I guess that you agree that the federal government should make you have insurance or fine you.

Just another activist Conservative judge. And yes, health care would be much more effective and fair under a single payer system administered by the government (like in most enlightened and civilized societies). If you think that private insurance carriers have any interest in the individual, you're delusional.

Whatever happened to free choice in this country? So the government telling you to purchase insurance or be fined is free choice?

Government should NOT be able to make you buy health insurance. BUT- if yoiu get hit by the bus, and are bleeding profusely and arrive at the ER, they should be able to turn your cheap ass away. Why should WE have to pay for YOU?

Hey- this ME First business in neat-o-riffic, ain't it??

Because the Public Bus hit me...thats why... and i would never cross a road unless i am in the Cross walk or the sign says i can.. But hey. Maybe its just us Republicans that actually follow the rules..

DBO,

Well, the government doesn't pay to take care of those people that don't have insurance unless they are on medicaid/medicare. It does cost those who purchase insurance, as their rates go up because people cannot afford to purchase insurance. Therefore, making people make the choice between food & insurance will become the norm. Most will choose food, and except the government fine, which will probably be cheaper than the insurance anyways.

Being a leftist, you would think that you would be for freedom of choice, instead of the government "tell you to" do something.

And besides you would never have to pay for me, I purchase my insurance, pay my bills, and pay my taxes. Something many on here should learn to do.

BigBear62 --

Curious... Do you live in a state where you aren't required by law to insure your car? your home? your dog? Why shouldn't you be required by law to insure yourself??

BAFF - I can choose not to buy those insurances, if I choose not to own them. The Federal Government is not giving me that choice. You are comparing apples to oranges.

The law does not require me to buy insurance. If I choose to exercise the PRIVILEGE of driving, then I must be insured. I am not required to buy homeowner's insurance, but if I CHOOSE to get a mortgage to purchase a home, the bank might require it as a condition of my loan.

The HC law wants to require me to purchase health insurance as a condition of existing. Big difference.

WOW - Yeah, this is a fun topic for several reasons: First, the plaintiffs are right: on its face it is unconstitutional. Can't make someone participate in commerce. Can't make them buy something.

However, I am in favor of the law, and I am a commi-lib, (Rush told me so himself!) and I totally understand the basis that the POTUS (DOJ) will argue that it's NOT the same as any other product, or commerce, and thus the law is constitutional.

Y'all are correct - it's not the same as car ins., in that you don't have to own a car, thus, they're not making you buy anything. The DOJ will argue (correctly I believe) that NOBODY can "opt out" of the healthcare system. You're going to use it eventually, whether they pay for it or taxpayers do.

Those of you arguing so passionately that you don't want to pay for other's healthcare should see the STATUS QUO as the enemy, not the new law. You pay for the uninsured RIGHT NOW.

You pay for the uninsured through higher insurance premiums, or those on medicare/medicaid taxes. But still, if I choice to purchase health insurance, that is my right according to the 1st amendment. According to this law, if I don't purchase insurance the IRS is going to fine me. That is not a choice. That is a mandate.

I have lived in states that require car insurance, which I have purchased as a condition to get the title of a vehicle. And if it lapses and I don't pay the insurance after the initial 6 months, well so be it. If I get stopped, I get a ticket. And usually that ticket is about 1/4 the price of a years worth of insurance. Therefore, I choose not to purchase insurance for the car, taking my chances with the law. And since they cannot stop everyone for insurance cards, I will probably get one ticket every 5 years, maybe, if I am caught speeding or something else.

You're right Bear - it IS a mandate. That's not at issue. What is at issue for (and likely "for the whole shootin' match!") is whether that mandate is constitutional.

The plaintiffs will say it's not const., b/c we're being forced to participate in commerce. The DoJ will respond that unlike all other forms of commerce, healthcare is not commerce that we choose to participate or not. Everybody eventually gets to play !! Therefore, if we have no choice as to whether we participate in this form of commerce, the only decision to be made is "How's this form of interstate (unless you don't want to be able to see a doctor in a state other than yours!) commerce paid for and regulated?" Constitution gives that authority (pretty clearly) to the Fed. Should be fun politi-theatre for a while!

