Thankfully the beginning of the end for this ridiculously bad law.

But it's not, is it. Individuals do not have a constitutional right to determine their own participation re: levies and taxes.

Americans have to pay for licenses to use and provide for manifold products and services, these are not unconstitutional and their economic relevance is identical.

I imagine it's illegal to drive a vehicle on public roads without insurance in the USA, to drive without a purchased license. Are companies not required to have public liabilities and various other forms of insurance?

Aren't corporations considered seperate entities/individuals under US law?

Unconstitutional my hat.

This is a useless ruling. Congress can institute any tax and buy the insurance for you.

Your judges are partisan embarrassments....

This Bush appointed judge also owns a percentage of a political media/propaganda that made a lot of money this year fighting the health bill. This judge personally made tens of thousands....

A partisan who is just fine with maintaining a clear conflict of interest.....



The legal argument fails.... No one can "opt-out" of healthcare... health problems are an inevitability. Insurance companies are national entities that conduct business across state lines. If you do not buy insurance in your state, it increases the cost of mine on the other side of the country. It also increases my tax burden. This is why a mandate is covered by the interstate commerce clause

And remember the "mandate" is a Republican idea.....dating from the anti "hillarycare" days.

BTW.. Romneycare ring any bells?... Your most likely 2012 presidential candidate, who got beat by McCain (btw), enacted a public mandate for the state of Mass.....



And... of course... the reason we need a "public mandate" is because Dems negotiated with Republicans.... this is why we do not have a public option.

This ruling is strictly regarding the "individual mandate"... it repudiates the Republican part of the bill, and leaves the rest intact. :mtwcheers:

:lol: :wacko:

The Obama administration has overreached.

The Federal Government can't use the commerce clause to regulate a citizen's decision NOT TO buy insurance.

The Fat Lady is starting to sing.

he doesn't even respond to people. just talks.

The Obama administration's central argument revolves around the right to regulate and require the purchase of insurance through the commerce clause. It's been ruled here they do not have the constitutional authority to do so. The tax surcharge is merely a penalty for not purchasing the 'required insurance'. Therefore the taxation argument Din and Dag make is moot.

No, he did not rule against the law, only a single provision in the 1200 page law.

He could've ruled the entire law unconstitutional and blocked its implementation.

He did not....

Lol... just found this at Thinkprogress.....

Signed into law by George Washington

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

It'd be interesting if the Supreme Court decided that the law that created the the first federal army as unconstitutional.

Mandatory minimum coverage is the linchpin of the entire Obama health care plan and that's just been ruled unconstitutional.

The Fat Lady is beginning to sing...

Democrat Congressman Phil Hare on the constitutionality of Obamacare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2iiirr5KI8

An eye opening perspective on liberal thinking...

Yeah..watch how righty ###holes conduct interviews--he should've left at the beginning. :mtwcheers:

lol never thought id say this but thank ###### for the NHS



chazz you remind me of glen beck that friggin insane guy on fox news.


"Another great example of independent consensus-challenging news coverage is America's Fox News network, home of bellicose human snail Bill O'Reilly and blubbering blubberball Glenn Beck. Beck - who has the sort of rubbery, chucklesome face that should ideally be either a) cast as the goonish sidekick in a bad frat house sex comedy or B) painted on a toilet bowl so you could ###### directly on to it - has become famous for crying live on air, indulging in paranoid conspiracy theorising, and labelling Obama a "racist" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture".

charlie brooker newswipe

scary how these people can get them selves into positions of power.

It's not a point I made in defense of a law that I obviously do not know in detail, not to mention I am not a US lawyer. The principle is clearly not against a constitution that expressively authorizes your congress to levy taxes. Congress can take away your money and spend it on your insurance.*

I take Dag's post as a similar comment.

Apparently you overestimate the importance of this ruling as well as overstate what it was in the topic title. It hasn't been making headlines in Europe. Or the US really, has it?

*

Oh, and that part IS in the constitution. This congressman could have quoted it, if people did know constitutions by heart :lol:

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the declaration of independence and is enshrined in various ways within the constitution, although they weren't sure what "happiness" was defined as.... Clearly it was the intention of the founders that government provide for the needs of its citizens, and healthcare is pretty obvious.

Also, the 5th amendment of the constitution specifically protects: "life, liberty, and property". This is why people like our Congressman above get confused.... it's the most famous line, and it is enshrined, but not word for word.


Healthcare is about happiness, sure... but it's more about life. People without healthcare die. People without health insurance die... from lack of preventative care, lack of diagnostic care, lack of treatment, and lack of recovery assistance.

They (and their entire families) also go bankrupt, which is another reason the commerce clause is applicable.


Din.... you are 100% right. The only thing that would need to be done to erase the partisan-hack ruling on this case is to change the bill so that the "penalty" redefined as a tax.

Chazz doesn't care a bit about the Constitutionality-- he hasn't even thought it through. This is pure politics.

