PDA

View Full Version : Obamacare Overturned


Saul Good
08-12-2011, 11:48 AM
11th circuit

mnchiefsguy
08-12-2011, 11:51 AM
Sooner this gets to the Supreme Court, the better. Everyone expects it to wind up there, they really should just take up the issue now, instead of letting the lower courts rule and running up the legal costs to both sides.

ChiTown
08-12-2011, 12:09 PM
Phuckin Tea Partiers............

Baby Lee
08-12-2011, 12:15 PM
http://www.scotusblog.com/category/special-features/aca/

Interesting reading, if you're looking for discourse a step higher than cable's talking heads.

petegz28
08-12-2011, 12:24 PM
Can I get a link? Preferaby an Orange-approved link?????

vailpass
08-12-2011, 12:25 PM
Can I get a link? Preferaby an Orange-approved link?????

huffpost.com talkingpoints.com moveon.org

Baby Lee
08-12-2011, 12:26 PM
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/ca11/201111021.pdf

ChiTown
08-12-2011, 12:26 PM
http://www.scotusblog.com/category/special-features/aca/

Interesting reading, if you're looking for discourse a step higher than cable's talking heads.

Nice link, tks.

johnny961
08-12-2011, 12:39 PM
Sooner this gets to the Supreme Court, the better. Everyone expects it to wind up there, they really should just take up the issue now, instead of letting the lower courts rule and running up the legal costs to both sides.

This. On a case like this that neither side is going to rest on until the highest court ruling they should just deal with it now. It would save taxpayer money and this fiasco would be done and over with.

mlyonsd
08-12-2011, 12:40 PM
Sanity prevails. Even if it is just the mandate part.

Otter
08-12-2011, 01:18 PM
Phuckin Tea Partiers............

I'd hug them all...

BucEyedPea
08-12-2011, 01:21 PM
I'd hug them all...

:grouphug: Thank you!

vailpass
08-12-2011, 01:25 PM
Where my gubment cheese be at?

CrazyPhuD
08-12-2011, 01:35 PM
Sanity prevails. Even if it is just the mandate part.

The fucked up part is that's probably the only part of it that really actually makes sense. If you required everyone to have coverage then frankly medicare would be completely unnecessary.

If you're not going to mandate coverage then you need to make it illegal to treat someone unless they can prove they can pay. Those are really the only options. You either need to make people pay for heath insurance or you need to make sure that the rest of us don't subsidize those that refuse or cannot pay.

What's funny is that most people should actually want this to be legal. Because if the government can't require people to buy insurance, then the other legal option is to mandate a government health plan. Both achieve the same goal whereas one will be privately run and the other will be government run. When you must choose between evils it's better to choose the lessor. You're making a big gamble that at some point in the future government won't mandate a single payer system.

This is actually a pretty bad decision for everyone. It's not good for the government to mandate things, but it's also bad to ask me to subsidize your health care because you refuse to buy insurance. Unless we require hospitals to refuse treatment to those who cannot pay we have to do this.

We're fucked...the only piece that made sense gets shot down while the rest of the garbage still is valid. Worst possible decision.

ClevelandBronco
08-12-2011, 01:35 PM
Is it too soon to compile a list of everything that Omammy has failed to accomplish?

mlyonsd
08-12-2011, 01:43 PM
The ****ed up part is that's probably the only part of it that really actually makes sense. If you required everyone to have coverage then frankly medicare would be completely unnecessary.

If you're not going to mandate coverage then you need to make it illegal to treat someone unless they can prove they can pay. Those are really the only options. You either need to make people pay for heath insurance or you need to make sure that the rest of us don't subsidize those that refuse or cannot pay.

What's funny is that most people should actually want this to be legal. Because if the government can't require people to buy insurance, then the other legal option is to mandate a government health plan. Both achieve the same goal whereas one will be privately run and the other will be government run. When you must choose between evils it's better to choose the lessor. You're making a big gamble that at some point in the future government won't mandate a single payer system.

This is actually a pretty bad decision for everyone. It's not good for the government to mandate things, but it's also bad to ask me to subsidize your health care because you refuse to buy insurance. Unless we require hospitals to refuse treatment to those who cannot pay we have to do this.

We're ****ed...the only piece that made sense gets shot down while the rest of the garbage still is valid. Worst possible decision.The other garbage isn't unconstitutional.

This decision isn't the best thing that could happen but it leads the way to dismantling the rest of it.

Otter
08-12-2011, 01:51 PM
The other garbage isn't unconstitutional.