I think you should have insurance or some form of payment or you get no heath treatment . you dam right you should have insurance . of course some you sorry lazy hix that think that buying a boat an going fishing is more important than pqay nfor insurance . if you don't want the government making you buy insurance then I say they should stop making the hopitals take care of you if you get out hear an have a wreck an need hospital care . put that in your pipe an smoke it . if it is fair for the gander it is fair for the goose . no way or means to pay no hospital care . RIGHT?

this is just for show the Republicans are just afraid of unverasal health care .. the public option was an never was suppose to be a government take over . you people out there let FOX and the GOP talk you out of the best INsurance coverage you could have ever had . you listened to fox which lied to you and the GOP which lied to you . this was an was an never was intended to be a takeover of our healthcare system by our government it was a very good idea plan that would have controlled the cost of healthcare for everybody in America . the Public option was just another name for another insurance companies :the name was PUBLICE OPtion insurance company run buy the government you would have to pay a premium just like any other it would cover just like anyother other ins. company just cheaper it would not have to make a profit. the other ins. companies would have to keep their cost down to compete . it Atna covered the illness this public option would cover it ,if the public option cover it then Atna would have to cover it to keep up. think About it . if you don't have to make a profitt you can sell cheaper right . Fox an the GOP conpired to gether to defeat the public option. the government has found Emails sent back and forth from the GOP an Fox show that they are joining toghter to defeat this public option. you people who call them selves republican believe them an it cost you an us al big time because of their greed

One little problem with that line of reasoning, Ron. In their haste to ram this monstrosity through, they neglected to add a sever ability clause to the legislation. One piece falls, it all falls.

I have heard two different explanations for this lack. One is that they simply overlooked it. The other is that it was deliberate, because they understood that, without the mandate, the whole thing was unsustainable.

Either way, one piece falling means the whole ball of wax.

Ron Indiana

It's not surprising that one Virginia judge ruled the HC law unconstitutional. Other judges have already determined the law is constitutional. So it will end up in the Supreme Court...which is conservative minded. The law will stand and there may be portions of the law that will be dropped or amended.

This was bound to happen. I think my friend, IR, spoke of this several months ago.

Hi Ron

Did you see this?

Steve King Outlines GOP Legislative Strategy: Defund Health Care Reform In 'Every Appropriations Bill'

King repeated his demand for "100% repeal" of health care reform and to rip it out "by the roots." He also took direct aim at those less fervent in their repeal-zeal, writing that "we certainly don't need to hamper our efforts at the beginning by drafting a clumsy 'repeal and replace' bill."

King described in further detail precisely how he and the GOP plan to kill health care reform. He demanded that "every appropriations bill we pass" explicitly bar "any money allocated therein from being spent on implementing" health care reform:

The second thing that Republicans need to do is to lay the groundwork for defunding any and all efforts to implement Obamacare

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/09/king-defund-hcr/

King's an idiot on a par with Palin and Bachmann.

BUT- let the repubs kill a bill that benefits 30 million people. I understand they are feeling like they have 30 million votes they can afford to kick to the curb these days....

So, just when was the last good day Obama and the Democrats had? Its been months, correct?

I'm certain Obama will have a press conference to discuss this latest failure of his and his party. Will Bill Clinton be speaking at that one too?

Ron,

I believe the law moving to be heard by SOCTUS is a necessary step. Americans will never buy into this law until the court says it is legal. I believe, as you, that the law will stand even in a Robert’s court. If it is put on a “fast track” SCOTUS could rule on it in the next 12 to 18 months.

I also believe that the severance clause was left out intentionally because the “mandate” is necessary to pay for the law.

The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] came out with a letter in August saying that while the health care law could “reduce the projected budget deficit by $30 billion over the next 10 years,” repealing it would increase the deficit by an estimated $455 billion.

That’s a swing of nearly half a trillion dollars.

Are the Republicans sure they want to repeal or defund it, you know, being the deficit hawks that they are? But the Conservatives only believe in the CBO’s numbers when they favor the GOP/TP opinion.

'Straight arrow' considers health-care suit

By Rosalind S. Helderman

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Michael Vick, currently enjoying a dazzling comeback season as quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles, has a perhaps unusual fan: The man who sentenced him to almost two years in federal prison for running a dog-fighting operation in Virginia.

Two other federal judges have ruled that the law passes constitutional muster. No judge has ruled the law unconstitutional. Many observers think Hudson will be the first.