The GOP is trying to stop Obamacare by getting something in the bill thrown out so that the bill has to be altered by Congress, which they have already promised to block. It is the only real hope they have of changing the current law. They can "defund" the bill, as they've said, but that will come at a political price. It is 100% politics......

If they succeed, they almost guarantee a wholly public insurance program down the line, as there is no chance in hell the current trend of rising healthcare costs is going down with babyboomers hitting retirement.

Another example of bad governance by the GOP.... no ideas, and the ones they've had in the past suck ass so much even they are running against their own ideas.

Why it won't work: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. He's the swing vote, and principled, not partisan.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty...it_of_happiness

If he fillibustered it on the basis that it is not compliant with "the right of non participation" the legality of federally mandated licenses & insurance for corporation, state, local government & persons would be covered by the same 'unconstitutionality.' Vagrancy laws would have atleast to be redrawn as most require the purchase or provision for housing, laws & licenses that require items to be linked to a legal tenancy would become all of a sudden illegal, such as firearms licenses in some states.. The chances of a supreme court agreeing with that are zero.

Consitution guarantees legality of firearms ownership
If Constitution guarantees that the States may not demand that entities buy a particular product
Then payment for a license or permit to ownership of firearms is illegal.

But the Commerce Clause wouldn't look to have a problem with the bill at all, the commerce clause does not dispute a claim unless, basically, it's cost is different from state to state through some fault of the federal government.

Still, it seems to me that the commerce clause was drawn up not as a proactive agent for federal government, but to regulate unfair practice, though being as it is that the modern(constitutional) interpretation of the clause is that commerce is commerce in the aristotelian sense, it covers pretty much any act the fed cares to imagine.

No? But it doesn't seem like a serious ruling anyway.

It's 100% politics. The only concern is finding a way to hamper Obama.

--People dying from lack of healthcare? not a problem..... that's the free market.

--Want to reduce costs to taxpayers? No, let the taxpayer cover all healthcare that the insurance companies don't want to pay for.

--Want to cover nearly everyone and reduce the deficit? No.

--Want to replace the bill with something better? Lol.... republicans writing a policy to compare to Dems..... they won't do that because they know how moronic it will be, and how easily attacked...

When Republicans were forced into offering ideas, their big idea was the "individual mandate".... this same thing Chazz and Co are attacking now.



A$$holery is now the political goal of the GOP. They slap each other on the back for being a$$holes. It's a competition to see who is the biggest a$$hole. If a guy gets on TV and invents a new insult for Obama, they'll give him a Golden A$$hole award and ask him back. The Golden A$$hole will get a book deal and he'll get to introduce Sean Hannity at the next Freedom Concert tour.

Q.E.D. Chazz

And the same tactic with the budget.... negotiate a deal, then attack the deal.

Republican wanted a 1.1 trillion budget, and that is what they got... then the same people come on the floor and feign outrage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoNrUaTvoUc...layer_embedded#!


Ridiculous.

Been very busy at the office the last 2 days.
I'll post on this soon.



PS~Hope everyone is having a very nice holiday season. :mtwcheers:

Din you're talking about 2 different animals.

If the government had passed a single payer option then the arguments here for and against would have been a bit different. Single payer would have pooled taxes into a fund and then paid for insurance. It's moot however since the Democrats barely had the votes to pass Obamacare which is not single payer.

In order to pass the bill and circumnavigate a Democrat/Republican filibuster, Obama Pelosi/Reid had to use what's called reconciliation in order to get a straight majority in order to pass the bill. It passed 51-49. In Obamacare the penalty they are trying to refer to as a tax is based on the Federal Government's unconstitutional use of the commerce clause.

Dag in this case the commerce cause is being used in order to support the health insurance mandate. In other words force Americans to purchase a product or service, or face an economic penalty liberals now try and call a tax. Quite obviously a misuse of the clause and unconstitutional.

No one negotiated anything with the Omnibus bill.
It was written behind closed doors by Democrats.
I'd suggest getting your news somewhere other than where you are currently getting it since your facts are mistaken.

12 committees put that bill together...12. It's taken months... an Republican have slow walked it the whole way.

Yes, both parties serve on the committees, with the majority party holding the gavel.


Games and bull$$$$....

Congratulations, Chazz, you and your party have earned Lie of the Year, from the non-partisan Politifact.com.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/articl...er-health-care/

Sara Palin won it last year for "Death Panels"... another lie about the healthcare bill designed to scare people.





Award winning lies and liars.....


:mtwcheers: :mtwcheers: :mtwcheers:

It's a good one, isn't it :joker:

either way both sides of the game are full of bullshit both republicans and democrats there isnt anything any of them will settle, all American politics is who is gona get paid more

short ?..fining somebody for non-participation just seems wrong, whether it's constitutional or not...


It doesn't make sense to me to fine somebody for not having health insurance though, because that requires policing, if somebody actively does not want health insurance, they can just not activate their claim, so the only people caught out are political dissenters and those who are poor and do not qualify for assistance. Which seems like it's going to be an awful lot of people, no?

