E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe New York Times writes up yesterday’s federal court ruling on the health-care law: "A federal judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional, becoming the first judge to invalidate any part of the sprawling act and ensuring that appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from below."
The Washington Post says, "Although the opinion by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson gives significant political ammunition to the law's opponents, it does not invalidate the entire law or force federal and state officials to stop the work of putting it into effect - steps Virginia had asked him to take. The ruling by Hudson, named to the bench by George W. Bush, sets up a conflict with opinions by two Democratic-appointed judges who have concluded recently that the law is constitutional. The cases are among two dozen in federal courts across the country that challenge many aspects of the law. The final word is widely expected to come from the U.S. Supreme Court."
The Washington Post: “The death of Richard C. Holbrooke, who directed the civilian side of the war in Afghanistan, leaves a major void in what has always been the most difficult and vulnerable aspect of President Obama's strategy.”
And catch this final line of this Washington Post piece summarizes Holbrooke’s life: “As Mr. Holbrooke was sedated for surgery, family members said, his final words were to his Pakistani surgeon: ‘You've got to stop this war in Afghanistan.’”
Leave a Comment:
Yep, and there is that whole conflict of interest thing with the judge and the Attorney General for Virginia. Republicans don't even try to hide any more how they have purchased this government. Payback time, I guess, and if the rest of the country suffers for it, the Chamber of Commerce simply doesn't care as long as they get their pound of flesh..or bag of money. With deep sympathy to the Holbrooke family. Here is a man that put Country first. Might be good for the "teabaggers" to study his life. Just think, his last words were about COUNTRY.
You do not mean- gasp- that people who run for office are politicians!
You mean, the elected attorney general of the Commonwealth of Virginia is a politician? A republican politician? Does that mean that the man he unseated, a democrat, was a democratic politician!
Oh, the shame! The horror!
You mean to say that democratic presidents appoint democratic judges, and vice versa? So, maybe the two Clinton appointed judges who ruled for HCR had a political agenda?
Oh, how can we stand the weight of these revelations!?!
Golly oh No JO - and who's proposal for the mandates was it??????????
Republicans and their health insurance lobbyists.
If a young healthy individual opts out of getting insurance and gets into a disasterous accident, who should pay for his hospitalization? Maybe he could be left lying at the Emergency Room door? Otherwise, not many could pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket. So who pays? WE DO !! We will pay one way or another. People need to be responsible for themselves, and in this "Me, Me, Me" society, if necessary, some may need to be REQUIRED to be responsible.
Good point Lynn. The only way this will change is if laws requiring hospitals to treat people showing up at ER's are rescinded.
Well, Lyn, if it is a car accident, the automobile insurer pays.
At home? Homeowners insurance. That, by the way, holds for anybody's home.
In an office building, the building management,and/or the business owner.
Hit by a bus? The bus company. Taxi? The taxi company.
When are you people going to stop the foolish arguments?
So are you all going to use the same logic if the government comes along and say you all have to own a gun to protect your property, and country. That everyone will become part of the military, like in Israel.
Of course, our resident curmudgeon, nj leaves out the possibility of an illness striking a young person. As to the rest of you argument nj, sorry, but you are supporting people having insurance. Or are you willing to pay for the uninsured who show up at the ER's when they are far sicker than they might have been if they had a primary care doctor? After all, your charity is well known.
We have been paying for them for years. the only difference is now that obamacare has been announced it is costing us more
I have never heard anything more foolish than depending on homeowners insurance to cover a triple bypass, or a broken ankle on the golf cousre somehow being covered by somebodys insurance. Republicans want tort reform but will sue anybody in proximity to pay medical costs. This is the most foolish argument I have ever heard on the subject of health insuance. Will Hershey's insurance company pay for someones diabetes treatment. If your silly argument causes someone mental illness will your homeowners or your car insurance pay for their treatment, or do they have to contact First Read's insurance company.
Interesting you don't think it is a conflict of interest that the two judges that previously upheld the law were democratically appointed, no conflict of interest there since they are dems.
This law is un-constitutional, the government cannot force citizen to purchase products or services from private companies, period.