That prediction is built partly on Hudson's roots in Republican politics. He was elected Arlington's commonwealth attorney as a Republican, briefly ran against U.S. Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.) in 1991 and has received all of his appointments - as U.S. attorney, as a Fairfax County Circuit Court judge in 1998 and to the federal bench in 2002 - from Republicans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/07/AR2010120706982.html

Thought before everybody got all into the where’s and where for out thous on this deal you’ll might want to read this and find out a little bit more about the judge. This was the venue that Cootch sought out for exactly this reason and this decision was probably a 75% certainty.

Dennis: We are on the same page on this one. As always, you have the facts to back up your claim.

This is a piece of crap law and should be repealed, de-funded or whatever else they need to do to get rid og it. My insurance has went up twice since the bill was announced and it is the fault of the Obama administration. To the one that cry about the 30 million that don't have insurance I say to bad you are going to screw with insurance of 100's of millions of people to satisfy 30 million. If it is so wonderful way are all the companies getting to opt out of it

>Either way, one piece falling means the whole ball of wax.

You are still wrong on that. In fact, the judge ruling today denied the request to stop enforcement of the whole bill.

JoAnnaSmith1

So, just when was the last good day Obama and the Democrats had? Its been months, correct?

EVERY DAY that President Obama is in the White House is a good day for ALL OF US!

Thanks, VermontGirl.

There's none so blind as those that won't see.

VG: EVERY DAY that President Obama is in the White House is a good day for ALL OF US!

So do you agree that the Democrats in Congress should stop holding the American people hostage and pass the Obama Tax Extensions for all the people?

Or are you just into hero worship?

And if Obama being in the White House makes you so happy, why are so many Liberals so angry lately?

Now that we’ve all had a chance to check out the link a quick lesson in politics and why they’re local

As you can see before Hudson was appointed to the Federal court he was a district court Judge in Fairfax County.

Where did Cuccinelli practice Law before being appointed as Attorney General for Va.?

Why Fairfax county of course. Course these fine upstanding Gentleman of the Law wouldn’t collude to advance the Political career of Gov. Bob McDonnell and therefore old Cootch now would they?

I guess it's unconstitutional to force people to also have car insurance, and to go to school (k-12) and to pay taxes, and to do anything the 'government makes us do'. how silly this really is. "I don't have to have insurance and when I get hurt I'll just have everyone else pay for it". You think it's about politics or what. That's alright, the SCOTUS will eventually hear the case.

You are free to drop your car insurance any time you want to do so.

Get rid of your car. It is that simple.

Damn, No Jo- I think you just gave me a huge hint on how to cut my grocery budget in these tough times:

Simply DON'T EAT! I like it. Where do you come up with these simple but obvious ideas??

Drive-by

Free will,, I wont interfere if thats the choice you make...

God. Another pro-chioce fellow.

Welcome aboard, citizen Steve.

Drive By..

I am against Abortion, I would never choose to be with a Woman that would have one either.. However i also would never tell others they shouldn't have one . Still doesnt change the Fact that i think Abortion is Wrong..

I must be dreaming,

In California you don't actually have to have automobile insurance, but you must be able to put up a $35,000 cash bond with the DMV, or a $35,000 surety bond from an insurance company licensed to do business in California if you choose not to carry auto insurance. That's a pretty steep price to pay, unless you have a ton of excess cash, but it does obviate the need for auto insurance.

You were getting a little pudgy anyway Drive-thru.

Joanna,

LOL. a little. thats what they call it. I call it Fat...

Steve, mostly between his ears.

JoAnna,

Nod........

There are a couple of differences between health insurance and auto insurance that make this sort of like comparing apples to soccer balls. First, the mandated auto insurance is, for the most part, to protect the other guy in the event you're at fault in an accident. Requirements for limits vary from state to state but that's the brunt of it- you carry insurance to pay for damages you cause. And you can chose to not participate in the mandate by not owning a car. Yes, for most of us that is unrealistic, but you still have an opt out clause. I don't know how many states have changed their requirements since I worked for an auto insurance company 12 years ago but at that time, many states did not have mandatory requirements at all. Auto insurance is pooled risk. Everyone insured by a particular company pays into and draws from the same pot. By sharing the risk across a broad group of people, rates are far more manageable for most consumers. And auto insurance is, for the most part, catastrophic coverage. You don't use your insurance for routine maintenance.