This decision isn't the best thing that could happen but it leads the way to dismantling the rest of it.

Exactly

This was a power grab by the liberal government hidden behind a benevolent concept. Look what these incompetent assholes did with the social security, welfare, medicare and every other safety net (ie welfare) programs they've implemented.

You have to be plain stupid, as in bag of hammers, mouth breathing, I just swallowed a rock stupid, to want to give these bureaucrats any more power.

patteeu
08-12-2011, 01:52 PM
The ****ed up part is that's probably the only part of it that really actually makes sense. If you required everyone to have coverage then frankly medicare would be completely unnecessary.

If you're not going to mandate coverage then you need to make it illegal to treat someone unless they can prove they can pay. Those are really the only options. You either need to make people pay for heath insurance or you need to make sure that the rest of us don't subsidize those that refuse or cannot pay.

What's funny is that most people should actually want this to be legal. Because if the government can't require people to buy insurance, then the other legal option is to mandate a government health plan. Both achieve the same goal whereas one will be privately run and the other will be government run. When you must choose between evils it's better to choose the lessor. You're making a big gamble that at some point in the future government won't mandate a single payer system.

This is actually a pretty bad decision for everyone. It's not good for the government to mandate things, but it's also bad to ask me to subsidize your health care because you refuse to buy insurance. Unless we require hospitals to refuse treatment to those who cannot pay we have to do this.

We're ****ed...the only piece that made sense gets shot down while the rest of the garbage still is valid. Worst possible decision.

I agree with most of this. I don't think you need to make it illegal to treat the uninsured though. I think it would be adequate to make it legal not to treat them. My fear is that this will play into the hands of the single payer supporters, as you suggest. Hopefully, it will lead us back to the drawing board while the single payer fans are out of power instead.

I do think there's probably a way to get around this ruling without going full bore single payer though. If you design the "mandate" as a strong tax incentive instead of a straight mandate, I suspect it would be constitutional.

BucEyedPea
08-12-2011, 01:54 PM
What's funny is that most people should actually want this to be legal.
Do you have any concern for the cause for liberty?
I don't want it legal because I don't want to live in a fascism. This is a fascist model.

Because if the government can't require people to buy insurance, then the other legal option is to mandate a government health plan. Both achieve the same goal whereas one will be privately run and the other will be government run.

Most of us on the right already know that Obamacare is just a stepping stone to a govt health plan eventually anyway, because it will deteriorate health care markets and drive up costs. Then the left can say the market failed—eventhough it's not the market that did it.

When you must choose between evils it's better to choose the lessor.
How 'bout choosing neither. Either way you are still choosing evil.
Many of us, on the right, do not want more govt interference in healthcare and certainly not Obamacare whether it's the fascist model or the outright socialist model.
How choosing a free-market system instead of any evil?

You're making a big gamble that at some point in the future government won't mandate a single payer system.
That's still gonna happen with Obamacare. Just witness the past 30 years of govt involvment in this area.

This is actually a pretty bad decision for everyone.
Speak for yourself because that's subjective. You do NOT speak for "everyone."

It's not good for the government to mandate things, but it's also bad to ask me to subsidize your health care because you refuse to buy insurance.

Whoever is asking you to do that, should not be asking that and the govt politicians should tell them that on enabling them. Instead, you subsidize others healthcare with your own argument here anyway. Flip side of the same coin.

Unless we require hospitals to refuse treatment to those who cannot pay we have to do this.

People were not turned away when healthcare had no govt involvement at all. It was once all private, the envy of the world and more affordable too. Now we've had a patchwork socialist healthcare for many, many years in an attempt to make it affordable while it became less affordable. The result has been a corporate health-care system that makes doctors and patients unhappy but pleases corporations.

We're ****ed...the only piece that made sense gets shot down while the rest of the garbage still is valid. Worst possible decision.

It's the piece that violates the Constitution. Nice to know you don't give a dayum about it because it's not practical when it gets in your way. That's the whole idea is to bind men ( of mischief) down by the "chains of the Constitution."

This is SUPPOSED to be a FREE country. Or did you forget? I think you forgot or perhaps never knew it was.

petegz28
08-12-2011, 03:34 PM
If the mandate portion is overturned it pretty much unravels the rest of his plan.

J Diddy
08-12-2011, 03:35 PM
If the mandate portion is overturned it pretty much unravels the rest of his plan.


As it stands, yes. Don't think this is the end of this though. It will go to the SC.

petegz28
08-12-2011, 03:39 PM
As it stands, yes. Don't think this is the end of this though. It will go to the SC.