It seems to me that Obamacare is like the TV License that funds the BBC. Most british people appreciate the BBC, and if they don't it's normally on a general principle of not liking the TV license.

More people might dislike the TV License if they realised how many single parents spend atleast one night in a cell and an obscene fine because they didn't buy a tv license, but they won't and don't. I guess the difference is that people don't go bankrupt buying televisions they desperately need.

Anyway, back to bamacare.. I think it looks great, wish they'd draft something similar in the UK. Pharmaceuticals companies rip the living piss out of the NHS & care home companies etc make a killing from paying minimum wage & charging a fortune, so they get people with little to no self/respect working for them so peeps get treated like they're dead already. "etc"

Do the individual States still have the leeway to decide eligibility for medicaid?

Anyway, ofcourse Hudson's ruling.. not sure if there's sense there or not, I don't think the commerce clause covers it at all, tbh. But where it might, it's unlikely to be upheld..and just a fillibuster at the end of the day, altho as I say, fining somebody for non-participation just seems wrong, whether it's constitutional or not.

Yeah... that's why that Republican concept is unpopular enough that the Republicans are able to attack it, despite the obvious hypocrisy.

But, the alternatives are:

1--50 million people without health insurance and insurance companies that kick people through loopholes where-ever and whenever, so they can give each other bonuses.

2--A public option, where the gov't can take on the high cost people, and the poor, and those who opt in. This is, and was the best option, as it can be run far more efficiently than for profits insurers, while taking on the people insurers want to kick off their books.

3--Single payer.

Thierry, for example... in the current system he could never afford healthcare by himself, and no insurer would accept him with such an expensive pre-existing condition. The consequence is that he has no choice but to work for either a gov't agency, or a large enough corporation that will pay his rates.

That's a terrible system...many talented people cannot go where their talents are most useful, and they can't start their own businesses. A majority of personal bankruptcies are due to healthcare bills.... another hindrance to the economy.

And really.. in a prosperous nation, where "life and liberty" are enshrined in the Constitution.... we really should be able to insure our citizens against health problems.



Yeah, Lambikins... hard to feel good about either party, because money has taken over the system. You know.... quite literally... our "representatives" spend far more time raising campaign money than any other activity. They do not write the laws anymore (think tanks and interest groups stuff policy down their throats every chance possible), and they don't even read the laws. Only 1 Senator read the Patriot Act before voting on it, and Feingold was voted out of office last month.... sickening really. One of our best representatives, no matter what party your for... a true voice of professionalism in service to the people's interests.

START treat with Russia was signed last April... and the Republicans just don't have enough time to vote on it.... which no one believes, of course.

Today a Federal Judge in Florida ruled individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional and not severable from the health care Act. In his ruling Obamacare is unenforceable by the Florida Judge.

Next time, you could just post the score. Is it 2-2? 2-3?

Supreme. Court.

:rolleyes:

Bingo.
Here in America there are limits on the powers of the Federal government.

You can't non-participate yourself from the emergency room.... or the morgue.

If the federal government can mandate people to buy insurance, then couldn't they also regulate what people eat since that directly affects their health and eventually medical expenses? In San Francisco they've already banned happy meals @ McDonalds for health related reasons.

That's quite a slippery slope liberals don't seem to mind riding.

The Florida Judge penned a very well thought out decision and articulated quite concisely the constitutional limitations of the Federal government. An excerpt from his ruling:

I think you need to read what a "slippery slope" logical fallacy is....

Non-participation in healthcare puts a financial burden on the participants, as they cannot avoid expensive emergency healthcare eventually (unless they are "on vacation" in Canada, I suppose)....

The health insurance industry also kicks people off healthcare who have pre-existing conditions, or whatever contractual loophole they can make you fall through as needed. This is another onerous burden on the whole system, kicking off the most expensive patients to the taxpayer.

The Constitution also says the Fed is responsible for ensuring "life, liberty, and due process", but you'll want to take a look at Scalia and Kennedy's interpretations of the Commerce Clause before you bank on the outcome.

If you don't have healthcare you die... well, we all die eventually, and usually requiring some kind of healthcare. And we usually require quite a bit of healthcare along the way.....

You know, preventative care is also a good thing for national finances.... ;)

i got a solution how bout we just take all the really really sickly ones out back..........you know those ones that cant just stay home and get better on grandmas remedy

BTW the fact that lawyers bend the base laws of your federation both ways could be a hint that you need to reform that relic you are so proud of (and have been mending here and there for over two centuries) :rolleyes:

Socialist Marxist pig! :P

Reagan's solicitor general explaining that the public mandate is clearly constitutional...

"I would have said it was a no-brainer...."

"Clearly insurance is commerce...."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UGQIkYEBPo...player_embedded

And on the Florida judges recent ruling:

What do you do with that?