OLDTIMER Obamacare was rule Unconstitutional again today

[Mike]

Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla., ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.







"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.

"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/#ixzz1Xytwv4Vw

 

[Mike]

Another example commonly used in the health care debate:

"How can they mandate auto insurance?"

Easy. Because your auto insurance protects everyone else you share the road with against damages. Not just you.

 

[hopalong]

Thank you Karl Rove!!! :lol: So we have two pages on the constitutionality of the current Health Care/Insurance Reform law-- and I am the only one that has put up an opinion on what will happen or any arguments for that belief.....

The rest are nitpicking posts to change the subject (too uneducated to give a substantiated opion?) -- and/or personal attacks ...

Nobody else has a real argument besides the town clown(s) :???: :lol: - posting under whichever name it can remember it is today :roll:

Still beating that dead horse EH oldwhiner???? made any FAlSE accusations today. accused anyone of RAPE and PILLAGE???? By the way did you ever come up with the proof than anyone sexually harassed any one????
You know the kind of proof that would stand up ion a REAL court! not the phony court you pretend to run.

SO go ahead admit you are a phony, you will feel better by getting it off your chest, that is if you still have a chest :wink: :wink: :wink: Sure as heck have no morals,, EH Barney, (talk about clowns)

 

[Mike]

He has no balls either. Might be dickless......................... :roll:

At the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, the majority agreed with two lower courts that said Congress overreached when it required most Americans to carry insurance or pay a penalty.

The opinion, jointly written by judges Joel Dubina and Frank Hull, said Congress had broad power to deal with the problems of the uninsured, "but what Congress cannot do...is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die."

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and courts have interpreted that power broadly. But the majority said the Obama administration's defense amounted to an argument that merely by existing, individuals affect interstate commerce, "and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life."

The court also raised federalism concerns, saying the mandate intruded on health-insurance matters traditionally a concern for the states.

There are plenty of arguments against the Constitutionality of ObamaCare. You're just too dense to understand them. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Another example commonly used in the health care debate:

"How can they mandate auto insurance?"

Easy. Because your auto insurance protects everyone else you share the road with against damages. Not just you.

No different....So does Health Care/Insurance reform-- as I'm/we are already paying for those without health insurance-- except without insurance many are not seeking care until they seek help thru expensive emergency wards, are chronic, or hauled in by ambulance-- which raises the cost we pay much more....

Or should we agree with the Florida Teabaggers that cheered-- and think we "should just let the uninsured Die"

WWJD?

WDCD? (What Did Cavemen Do)

 

[Mike]

Or should we agree with the Florida Teabaggers that cheered-- and think we "should just let the uninsured Die"

Exactly how many was it that cheered "should just let the uninsured Die"?

 

[hypocritexposer]

Or should we agree with the Florida Teabaggers that cheered-- and think we "should just let the uninsured Die"

Exactly how many was it that cheered "should just let the uninsured Die"?

It was probably a plant. Didn't they have plans in the past to infiltrate Tea Party meetings?

 

[Mike]

Or should we agree with the Florida Teabaggers that cheered-- and think we "should just let the uninsured Die"

Exactly how many was it that cheered "should just let the uninsured Die"?

It was probably a plant. Didn't they have plans in the past to infiltrate Tea Party meetings?

He lied. Actually NONE said that.

And the cheering done was towards Ron Paul's answer.

 

[Tam]

The reason there is a difference between Auto and Health is if a person doesn't want to buy auto insurance they don't have to buy a car. The only way out of buying Health insurance is to not be born or die once the law is enforced.

BTW If the Government can force a person to buy something when do you think they will start forcing people to by a GMC Government Motor Company vehicle, which will then force them to buy the Auto insurance the STATES not the Federal Government force people to buy if they want to drive instead of walk?

If the federal government can force a person to buy Healthcare what will be next?

 

[hypocritexposer]

The reason there is a difference between Auto and Health is if a person doesn't want to buy auto insurance they don't have to buy a car. The only way out of buying Health insurance is to not be born or die once the law is enforced.

BTW If the Government can force a person to buy something when do you think they will start forcing people to by a GMC Government Motor Company vehicle, which will then force them to buy the Auto insurance the STATES not the Federal Government force people to buy if they want to drive instead of walk?

If the federal government can force a person to buy Healthcare what will be next?

I'd like to see deductibles in Health Insurance. Horner is thinking of bringing the idea back, if he is elected in Alberta.

 

[Anonymous]

The reason there is a difference between Auto and Health is if a person doesn't want to buy auto insurance they don't have to buy a car. The only way out of buying Health insurance is to not be born or die once the law is enforced.

BTW If the Government can force a person to buy something when do you think they will start forcing people to by a GMC Government Motor Company vehicle, which will then force them to buy the Auto insurance the STATES not the Federal Government force people to buy if they want to drive instead of walk?

If the federal government can force a person to buy Healthcare what will be next?

Tam- tell me who (except for the homeless and a few hermits-- that we are already paying insurance for that does not buy-or use/utilyze- an automobile?
Maybe 50 years ago your argument would have been valid with some of the elderly and the old sheepherders- but with the globalization that has taken place in the past 20-30 years-- no more...Even the Unibomber was a multistate traveller... Not many illegal immigrants don't own a car-- altho they may not have insurance on it- nor health insurance on themselves and family...Preferring to let the Tams of the world to pay their healthcare with increased hospital/insurance costs...

