Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ] 

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

13 Dec 2010, 1:07 pm

The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance, a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the president’s plan.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, said today that the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health-care legislation goes beyond Congress’s powers to regulate interstate commerce. While severing the coverage mandate, Hudson didn’t address other provisions such as expanding Medicaid that are unrelated to it. He didn’t order the government to stop work on putting the remainder of the law into effect.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-1 ... judge.html

While the judge could technically have ordered an injunction on the rest of the law, I imagine he didn't due to the fact it would take the US Supreme Court to get Obama to actually listen.

Since the Democrats forgot the severability clause if I remember correctly, if it ends up where the United States Supreme Court rules this individual mandate unconstitutional, all 2000+ pages of Obamacare will be null and void.

Almost all legislation has a severability clause. That’s routine language — almost boilerplate — that says if any one part of this law is found unconstitutional, or otherwise invalid or unenforceable, then the remainder of the law will continue in full force and effect.

You’re likely to find a severability clause if you look around your home. If you have a lease, or an employment contract, or service agreement, or even a product warranty, you’re likely to find some sort of severability clause toward the end of it.

Obamacare has no severability clause. That means is that if any one part of Obamacare is found unconstitutional, then the entire law might be thrown out in court by a single decision. It doesn’t mean that it would definitely happen, but it might.

This lack of severability could be the silver bullet that destroys the entire Obamacare system. Otherwise, striking down any one part of it could just open the door to a dozen more lawsuits, some of which the Obama administration would win. And various parts of the law may get entrenched support over time, making them hard to modify or replace.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/ ... erability/



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

13 Dec 2010, 1:13 pm

So, no ban on pre-existing conditions then? Grrrr



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

13 Dec 2010, 1:18 pm

number5 wrote:
So, no ban on pre-existing conditions then? Grrrr


That's what happens when people don't read the legislation they write. :lol:

Well, I imagine the Republicans incoming may actually force the issue and maybe get Obama to go along with repealing Obamacare. Then the Republicans introduce a bill that makes sense and put back in place the protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

Heck I don't care if they call the replacement Obamacare 2.0, as long as they get rid of this unconstitutional monstrosity.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas

13 Dec 2010, 1:20 pm

i hate it when folk hide behind the constitution in order to disrespect and disenfranchise people they consider lesser than themselves. in a nation which at least pretends at civilization, denying poor folks healthcare is about as low-down cruel as it gets. let the self-righteous rightists get sick and be unable to afford healthcare, and see how soon they would change their minds about universal health care. why do so many arrogant folk have to be brought down low themselves, before they see the light of the golden rule? why can't they see this before the boomerang of karma whups 'em upside the head?



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

13 Dec 2010, 1:27 pm

auntblabby wrote:
i hate it when folk hide behind the constitution in order to disrespect and disenfranchise people they consider lesser than themselves. in a nation which at least pretends at civilization, denying poor folks healthcare is about as low-down cruel as it gets. let the self-righteous rightists get sick and be unable to afford healthcare, and see how soon they would change their minds about universal health care. why do so many arrogant folk have to be brought down low themselves, before they see the light of the golden rule? why can't they see this before the boomerang of karma whups 'em upside the head?


Sorry, but we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a dictatorship which you seem to be advocating. You don't like the fact we actually have freedoms that are protected, how about you move to Iran or Venezuela.

Ordering people to buy specific products is tyrannical and it isn't the Judge's fault the democrats forgot to include the "severability clause." I'm all for replacing Obamacare with something that actually makes sense, but the Judge is correct in both the letter and spirit of the law.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

13 Dec 2010, 1:47 pm

Well the battle is not yet over. The administration may try to argue that the mandate is constitutional as a tax rather than the commerce clause. I'm not sure they will need a new bill to do that or not.

The bill will not work without it's unconstitutional corporatist mandate though so the whole thing needs to go.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas

13 Dec 2010, 2:12 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Sorry, but we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a dictatorship which you seem to be advocating. You don't like the fact we actually have freedoms that are protected, how about you move to Iran or Venezuela.


this answer makes as much sense as a soup sandwich. needing healthcare is not the same as wanting a dictatorship. and suggesting any american citizen who is of the wrong political party just pack up and move to a foreign country stinks just as much as those folk who vomit "love it or leave it!"

