds congress's power under the Commerce Clause. A copy of the judge's ruling can be found here.

The ruling only applies to Virginia, and the mandatory health insurance portion of the act doesn't even apply right now, so the immediate effects of the ruling are minimal. It is expected that the administration will appeal, and that the supreme court will be eventually rule on all of the various lawsuits brought against the law.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 23 • Views: 8,665 • Replies: 180

 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 12:16 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

A Virginia federal judge, Henry E. Hudson, ruled today that the portion of the health insurance reform bill passed by congress (sometimes referred to as "Obamacare") that required all citizens to purchase health insurance exceeds congress's power under the Commerce Clause. A copy of the judge's ruling can be found here.

The ruling only applies to Virginia, and the mandatory health insurance portion of the act doesn't even apply right now, so the immediate effects of the ruling are minimal. It is expected that the administration will appeal, and that the supreme court will be eventually rule on all of the various lawsuits brought against the law.


Am I right that the judge ruled the mandate to be Severable? Which is to say, even if the mandate gets struck down, the rest of the law would stand?

Cycloptichorn
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 12:17 pm
Obama to call press conference with Bill Clinton within the hour....

(j/k) lol
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 12:19 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Am I right that the judge ruled the mandate to be Severable? Which is to say, even if the mandate gets struck down, the rest of the law would stand?

That's correct. See section VIII of the judge's opinion (pp. 38-40).
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 12:21 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Am I right that the judge ruled the mandate to be Severable? Which is to say, even if the mandate gets struck down, the rest of the law would stand?

That's correct. See section VIII of the judge's opinion (pp. 38-40).


Pfff, it's a win-win for me, then. No mandate, but the requirements on private insurance staying in place, will only hasten their demise.

Cycloptichorn
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 01:09 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Am I right that the judge ruled the mandate to be Severable? Which is to say, even if the mandate gets struck down, the rest of the law would stand?

That's correct. See section VIII of the judge's opinion (pp. 38-40).


Pfff, it's a win-win for me, then. No mandate, but the requirements on private insurance staying in place, will only hasten their demise.

Cycloptichorn


At least your honest about what you want from this legislation. Can't say the same thing about Obama and the Democrat controlled congress.

Unfortunately it would be so easy.

Without the mandate in place to fund the program it will be much easier for Republicans to make a case for repeal. Are Obama and the Democrats going to be as honest and you and say:

"Hey look the mandate was a sham all along. It never would have covered the cost of the requirements imposed on private insurance and it would only have been a matter of time before they all went out of business. This actually works to our favor. The requirements remain, the mandate's partial funding is gone and so private insurance will go bust even sooner and then we can put the public option in place well before we have original planned."

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 01:12 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Without the mandate in place to fund the program it will be much easier for Republicans to make a case for repeal.


Haha, yeah right. Let's see the Republicans run on repealing HC. You're kidding yourself if you think this will ever come to be.

In large part b/c people love the elements of reform which will remain. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

"Hey look the mandate was a sham all along. It never would have covered the cost of the requirements imposed on private insurance and it would only have been a matter of time before they all went out of business.


Why would they lie? What you wrote is clearly untrue. There's no evidence that the Mandate would put them out of business, at all. And a great deal of evidence showing that it would help all of them in the long run, with a massive new pool of healthy subscribers.

Quote:
This actually works to our favor. The requirements remain, the mandate's partial funding is gone and so private insurance will go bust even sooner and then we can put the public option in place well before we have original planned."


That part I agree with. I desire for exactly this to happen, and for private insurance to be replaced with a single-payer option for all of us. It would be far more efficient and far cheaper than our current system.

Which you already know, of course. You're just not allowed to admit that ideas which are ideologically opposed to your own make sense, or you could get kicked out of the Young Galtians club.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 01:21 pm
@joefromchicago,
You are a little late to the party http://able2know.org/topic/165290-1
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 04:37 pm
@H2O MAN,
If the "mandate " section isnt sustained, then the entire health bill will fall apart because the means of paying will be unavailable.

I really hate our health system continuously being run by and for the insiurance industry
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 05:52 pm
@farmerman,
I gotta admit, you picked the right day to dis the insurance companies.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 06:02 pm
@farmerman,
Yep, and I'll take the insurance companies "running" our health system
over our government running our health system... Thank you very much
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 07:15 pm
What's that phrase that Conservatives like to use about rulings they don't like? I'd ask one, but their awful hard to find when a ruling goes in their favor.

A
R
T
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 07:56 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

What's that phrase that Conservatives like to use about rulings they don't like?


One term
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 08:12 pm
@joefromchicago,

9th n 10th Amendments
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 09:14 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

What's that phrase that Conservatives like to use about rulings they don't like? I'd ask one, but their awful hard to find when a ruling goes in their favor.

A
R
T


What are you talking about Diest?

There are at least three conservatives participating in this thread.

But let me answer your question lest you accuse me of ducking it:

What's that phrase that Conservatives like to use about rulings they don't like?

What a crock of shite! I can't believe that jackass liberal judge ruled that way!"

Is that the one you mean?
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 09:16 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I was making a joke. Relax. Cool

A
R
T
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 10:17 pm
Quote:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to resolve the conflict, and many court watchers already expect a characteristically close decision. But what is now clear is that the challenges from dozens of states to the law’s constitutionality can no longer be dismissed as frivolous, as they were earlier this year by some scholars and Democratic partisans.

All the insiders thought it was a slam dunk,” said Randy E. Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University who supports the health care challenges. “Maybe a slam dunk like weapons of mass destruction were a slam dunk.”

The Supreme Court’s position on the Commerce Clause has evolved through four signature cases over the last 68 years, three of which have been decided since 1995. Two of the opinions — Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 and Gonzales v. Raich in 2005 — established broad federal powers to regulate even personal commercial decisions that, taken in the aggregate, may influence a larger economic outcome.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14legal.html?_r=1&hp

the know it all elites were wrong??!! Who woudda thunk it possible....
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 11:00 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

I was making a joke. Relax. Cool

A
R
T


Oh thank goodness!
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2010 12:20 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
What's that phrase that Conservatives like to use about rulings they don't like?
Usually, collectivist-authoritarian violation of liberty.





David
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2010 04:05 am
All whining from the right taken aside, i believe the appropriate phrase is "legislating from the bench."
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fed judge rules health insurance reform unconstitutional
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/20/2021 at 05:38:43