This law does not force you to buy a product from anyone- just a minimum requirement- purchased from the 2-3 major providers that operate under multiple company names/policies....
Many believe that the government should also offer the same plan as Congressmen get (for little or nothing) under a public plan-- so there is more competition to the 2-3 entities that control/monopolize the insurance industry.... Massachusetts now offers a public plan....

 

[Yanuck]

I'd like to see deductibles in Health Insurance. Horner is thinking of bringing the idea back, if he is elected in Alberta.

there should be and a user fee, people in AB have no idea how fortunate they are to have health care and not have to pay thru the nose for it.

 

[hypocritexposer]

I'd like to see deductibles in Health Insurance. Horner is thinking of bringing the idea back, if he is elected in Alberta.

there should be and a user fee, people in AB have no idea how fortunate they are to have health care and not have to pay thru the nose for it.

I believe in user fees too. From what I understand about how the deductible would work, it would be a "tax", or deducted at time of filing your taxes, but you would be eligible for a refund, if you do not use a certain amount of Health services.

Maybe not the same incentive to not abuse the services as a "user fee" would be, but still an incentive.

Speaking of which, how are you enjoying being back in "God's country"

 

[Lonecowboy]

it will be ruled unconstitutional because it is!

.

I'm curious on what grounds? We have nationwide individual mandates from FDA- EPA-USDA-FAA-etc., etc because they intercourse with all the states...Because of that we even have a nationwide MANDATE the NCBA argued for and gave us thru the SCOTUS for the Checkoff Beef Board MANDATORY tax on the sale of all cattle..Soon we will have a nationwide MANDATORY cattle ID/tagging system (also supported by good old NCBA/Bush boys for the past 8 years)... All decided under the Commerce Clause..

What is the constitutional issue that says if all those are Constitutionally legal-- you can't mandate everyone under the same Commerce Clause to have a certain level of health care insurance? :???: ....

well oldtimer it has been explained time and time again to you why this is unconstitutional and there are many many articles and rulings out there to read that explain it as well-- but you refuse to see.

So here is a different angle- you believe in democracy don't you? the will of the majority? Why not just pass a constitutional ammendment clearly giving the federal government the power to mandate that we all buy health insurance. then get it properly ratified by the necessary state legislatures. If the MAJORITY of people are behind this then it will pass.
controversy ended - all will be legal and right.
All JUST powers come from the consent of the governed- all other powers are just taken!

it is a good idea- then everyone decides, not just the 9 political appointees in robes, the decision is on everyones back! this is democracy!

 

[Lonecowboy]

and Jon Tester's two gals on the supremes won't be stacking the deck!

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

The reason there is a difference between Auto and Health is if a person doesn't want to buy auto insurance they don't have to buy a car. The only way out of buying Health insurance is to not be born or die once the law is enforced.

BTW If the Government can force a person to buy something when do you think they will start forcing people to by a GMC Government Motor Company vehicle, which will then force them to buy the Auto insurance the STATES not the Federal Government force people to buy if they want to drive instead of walk?

If the federal government can force a person to buy Healthcare what will be next?

Tam- tell me who (except for the homeless and a few hermits-- that we are already paying insurance for that does not buy-or use/utilyze- an automobile?
Maybe 50 years ago your argument would have been valid with some of the elderly and the old sheepherders- but with the globalization that has taken place in the past 20-30 years-- no more...Even the Unibomber was a multistate traveller... Not many illegal immigrants don't own a car-- altho they may not have insurance on it- nor health insurance on themselves and family...Preferring to let the Tams of the world to pay their healthcare with increased hospital/insurance costs...

This law does not force you to buy a product from anyone- just a minimum requirement- purchased from the 2-3 major providers that operate under multiple company names/policies....
Many believe that the government should also offer the same plan as Congressmen get (for little or nothing) under a public plan-- so there is more competition to the 2-3 entities that control/monopolize the insurance industry.... Massachusetts now offers a public plan....

A lot of people in bigger cities don't own a car. Many use buses or the subway systems.

 

[hopalong]

oldtimer wrote
Or should we agree with the Florida Teabaggers that cheered-- and think we "should just let the uninsured Die"

Could you provide proof of that statement oldtimer??? Or is this just another of your failure to comprehend what is said? Or an attempt to twist things to suit your agenda?? You are famous for that and even more famous for making false claims and allegations with out proof.


EH chubby checker "lets twist and turn"" oldtimer
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

 

[Mike]

A lot of people in bigger cities don't own a car. Many use buses or the subway systems.

I personally do business with some affluent business people in New York City. About 20 or so. The cost of parking is prohibitive to all but a few up there. $1,500.00 to $2,000.00 per month. Not many people own an auto.............

Even if they live in New Jersey or surrounding states, Connecticut, etc., they ride the train to work each day.

There are at least a few million in New York city alone that do not own a car.

 

[hopalong]

What about the elderly?
Old hypocrite himself in a prior post stated that there a lot in his area that do not drive, or can't.