Inuyasha wrote:
Ordering people to buy specific products is tyrannical and it isn't the Judge's fault the democrats forgot to include the "severability clause." I'm all for replacing Obamacare with something that actually makes sense, but the Judge is correct in both the letter and spirit of the law.


why does truly affordable real healthcare for people like you and me NOT make sense? can't you understand that any capitalist method of expanding access to healthcare cannot work without the mandate? how else are the bloodsucking insurance companies going to accomplish "global rating" unless everybody contributes? and without global rating, nobody but mr. monebags [who can easily pay out of pocket for anything and has no need for insurance to begin with] could afford any kind of real coverage. sans global rating, there is no incentive for insurance companies to keep themselves from boosting premiums through the roof. without global rating, the system as it is, cannot last- it will consume itself. for somebody who prides themselves on their thinking acuity, why are you unwilling to think about these things?



chaotik_lord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 597

13 Dec 2010, 4:00 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Ordering people to buy specific products is tyrannical and it isn't the Judge's fault the democrats forgot to include the "severability clause." I'm all for replacing Obamacare with something that actually makes sense, but the Judge is correct in both the letter and spirit of the law.


What about ordering people to buy car insurance? I suppose you could argue that they could avoid driving or being licensed to drive to sidestep that, but that's similarly impractical like not carrying health insurance. They could just pay the fines for being without health insurance much as they could pay fines or transit costs for not carrying car insurance.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

13 Dec 2010, 4:24 pm

chaotik_lord wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Ordering people to buy specific products is tyrannical and it isn't the Judge's fault the democrats forgot to include the "severability clause." I'm all for replacing Obamacare with something that actually makes sense, but the Judge is correct in both the letter and spirit of the law.


What about ordering people to buy car insurance? I suppose you could argue that they could avoid driving or being licensed to drive to sidestep that, but that's similarly impractical like not carrying health insurance. They could just pay the fines for being without health insurance much as they could pay fines or transit costs for not carrying car insurance.


Well I don't think that's constitutional either but the argument is that you don't have to drive while you don't have much of a choice on living. The government should not be able to mandate you buy anything especially from privately owned businesses. That is straight up corporatism. People are getting rich over this.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

13 Dec 2010, 4:52 pm

Jacoby wrote:
chaotik_lord wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Ordering people to buy specific products is tyrannical and it isn't the Judge's fault the democrats forgot to include the "severability clause." I'm all for replacing Obamacare with something that actually makes sense, but the Judge is correct in both the letter and spirit of the law.


What about ordering people to buy car insurance? I suppose you could argue that they could avoid driving or being licensed to drive to sidestep that, but that's similarly impractical like not carrying health insurance. They could just pay the fines for being without health insurance much as they could pay fines or transit costs for not carrying car insurance.


Well I don't think that's constitutional either but the argument is that you don't have to drive while you don't have much of a choice on living. The government should not be able to mandate you buy anything especially from privately owned businesses. That is straight up corporatism. People are getting rich over this.


All the more reason for universal healthcare.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

13 Dec 2010, 6:08 pm

chaotik_lord wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Ordering people to buy specific products is tyrannical and it isn't the Judge's fault the democrats forgot to include the "severability clause." I'm all for replacing Obamacare with something that actually makes sense, but the Judge is correct in both the letter and spirit of the law.


What about ordering people to buy car insurance? I suppose you could argue that they could avoid driving or being licensed to drive to sidestep that, but that's similarly impractical like not carrying health insurance. They could just pay the fines for being without health insurance much as they could pay fines or transit costs for not carrying car insurance.


That isn't remotely equivalent because you choose to buy a car, you choose to buy a house. If we were talking about those kinds of insurance, the commerce clause is in play. However, what if someone doesn't have a car, should they have to buy auto insurance? You can't force someone to buy a product they don't want to buy.

@ number5

If we had Government run health care, they would then be able to tell us what to do even more than they do now. And last I checked, Government is far worse than insurance companies when it comes to people's health (unless it is a Congressman, senator, President, etc.).

Want me to find the article about a certain state government telling a woman they would pay for her to commit suicide, but not for the drugs to treat her cancer. It was a drug company that came to her rescue, but it was too late if I remember correctly she still died despite the drug company providing her the medication free of charge. I think it was in either Washington State or Oregon. You want that kind of health care at a national level?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Dec 2010, 7:47 pm

auntblabby wrote:
i hate it when folk hide behind the constitution in order to disrespect and disenfranchise people they consider lesser than themselves. in a nation which at least pretends at civilization, denying poor folks healthcare is about as low-down cruel as it gets. let the self-righteous rightists get sick and be unable to afford healthcare, and see how soon they would change their minds about universal health care. why do so many arrogant folk have to be brought down low themselves, before they see the light of the golden rule? why can't they see this before the boomerang of karma whups 'em upside the head?


The Constitution is not a hiding place. It is the fundamental basic law of the United States.

Why not cut to the chase. Why have a constitution. Instead we can have a benevolent dictator who rules by benevolent decree.

ruveyn