peepinmofo Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31...overage-debate/ A U.S. district judge ruled Monday that the health care law unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause Judge Roger Vinson said as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be thrown out. "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. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void," he wrote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31...overage-debate/ What a surprise! Who appointed this "unbiased" judge? Probably a secret member of the Tea party. What a joke! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Judge Roger Vinson said as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be thrown out. Doesn't this argument make mandatory automobile insurance unconstitutional, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Doesn't this argument make mandatory automobile insurance unconstitutional, then? Negative. That is done at the state level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Doesn't this argument make mandatory automobile insurance unconstitutional, then? No. Nobody is required to buy automobile insurance unless they choose to operate an automobile. With Obamacare, everybody would be required to purchase health insurance period, or be fined/eventually jailed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Yes, let the states do it. They can't pay their teachers but they wanna pay for your sex change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 What a surprise! Who appointed this "unbiased" judge? Probably a secret member of the Tea party. What a joke! I do not believe you understand fully the reason why this judge made his ruling. Additionally, I know you are just making a comment that is funny when you posted this but also based in your own personal views but I'm going to use your comment for a broader point I want to make and not an attack on you at all. But comments just like what borge007 posted are somewhat reflected of how people feel & are polarized when it comes to health care reform. Just as the judge stated in the various articles I've read, we need health care to be remodeled and work for all. I doubt you will find anyone who is against it and you can see how the judge struggled with his decision based on his comments. The fact of the matter is that we need to work together and across all party lines to identify, develop and implement a solution that works. This cannot be done while we still have Rep & Dem party members so closed off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Doesn't this argument make mandatory automobile insurance unconstitutional, then? Can you really not tell the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I do not believe you understand fully the reason why this judge made his ruling. Additionally, I know you are just making a comment that is funny when you posted this but also based in your own personal views but I'm going to use your comment for a broader point I want to make and not an attack on you at all. But comments just like what borge007 posted are somewhat reflected of how people feel & are polarized when it comes to health care reform. Just as the judge stated in the various articles I've read, we need health care to be remodeled and work for all. I doubt you will find anyone who is against it and you can see how the judge struggled with his decision based on his comments. The fact of the matter is that we need to work together and across all party lines to identify, develop and implement a solution that works. This cannot be done while we still have Rep & Dem party members so closed off. very well said. And thank you for doing so before the thread got totally "perched" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 And thank you for doing so before the thread got totally "perched" Way to be the pot, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Way to be the pot, though. That term has been used by many, many people here, and I sure didnt start it. I also have not said a thing here about this subject, but way to ride to Perch's defense. Maybe you should read the Egypt thread for an example of "perching a thread". It is the 2nd post I beleive . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Way to be the pot, though. Who has pot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I do not believe you understand fully the reason why this judge made his ruling. Additionally, I know you are just making a comment that is funny when you posted this but also based in your own personal views but I'm going to use your comment for a broader point I want to make and not an attack on you at all. But comments just like what borge007 posted are somewhat reflected of how people feel & are polarized when it comes to health care reform. Just as the judge stated in the various articles I've read, we need health care to be remodeled and work for all. I doubt you will find anyone who is against it and you can see how the judge struggled with his decision based on his comments. The fact of the matter is that we need to work together and across all party lines to identify, develop and implement a solution that works. This cannot be done while we still have Rep & Dem party members so closed off. Points well taken. However, I find it interesting that this particular challenge was filed in the Federal District Court of Florida. You are right. It is a difference in the majority of "thinking" of the Republican and Democrat party members.If it gets to the SCOTUS-how do you think it will be decided? Just asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 With Obamacare, everybody would be required to purchase health insurance period, or be fined/eventually jailed. Is that "everybody" the same people that are now downtrodden victims of the Obama-communist hordes but until January 2009 were a bunch of freeloading toerags driving up prices for everyone? Just checking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) Why is it constitutional to force hospitals to treat people in the ER and then pass those costs on to the tax paying citizen? It sounds to me like they are saying that the government can't force you to buy insurance for yourself but can force you to pick up the tab for others. I wonder how everyone would feel if each month they received a bill for their part of what it cost to treat others who don't have insurance? Would they look at the insurance mandate differently? Edited January 31, 2011 by SayItAintSoJoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Points well taken. However, I find it interesting that this particular challenge was filed in the Federal District Court of Florida. You are right. It is a difference in the majority of "thinking" of the Republican and Democrat party members.If it gets to the SCOTUS-how do you think it will be decided? Just asking. Ultimately, the federal government will do whatever it has to in order to maintain so in this instance I seriously doubt that health care reform as we know it today will be axed. I think that it will be an on-going political lightning rod where Rep, Dem, Tea & Independents gather around and argue and fight over for years to come and with little momentum or change. I can see this being such a drag on our economy and for all elections moving forward to be centered around. There have been many charges filed in other states against health care reform. The VA one agreed that it is unconstitutional but didn't go as far as to axe the whole thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Why is it constitutional to force hospitals to treat people in the ER and then pass those costs on to the tax paying citizen? It sounds to me like they are saying that the government can't force you to buy insurance for yourself but can force you to pick up the tab for others. I wonder how everyone would feel if each month they received a bill for their part of what it cost to treat others who don't have insurance? Would they look at the insurance mandate differently? It has to do with Congress forcing people to purchase something. That is well beyond the authority that Congress is granted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 That term has been used by many, many people here, and I sure didnt start it. I also have not said a thing here about this subject, but way to ride to Perch's defense. Maybe you should read the Egypt thread for an example of "perching a thread". It is the 2nd post I beleive . . . Whatever, guy. People throw their stones at Perch in threads he hasn't posted in all the time. If you want a civil discussion then don't start tossing the rocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Is that "everybody" the same people that are now downtrodden victims of the Obama-communist hordes but until January 2009 were a bunch of freeloading toerags driving up prices for everyone? Just checking. Yes. Everybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 What a surprise! Who appointed this "unbiased" judge? Probably a secret member of the Tea party. What a joke! The Greatest President in History, Ronald Reagan, appointed him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 No. Nobody is required to buy automobile insurance unless they choose to operate an automobile. With Obamacare, everybody would be required to purchase health insurance period, or be fined/eventually jailed. So, what you are saying that it would be preferable to simply bar anyone without insurance from using the health care system, just like only automobile owners need insurance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Yes. Everybody. I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean by "everybody". Does that include "everyone" to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Meh. This will be resolved by the Supreme Court. No point in getting worked up about it until then. There is enough authority either way to justify whatever outcome the Court wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean by "everybody". Does that include "everyone" to? Well, no. Not eveyone. Just everybody. Am I making myself clear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Meh. This will be resolved by the Supreme Court. No point in getting worked up about it until then. There is enough authority either way to justify whatever outcome the Court wants. I agree. But I am curious... what happens in the meantime? Are all of the provisions in the law immediately null (benefits, costs, etc.)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.