It's definitely going to the SC. We will probably get a 5-3 decision in favor of turning it down BUT we could end up with 4-4 since the one gal is probably going to recuse herself.

FD
08-12-2011, 04:44 PM
It's definitely going to the SC. We will probably get a 5-3 decision in favor of turning it down BUT we could end up with 4-4 since the one gal is probably going to recuse herself.

I doubt Roberts or Kennedy would rule it unconstitutional, it would be quite a break from their other rulings. Scalia too, considering his Raich opinion.

BucEyedPea
08-12-2011, 04:53 PM
I doubt Roberts or Kennedy would rule it unconstitutional, it would be quite a break from their other rulings. Scalia too, considering his Raich opinion.

Uh uh....yeah, you know how they'll decide. If there's a tie the decision of the last court I believe holds.

Calcountry
08-12-2011, 05:18 PM
Phuckin Tea Partiers............We're gonna beat the hell out of you, you, you you you and you.

banyon
08-12-2011, 05:19 PM
Where are all the complaints about "activist judges"?

Calcountry
08-12-2011, 05:19 PM
Uh uh....yeah, you know how they'll decide. If there's a tie the decision of the last court I believe holds.That bitch Kagen is suppose to recuse herself, but she won't.

patteeu
08-12-2011, 06:25 PM
Where are all the complaints about "activist judges"?

Why would anyone complain about activist judges this case?

HonestChieffan
08-12-2011, 06:41 PM
Kagan, Ginsburg, and the other liberal judges will be activist if they support this POS. Supporting the constitution and protecting people from the overreach of government is not being activist. Only the lefty nutbags who see every answer to every problem as government would see this being overturned as an act of an activist judge.

Any effort to curb government power and intrusion into our lives is abhorrent to the left and those who suckle at the government teat.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 08:58 PM
Did this court even consult the 'Good and Plenty' clause of the Constitution?

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 09:13 PM
On a more serious note, if this is held as constitutional, then what isnt allowed to be mandated by the government as part of the interstate commerce clause?

Today it's insurance, does the government have the right, if upheld, to limit the amount of food purchases? Mandate your modes of travel? Mandate the types of activities you pursue? Each of these have an impact on the governments interest in your health and safety. Since they're paying for your healthcare, as part of this legislation, dont they have an interest in how you behave?

Taco John
08-12-2011, 09:57 PM
Sooner this gets to the Supreme Court, the better. Everyone expects it to wind up there, they really should just take up the issue now, instead of letting the lower courts rule and running up the legal costs to both sides.

They're smart to let the lower courts sort out the argumetns and the evidence. Think of the lower courts like the NCAA. And think of the Supreme court like the NFL. The Supreme Court wants to get all the amateur garbage filtered through the lower courts so that they can do the real work at the top level.

Taco John
08-12-2011, 10:04 PM
On a more serious note, if this is held as constitutional, then what isnt allowed to be mandated by the government as part of the interstate commerce clause?

Today it's insurance, does the government have the right, if upheld, to limit the amount of food purchases? Mandate your modes of travel? Mandate the types of activities you pursue? Each of these have an impact on the governments interest in your health and safety. Since they're paying for your healthcare, as part of this legislation, dont they have an interest in how you behave?


This thing is going to be sorted out in 2012. The results of 2012 are going to make the results of 2010 look pale by comparison. I think Obama will still probably win the presidency - I don't think the right will take the opportunity to coalesce behind a single leader. But I think two houses of congress packed with tea party legislators is going to pretty much tie his hands.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 10:09 PM
This thing is going to be sorted out in 2012. The results of 2012 are going to make the results of 2010 look pale by comparison. I think Obama will still probably win the presidency - I don't think the right will take the opportunity to coalesce behind a single leader. But I think two houses of congress packed with tea party legislators is going to pretty much tie his hands.

If Obama wins, the Senate and House will have to have veto overridable majorities or the path we're on puts us into meltdown. I share the same concern you do about the rights inability to find the right leader...if Christie were to jump in, slam dunk, but the others just dont have it, yet, IMO.

ROYC75
08-12-2011, 10:24 PM
If Obama wins, the Senate and House will have to have veto overridable majorities or the path we're on puts us into meltdown. I share the same concern you do about the rights inability to find the right leader...if Christie were to jump in, slam dunk, but the others just dont have it, yet, IMO.

I've love to Christie jump in. I agree, so far nothing on the right just looks presidential. Would I take any of them over Obama, probably so, but I would hold my nose when selecting it. Still a long ways to go, maybe one of them will come alive?