They want this law put in place, call the fine what it is, at tax. They should have done that in the first place but they know it would have never passed if they told the truth about what they were doing.
So you think it is quite all right to have a judge on this case that is invested in a company that makes money advocating against the law? That's should be a stretch even for a right winger. Or is anything all right just as long as your beliefs are upheld. Where do you draw the line? Oh, and I forgot to mention this: Impeach John Roberts.
newday,
You still didn't refute the constitutionality or otherwise of the HCR mandate.
I don't think that requiring people to buy health insurance is any more unconstitutional then requiring areas prone to flooding to buy flood insurance. Or pay taxes. It is far more egregious to expect to receive services that you have no intention of paying for.
I would think that the reason that flood insurance is carried by the government, is because private insurance companies cannot afford to carry it, it is not profitable. Well, Income taxes are part of the constitution, Amendment 16, allowed by the people to become part of it. I say repeal the 16th amendment, and make the government more responsible for the taxes that they collect.
But of course the judge allowed the rest of the law, just made the mandate unconstitutional. I don't have a problem with regulating insurance companies and medical procedures, but forcing people to purchase insurance IS unconstitutional.
Yoohoo, new day- the government does not require you to have flood insurance.
The bank holding your mortgage does.
It is a requirement of the loan agreement.
Same for homeowners. And wind, if you are in a hurricane prone area.
So, you have two options: rent, and your landlord adds it to your monthly bill, or pay off your mortgage by adding to the principal each month.
You could also move or NOT buy a house in a flood plain if you don't want to buy flood insurance. You have a choice in that. The government is not giving you a choice. They are forcing you to buy it. What will they force you to buy next? Life insurance? Certain products? What if the government came out and said you can only buy a GM car? Would that pass? Hell no. the federal government has no right to force a citizen to buy a product of any kind.
The problem with that logic is that one does not have a choice when it comes to injury or illness.
Poor nj, do you NEVER get tired of being wrong? See, I live in an area that is basically shaped like a dish. When the snow melts, it fills the dish up. (Sorry for the rest of you, but one must make this simple for nj.) FEMA, a what? A Federal Agency comes in and assesses what areas must carry insurance flood insurance to get a loan. Federally regulated institutions must require it. Don't you feel just the least bit silly now?
Let's go with that flood insurance you mentioned.
I live in a state, or commonwealth as it were, and have flood insurance on my home. Friends of mine recently purchased a home and, lo and behold, are not able to get flood insurance. Why you ask? Because the banks do not offer it anymore on home purchases. Their reasoning? Something about hurricane devastations costing them too much.
Now what does that have to do with a republican appointed judge ruling on the constitutionality of the federal government mandating citizens to buy health insurance? You keep dodging that.
If, as VA Ind stated, it were to be presented as a tax, so be it. Is it the same thing? Yes, something everyone would be required to pay (assuming the a$$hats in DC can write a proper bill). I would have no problem with that because the people who aren't filing returns (the illegals) would be cut out, as they should be. But wait, the savior campaigned on not raising taxes on those making less than $250K...oh the quandary.
I answered that question darrell, you simply do not want to accept the answer. If a judge has the potential to be enriched by a decision that he makes, I think a prudent person would recuse himself....don't you?
No answers there.
Somewhat of an answer there, but more moving goalposts than anything.
You're saying I "simply don't want to accept" your answer, when you don't give one. And this all started with your mudslinging. Is that how you libbies roll?
Then we have learned about you darrell. You believe that someone who may be enriched by a case should judge it. And accusing me of mudslinging, is well, mudslinging...is that you you right wingers roll?
Okay, you rollers, what is next--eggrolls:)
In reality, what judge has ever been appointed that did not have the same philosophy as the president that chose him?
All judges have a stake in the case, all financial, whether it is involvement or book writing, there is always money behind the scene.
I don't agree with you Big Bear, but that was cute. Later!
Newday,
I am just cynical about all governments, their employees, and what their motive is.
Hope I got a smile. We need those some days.