Had the HCR bill mandated insurance industry changes to work more like auto insurance vs forcing more individuals into the pool to absorb the cost of the high risk/high use consumer I might have thought the bill was brilliant, but all it really did was provide higher profit margins to the insurance companies. It did not address the skyrocketing premiums as so many have noticed with their renewal rates. It did not address the problem many small businesses face when trying to provide coverage for their employees by allowing pooling to increase the group size and make rates more competitive. It did not address the insanity of employer based coverage at all- wouldn't it make more sense if insurance was sold on an individual basis where the actual consumer had the choice of what coverage to carry, what deductible is affordable for your family, not fearing the loss of coverage or changing providers with a job change? As far as I'm concerned, this bill did absolutely nothing to address the cause of our spiraling medical costs- insurance!

This was going to happen one day. In America, anyone can sue. There is going to be lawsuits filed the first time someone is fined anyway.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2002, backed arguments by the state of Virginia that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring that individuals buy health insurance or face a fine.

No Jo,

this part of the HCR law should have never been there, its a mandate, President said during the election his HCR would not have a mandate, that was Hillarys Wish, I guess she passed it down the madan speaker and she put it in. i knew this part would be struck down sooner or later.

car unsurance mandate is a bit different, a person operating a 1 ton machine that can kill has to have insurance, a person that drinks, uses durgs, smokes and wants to kill them selves by not going to the doctor for regualr check ups, Well that on them. Agreed!!

No Jo When are you going to learn to check things out before you make such Blanket Statements. Once again you are full of Bull Puckey. Follow the link I put up there with Ron's post and let a little Truth shine into your life dear. Remember this is Virginia we're talking about here not N.J. and some of us down here have a little bit better handle on who's hoodooing who than you'll do up North.

wrong if it's a demorcrat you would be the first to tell us, if it's a republican you plead the 5th

Yes, we need the public option. Health insurance should NOT be the province of private industry. Peoples lives should not be for sale.

Peoples lives should not be for sale.

Peoples lives should belong to them, not the federal government.

Amy, I agree to a point. We need the public option. I think you are approaching a slippery slope though. Our government can not run Medicare without unbelievable fraud and waste. Medical care is also too big and makes up too much of our GDP for government to run it.

Amy, is there even one thing the government can do right? It isn't balancing or even coming up with a budget. It isn't being efficient or cost minded. And it sure isn't keeping their documents safe or secret.

So yes, let's put the government in charge.

Actually Spanky,

The corp of engineers and their building of lakes, waterways, and such has been a productive agency, that is why their budget gets cut each year:)

Unfortunately, you are correct, this is what the wealthiest and most highly educated in our society do. Anything that goes against their primary goals to capitalize on whatever their objective is they will fight it tooth and nail and the money that could have been spent on making sure that healthcare does not become more of a luxury than it already is. Okay so the top 5% went from controlling 14billion in this economy to now controlling 40billion....how does that happen?

The conservatives will spend billions of dollars to talk a resourceless woman out of having an abortion to bring a child here that statistically will have few recources themselves....but will complain about medicare for the elderly (who have worked all their lives) I guess the humane thing to do will be to put old people to sleep....oops that is not an option......those private insurance companies will miss out on the billions of dollars in eldercare services they have become so skillful at over billing the government for.

Taxes are constitutional. Seems like FDR did what Obama will end up trying to do - say it is not a tax to get legislation passed, but when it gets to the Supreme Court, admit/argue that is a tax.

About millions of Americans losing their benefits - Companies are fighting for waivers because they cannot afford Obamacare and will have to drop their employees/members. Companies such as McDonalds and unions such as the American Federation of Teachers are part of the first 100 companies to receive waivers and represent over a million.

Pretty bad when union plans are not good enough/less expensive than Obama's plan, huh?

Debbie, the three things you mentioned are all taxes. This is not a tax, per se. It is a mandate. The drafters of this bill didn't want to fight the "new tax" battle.

No where in the constitution does it state that the government is responsible for everyone have health insurance.

There is no basis in the Federal Government to Mandate all Americans to "buy" health insurance. Talk about socialism.

This law suit addresses the misrepresentation of the Pres Obama + White House that this mandate really was NOT a Tax. THEN the court stated the health care could not stand IF IT IS NOT a Tax. THEN the Obama White House states, oh yeah then it is a Tax? Absurd.

There is nothing that would substantiate a Tax Mandate to Americans in our Constitution. The first courts were defining if the mandate was a Tax, then it could be Constitutional.