As for now, we need to take the senate and hang onto the house to neutralize Obama.

I don't have any faith in this super committee to get anything done with real solutions. Gingrich nailed that comment last night, crap if Newt had not of throw Ryan under the bus, he might be near the top of things.

I just don't know enough about Perry yet. From what I see, it appears he's a little bit arrogant, Guess I will find out more soon.

If Romney gets the nod, I would not be surprised to see him pick Santorm as a VP running mate.

Jenson71
08-12-2011, 10:28 PM
On a more serious note, if this is held as constitutional, then what isnt allowed to be mandated by the government as part of the interstate commerce clause?

Today it's insurance, does the government have the right, if upheld, to limit the amount of food purchases? Mandate your modes of travel? Mandate the types of activities you pursue? Each of these have an impact on the governments interest in your health and safety. Since they're paying for your healthcare, as part of this legislation, dont they have an interest in how you behave?

It depends on what your view of economic activity is, when it comes to intrastate commerce.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 10:34 PM
This is an easy question. If you follow the last several decisions regarding the commerce clause, you will see that some activity has been deemed outside of the "economic activity" parameter. Gun regulation, for example, is not economic activity, according to the commerce clause. Neither is violence against women.

Gun activity...umm...I think the Constitution speaks about gun activity. I may have to double check that.

Jenson71
08-12-2011, 10:37 PM
Gun activity...umm...I think the Constitution speaks about gun activity. I may have to double check that.

Well it doesn't say anything explicitly about prohibiting or allowing guns near school zones.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 11:01 PM
Well it doesn't say anything explicitly about prohibiting or allowing guns near school zones.

I kind of think it does...

RedNeckRaider
08-13-2011, 11:58 AM
Kagan, Ginsburg, and the other liberal judges will be activist if they support this POS. Supporting the constitution and protecting people from the overreach of government is not being activist. Only the lefty nutbags who see every answer to every problem as government would see this being overturned as an act of an activist judge.

Any effort to curb government power and intrusion into our lives is abhorrent to the left and those who suckle at the government teat.

Rep worthy~

Taco John
08-13-2011, 12:03 PM
Well it doesn't say anything explicitly about prohibiting or allowing guns near school zones.

Doesn't it say you have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed?

suzzer99
08-13-2011, 12:20 PM
Do you guys ever remember that Obamacare was essentially the republican counter-proposal to Hillarycare in 1994? Or does that just fall out of your heads every time you hear it like a lead balloon? Why was it fine for the republicans then, and a constitutional abomination now? Did the constitution change?

patteeu
08-13-2011, 01:03 PM
Do you guys ever remember that Obamacare was essentially the republican counter-proposal to Hillarycare in 1994? Or does that just fall out of your heads every time you hear it like a lead balloon? Why was it fine for the republicans then, and a constitutional abomination now? Did the constitution change?

Because democrats were clear about the fact that they were basing Obamacare on powers they thought they had (but didn't) as a result of the commerce clause. Should have just gone ahead and designed it as a tax since they were going to take a hit at the ballot box anyway.

suzzer99
08-13-2011, 01:19 PM
So why was the same plan ok for the republicans in 1994? You didn't answer my question at all.

Jenson71
08-13-2011, 04:55 PM
Doesn't it say you have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed?

That doesn't necessarily answer the question.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 05:26 PM
So why was the same plan ok for the republicans in 1994? You didn't answer my question at all.

Which Republicans are you referring to? Certainly not all of them and not the grass-roots. Certainly not the ones who are opposed to Obamacare here. You can count me out no matter what R thought it was ok. You are over generalizing when we are individuals not some collectivist group. Sounds like some liberal Republicans who were in office—politicians.

suzzer99
08-13-2011, 05:40 PM
It was the Heritage Foundation's plan. Doesn't get much more conservative than that.

I don't know why you keep making these weird irrelevant distinctions between subgroups of republicans. The point is it was good enough for the republican congress then to be their own plan, and not it's an unconstitutional abomination according to the republican congress. I really don't care if it was neo-cons or con-cons or RINO's or whatever. Every republican from the past except maybe McCarthy is a RINO to the far right-wing now. Scary times.

Feel free to education yourself about the counter-proposal, since you seem not to be aware of it: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx

mlyonsd
08-13-2011, 05:50 PM
So why was the same plan ok for the republicans in 1994? You didn't answer my question at all.Do you seriously think Obamacare is a good idea? You think another entitlement program doomed for failure because of its costs makes sense? I mean the entitlement programs we have now are doing so well I can see why you might be confused.