Stupid conservative morons still haven't figured out how this is written specifically to withstand any constitutional challenge... the government is NOT forcing you to purchase insurance. It is assessing a penalty on your taxes if you can't show that you've purchased it. There's a critical distinction, because the gov't has the power to tax and has the power to craft the tax code for all kinds of little breaks and gimmicks. You don't get the hybrid car credit unless you can prove you bought a hybrid car. you don't get the oil producer credit unless you prove that you produced oil. and you don't get the health care tax ememption if you don't prove that you bought healthcare. There are a thousand provisions in the tax code that are no different than this one, and the SCOTUS won't invalidate them. You are all true morons. I can't believe this is the part of HCR that you detest the most and you fail to mention that the mandate is a Republican idea first introduced by Hatch and Grassley as the "personal responsibility" altenative to Hillary's plan in the 90's. Now they claim thier own idea is unconstitutional, so why exactly did they introduce it? Obama was against it in the debates, but got forced to accept it by conservadems and republicans he tried to win over and the ins. companies who cried that the law won't work without it. (It could easily work with a credit instead of a penalty - Obama's original idea, but more expensive to do it that way) Anyway, conservatives- get a clue. you suck. really suck.
I don't detest the HCR, I detest liberals.
You did get a smile and a chuckle Big Bear, and it was an excellent reminder to keep our sense of humor intact.
Blue dog lib
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-24/health/health.care.penalties_1_health-insurance-insurance-pool-tax-filers?_s=PM:HEALTH
Looks to me like there is a penalty, not a tax credit. I wonder how CNN got it wrong.
Obama had no business try to make it law that people buy a commercial product, How is that hard to understand? If he had not tried to bypass the Amercan people and followed the correct process he may have come up with a health care plan that worked. That whole mind set of passing it without reading it made all Dems look stupid. When proving you have power is more important than good legislation you will be held to account by the voters later.
What the conservative spin machine is missing is that they actually lost the bigger issue in the case. The Virginia AG wanted the court to hold that, because the mandate was unconstitutional, the entire package was unconstitutional. Instead, the trial court upheld the provisions requiring insurance companies to cover everyone, to let children stay on their parent's insurance until age 26, to eliminate the life time coverage limits.
The bottom line of the decision is very bad for insurance companies and very good for those who want a single payer system.
The opinion also made drew a road map for a revised version of the penalty provision. To save the individual mandate, all Congress would need to do would to be to clearly label the penalty provision as a tax and then give a credit off-setting that tax to anyone who had qualified private insurance.
Tmess,
Of course that is could be easy, but just another tax code problem, when that (tax code) needs to be simplified to make it easier to collect the taxes that are deserved by everyone. And of course wouldn't that be a new tax on the middle class--something our president promised not to do, raise taxes on the bottom 98%
It's unconstitutional because it mandates that a private industry exist. But, I guess if the insurance companies start going broke we'll bail them out, too.
I thought we had already done that Ed, isn't AIG an insurance company?
The Republicans are the ultimate hypocrites!
　
1. How do we pay for health care reform ?
　
2. How do you pay for tax cuts for the wealthy ?
　
(a). First attempt : threatening Social Security and Medicare Cut through the deficit panel.
　
(b). Second attempt : holding the desperate Hostage, say, by the Ransom.
　
3. Auto insurance mandate !
Under historical interpretations of the Constitution, Congress can dictate the economic activity of citizens so long as that activity will have profound, large-scale effects on the national economy.
　
4. Health insurance protects you PLUS all !
　
** Inaction cost, $9trillion over the next decade, ((Some of CBO analysis : While the costs of the financial bailouts and economic stimulus bills are staggering, they are only a fraction of the coming costs from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that each year Medicaid will expand by 7 percent, Medicare by 6 percent, and Social Security by 5 percent. These programs face a 75-year shortfall of $43 trillion--60 times greater than the gross cost of the $700 billion TARP financial bailout)).
　
Over the duration of healthcare debate, using the preliminary cost analysis of CBO, the reps opposed the public option stubbornly, but after the release of final score, they have been defiant on the referee.
　
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that :
Inaction cost in relation to health care reform totals $9trillion over the next decade.