The Virginia suit stated the premise that this is now considered a "TAX" and Mandating Americans must buy health care is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Speaker Pelosi should resign with her stupidity "we should sign it and then find out what is in it?" Pelosi is despicable and pushed through a travesty and monstrosity that caused harm to her own party and their careers.

Big B,

If it is not a Tax, it could not stand at all, only if it is clarified as a Tax can it stand. Then the next court states if the Obama White House is changing and calling it a Tax, then the Constitution does not substantiate the Federal Government to Mandate Americans to buy health care or be "taxed" there is two premises here.

In both the misrepresentation of the WH saying it is not a Tax, AND stating it is a Tax, neither is Constitutional.

JMT,

You are correct, it is Unconstitutional. The Commerce Clause and general welfare does not give the Federal government to Mandate Americans buy Obamacare, or be Taxed.

I know one thing about SSI if it is illegal there will be torrent on the lawn if it is cancelled. I have already worked 20 years and now must work another 20 until I am 70 years old. If a person carefully saves for 20 years for retirement and then some private agency is allowed to give you a statement that what you have saved for 20 years is now gone because of the economy and then social security is disbanded I will be on the lawn wanting my money back!

Bev, I've tried this with Feisty and a couple other of your liberal buddies but so far no one's even tried to explain it so I'll try you now... With regards to your comment on AZ, exactly how do you expect the situation to be any different when the feds are in charge of paying the bills? They are trying to pay for HCR by reducing Medicare funding and pushing more of the Medicaid costs onto the individual states, correct? So when there is less money for Medicare to cover it's ever increasing roster with the baby boomers starting to retire and states that are already facing major budget shortfalls being forced to pay more of their share of Medicaid, do you think hospitals and clinics are suddenly going to become charitable organizations and caring for these people for free or do you think more and more decisions are going to be made based on cost of care than on success of treatment?

Bev, I was going to say the same thing! I cannot register a car without proof of insurance. Why is it unconstitutional for the governemnet to tell me I have to pay for insurence on my car but they can't tell me I have to have health insurance! Ridiculous!

You don't have to own or drive a car...thank you very much.

In some parts of the country not having a car is equivalent to absolute poverty.....not everyone has public transportation...what are you thinking about?

I agree...if the religious conservatives take any more control of our country it will be a sad day .... using the legislature in this way is absolutely inexorible.....I am positive the framers fully intended the judiciary to be independant.

The chalkboard strikes again.

Telling stupid what to believe, and how to project that belief so they can "prove" themselves right.

I wonder how the founding fathers would feel about $1000.00 for a root canal or $30,0000 for a minor surgery or $500,000 for a catastrophic accident......or worse for a castastrophic illness....or $150 or more to walk into a primary care office for 3 minutes to have them not listen to a word you say and prescribe you medication that costs a weeks pay?

What if we used the consitituation to defend child labor or never created fair wage laws..., end slavery, create Miranda.....the lists goes on an on. Do you hear what you are saying?

Bizdoc,

even though you and i know those are the words.. You are about to be Attacked for trying to rewrite history....

What freedoms has anyone lost?

Try a little more thinking for yourself, and a little less blackboard worshiping.

You political neophytes all sound the same. Repeating what some commentator has fed to you, and thinking you are making a political point.

You just sound silly, and foolish....not to mention you look rediculous trying to defend what you were fed, but can't, cause you never thought it through.

You are amusing, however.

bizdoc

Hey Beverly in Chicago,

The words to the song are: "...freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose...".

Looks like you lost it too right along with John Boehner.

You've lost a lot of your freedoms already and you don't even realize it since you've been liberalized. Even the caged bird comes back once the cage has been opened. We need this country to go back to the principles it was founded on, not relying on government to solve every one of our problems. That's slavery, not freedom.

Look, tea bagger,

Slavery is not in the Constitution. Originally, the Framers were very careful about avoiding the words "slave" and "slavery" in the text of the Constitution. Neither is "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The 5th Amendment does offer protections to our "life, liberty, or property," noting we cannot be deprived of any of them without due process of law.

I agree, actions speak louder than words! I don't care what the republican-conservatives say anymore, I want to see over their shoulder and see what they are signing or what is on the desk that they are hiding with their forearm while they are preaching to us about our rights. Same goes for all of them really I want disclosure I am tired of trying to hear over the "din".

Conflict of interest is definetly a problem. I got a chance to look at Obama's ethics tab and I was impressed.

Where the heck did these statments come from...I can not imagine either of them talking this way....please clarify...I need proof that this is true