Before it was out of the gate the cost estimates were in the red. You don't see this as a long term problem? Really?

suzzer99
08-13-2011, 06:36 PM
Are we talking constitution now or just feelings?

If we're switching over to opinions, no I don't think it's a bad idea at all. The US is the only developed nation on earth where people who don't work for corporations or govt get totally screwed for health insurance (unless you're lucky enough to live in Mass or HI or are over 65). I think it's a huge drain on our entrepreneurial productivity when only healthy young people, or people married to those with good insurance can strike out on their own.

Also it's a gigantic drain on our system now when the uninsured show up at the emergency room for $100k bills that they can never pay. We already have a big entitlement program in that, paid for by everyone who actually has health insurance. It's just about the most FUBAR, inefficient way you can imagine to administer the system.

You guys also talk about this like it's just some straight handout to the poor. The poor already have health coverage through medicaid. This will help mostly the working poor and people who work for themselves or small businesses. The whole idea is to make most of those people (with some subsidies, that are nothing compared to our overall say medicare budget) purchase insurance, and not just the unhealthy ones.

My friend is on medicaid due to some severe health problems. She is finally recovering and would like to start working a part time job and slowly get back into the workforce. But, she can't get any job that doesn't have health insurance, or she loses her medicaid. She simply isn't ready to walk into a full time job with benefits right now, not that anyone would hire her for that anyway. How on earth is that kind of incentive a more efficient system?

patteeu
08-13-2011, 07:17 PM
So why was the same plan ok for the republicans in 1994? You didn't answer my question at all.

I answered your question about constitutionality.

I'm not convinced that Obamacare is the same plan that some Republicans supported in 1994. I agree that there are elements of similarity, including the mandatory insurance piece, but I'm not convinced that there aren't significant differences. As I said in my previous answer, I believe the mandatory piece can be accomplished if it's done in a different way (e.g. using a tax incentive).

patteeu
08-13-2011, 07:23 PM
It was the Heritage Foundation's plan. Doesn't get much more conservative than that.

I don't know why you keep making these weird irrelevant distinctions between subgroups of republicans. The point is it was good enough for the republican congress then to be their own plan, and not it's an unconstitutional abomination according to the republican congress. I really don't care if it was neo-cons or con-cons or RINO's or whatever. Every republican from the past except maybe McCarthy is a RINO to the far right-wing now. Scary times.

Feel free to education yourself about the counter-proposal, since you seem not to be aware of it: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx

She is out of step with the Reagan-era conservative mainstream so she bristles when people lump her in with them. To her, 95% of Republicans are RINOS. She doesn't like Heritage either, but I agree with you that they're about as Republican as it gets.

suzzer99
08-13-2011, 07:26 PM
I answered your question about constitutionality.

I'm not convinced that Obamacare is the same plan that some Republicans supported in 1994. I agree that there are elements of similarity, including the mandatory insurance piece, but I'm not convinced that there aren't significant differences. As I said in my previous answer, I believe the mandatory piece can be accomplished if it's done in a different way (e.g. using a tax incentive).

Please list the significant differences, it is almost exactly the same. And the mandate is what we're arguing in this thread, which is definitely exactly the same. I realize you guys would love to just write that one out of history, but not everyone forgets the past as easily as the average FoxNews viewer.

patteeu
08-13-2011, 07:39 PM
Please list the significant differences, it is almost exactly the same. And the mandate is what we're arguing in this thread, which is definitely exactly the same. I realize you guys would love to just write that one out of history, but not everyone forgets the past as easily as the average FoxNews viewer.

I answered the part about the mandate.

I don't know the differences, but I guarantee that democrats didn't just lift a Heritage plan off the shelf and drop it into Congress for a vote. Like I said before, I'm not convinced that you're right when you say that they were the same plan, despite some significant similarities (like a mandate).

Personally, I agree with CrazyPhud that some kind of mandate is essential to regularize the system of universal access to some basic level of healthcare. We've already got a kluged system of universal access that works by having providers shift costs from the uninsured to the insured so we might as well regularize it through some kind of proper insurance system My biggest problem with any plan (Heritage or Obamacare) is that there will be constant pressure (mostly from democrat demagogues) to redefine the "basic level of healthcare" up to cover more and more. Recent stories about liberal interest groups pushing for ObamaCare to include contraceptives in required coverage is just one example of this. That's one area where I have zero trust of a plan passed by democrats.

suzzer99
08-13-2011, 08:19 PM
Lol ok. I don't know the differences but I know there are some.