Reform will reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years and as much as $1 trillion during the following decade.
hsr,
How do you expect to pay for health care reform--oh that is correct, if people don't purchase it, the IRS will come and take money from your check.
How do you pay for tax cuts for everyone--cut out the loopholes, deductions, & deferred payments, tax everyone at the same rate--and the income tax revenue will be higher than it is right now.
Your statement about the rise of cost in the big 3 entitlements is cause enough to reform them and cut them. Save the taxpayers some funds, to quit taking care of those who have different values in spending their money.
The problem with you lefty's is that you think the government does such a great job. Please name a great program that the government runs efficiently, doesn't waste money, and doesn't have a ton of paper work to go along with it.
The CBO can sit there and predict all they want, but HCR will not reduce the deficit, it will cost the taxpayers and workers of this country even more through higher premiums and taxes. But please believe them, they are always correct, just as they were with medicare/medicaid 40 years ago:)
I'm not a big fan of the Mandate, it seems more like a gift to the insurance companies, however I get it. For insurance companies to be able to cover some of these people who were previously uninsurable someone has to pick up the tab, by ensuring more healthy people purchase insurance it allows for those that are not so healthy. As someone already stated, the system we have now of people going to the emergency room cost us all. It's sad that politicians who were once for a mandate are now against it simply because the other party is now for it. Amazing
It especially costs the rural hospitals. If you are going to say that it is unconstitutional to require insurance, how is it constitutional to require a hospital to treat without hope of repayment? In our society, we want to help others, we seem to miss the part where it must be paid for.
Are they going to enforce the laws on the illegal immigrants that go to the hospital? NO.
Why should those of us who are healthy, have to pick up the bill for anyone? Heck we already do, through our insurance premiums. How are they going to keep those down? Regulate them. Why are businesses lining up to get waivers from the HCR. Because the cost is going to kill them.
Do you think a government run healthcare/insurance company is the right direction? Heck NO--what government agency runs anything correctly.
It will become just another entitlement for those who refuse to take care of themselves. Just like the 50 somethings today, in MSN financial yesterday, will live on an average of $190 dollars a month because they don't save and expect SS to take care of them. Just like Medicare, Medicaid and the rest of the entitlements. Just what we need, government run healthcare--it does so well now.
One of the companies seeking a waiver is Mc Donalds. After posting profit increases of 23% for this year. I don't think that would drive them out of business.
"The waiver for the McDonald's restaurant chain was requested by its insurance carrier, Illinois-based BCS Insurance. McDonald's offers employees mini-med programs, which are relatively inexpensive but have equally low caps.
For example, a $13.09-a-week plan caps annual coverage at $2,000."
That $2000.00 won't get you much these days.
FYI to no jo, no bo, nj and others:
According to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency - Comptroller's Handbook - "Flood insurance is required for the term of a loan when all of these factors are present: 1. The financial institution makes, increases, extends, or renews any loan (commercial or consumer) secured by improved real estate or a mobile home that is or will be affixed to a permanent foundation; and 2. The improved property securing the loan is located or will be located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and 3. The community in which the improved property is located or to be located participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This is a GOVERNMENT REGULATION - not just a bank policy. Bank's receive heavy penalties if they do not follow the flood rules as defined by this GOVERNMENT REGULATION.
And of course you have to buy through a loan to have that regulation. If you pay cash, you don't have to purchase, because you have no loan. If you pay off your loan, you are no longer required to have flood insurance, except on certain locations.
But the big thing is your choice of where you purchase. If you don't purchase in a flood zone, there is no flood insurance. Correct?
But Isit2012yet? In the HCR it is mandated, not regulated. You have a choice where you purchase your home, or if you purchase a home. You can rent if you like. In HCR, there is no choice, either you have insurance or you are fined. I don't get to rent, I don't get to choose food over insurance, I get to pay, either insurance or government. That is unconstitutional in this country, according to the 1st amendment.
Call me a skeptic but I have a hard time believing those were his final words. I figure they where more along the lines of call 911. Or, don't touch me you butcher, get me to the Cleveland Clinic. Sounds like someone is trying to make a politcal agenda out of his final moments.
OK, BB62, so what DO we do about illegal immigrants showing up at the ER? Also, the young who think they are invincible and don't need insurance. For NJ, sometimes people get hurt and there is no one around to blame/pay! Also, illnesses can pop up at any time, cancer anyone? Emergency surgery, slipped discs, infections ( has anyone heard of MRSA?) etc, etc!
We need to address the immigrants, yes, I agree. The young who are able to get insurance and be responsible, should do so. Is it so that they can have more money for fun?? The idea of people paying for insurance to foot the bill for others is a jaded way of looking at this. I prefer to see it through the eyes of taking care of one's self.
Lynn W,
I don't know what to do about illegal immigrants--except that our government, in securing and protecting our borders needs to invest more into it. If we allowed local officials to help out, then maybe we could keep more out. Maybe if we fined the heck out of businesses that used them, they wouldn't have jobs, and quit coming. But our border security is underfunded and undermanned.
As I am not a total tyrant, no one should be turned away, but as policy, if illegal immigrants come into a hospital, then they should be turned in.
As for young people, having been invincible, I know things happen, but at the same time, priorities were instilled in me by my parents. Insurance was one of them, saving money another. But in our mixed up world today, priorities are different. If I had to choose between food and insurance. Food gets it. If I have to choose between being sick and working--I go to work, until I can't. Having people believe that insurance is important is what should be done, not the government telling me I have to purchase it or get fined, because people are going to choose the fine.
Besides, how is the government going to find out if you have insurance or not--do you have to send it in with your taxes. Just another way for Big Brother to watch over us:)
"As for young people, having been invincible, I know things happen, but at the same time, priorities were instilled in me by my parents. Insurance was one of them, saving money another."
Can you get your parents to talk to all the un and under insured?
I guess the govt will give illegals aliens guns to protect themselves since they have given them everything
else. If the govt wants everyone to buy health insurance from them, then, govt has to mandate
everyone has to buy everything else , that they do not want.
Stumpjumper: You may be unaware that flood plain designations can change. Happened here. They extended the areas that must carry flood insurance and people who have had their mortgages for sometime must now buy it. They weren't in a designated flood plain when they originally bought their house. I imagine that will keep happening here, this area, in the very old days, was a huge lake carved out by a glacier.
Yes, its unconstitutional just like the one passed by the Roosevelt govt many years ago.
The point being missed is not that judges appointed by Clinton upheld the law, or one appointed by Bush rejected it - it is that the law is dependent on a predictable political philosophy and that the judges carry that to the bench. (As an aside - it was an outlier judge appointed by George H W that overturned Calif Prop. 8). The Clinton vs. Bush judges are re-fighting the same arguments first raised during the New Deal era and are not that remote from the civil war and reconstruction era. Do we have a predominantly national/federal government with one of its purposes fostering a collective welfare, or do we have a loser collection of smaller governments (states) and a complete reliance on market solutions?
Big Bear,
My parents too instilled a sense of responsibility for self and family, as did yours. No one is saying that anyone should purchase insurance before food. I think we are talking about the many people who like to gamble with their future knowing that , should they get sick/hurt, the hospitals will take care of them and someone else ( meaning you and I ) will foot the bill. I'm not sure how you make people believe that insurance is important, when that dollar in the hand for other things is so strong, and the "safety net" of "they can't turn me away if I am really sick or hurt" is a given.
I certainly agree that we MUST do something about the illegal immigrants! Most of our ancestors came here legally and worked their butts off to make it. I have seen from inside the Medical Profession the sense of entitlement these immigrants have to MILLIONS in care. Also, our school district is broke, and yet we are mandated to take anyone who walks into the school door, along with providing dual langauge classes and teachers. If you or I moved to France, we would need to speak French or be out of luck. If we fix this problem, it would certainly help in the Health Care area too.
the public option is looking better and better you go gopers and your ags
I love the free sample site "123 Get Samples" search online to find their official website, that's where i get most of my samples from!!! yay i love free stuff.