E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Justice Department responded promptly to today's ruling on the health-care law, pledging to appeal.
"We strongly disagree with the court's ruling today and continue to believe -- as other federal courts have found -- that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," said Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.
"There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal.
"We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any -- including seeking a stay -- are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides; that the millions of children and adults who depend on Medicaid programs receive the care the law requires; and that the millions of seniors on Medicare receive the benefits they need," she said.
Leave a Comment:
Domenico Montanaro
You pulled your piece on the public financing law repeal, why?
good. let obamacare get repealed or declared unconstitutional or whatever. then we can have real reform. something that lies in between a public option and a single payer system!
No such animal, it's either this, to be modified as needed, or nothing. Ask any republican what they'd replace it with.
Ask any Republican what they'd replace it with and you'd get a blank stare, followed by some mumbling about repealing the New Deal.
Replace it with: 1. Portability (take your insurance with you when you leave your job) 2. Competitition, allow insurors to sell across state lines. 3. Eliminate or time table pre existing conditions as a disqualifier. 4. Increase caps on health care spending accounts to allow people to move more income into tax deductibe accounts to be used for health care.
republicans would replace it with a scam to allow insurance companies to "sell across state lines", which means they'd set up operations in the states with little or no consumer protection where the political power rests with GOP good ole boys. Scam insurance companies with the ethics of Bernie Madoff would sell insurance at low price, then refuse to pay; safe in the knowledge that their buddies in the state house would never prosecute a claim from another state. it's the biggest scam attempt in the history of humanity.
Why can't the American people see these phonies for the liars they are? Repeal this law.- I am hoping and praying not. How dan the republicans do this to the american people. Instead of the "jobs" they promised - they have attempted to repeal health care, begun investigating this administration for treasonous acts (they should know treason - Bush and Co. were guility of that one) and now, republican governors are attempting to once again clamp down on so called "anchor babies". Here's my question on that one - how many of our parents were "anchor babies?" - you know, grandparents arrived here and had babies, making them citizens...I wonder.
something is better than nothing. the AMA and pharmaceutical companies backed obama's healthcare bill because he cut insurance costs. do you really think he will be able to get anything else done? Insurance companies have already hired the GOP to kick the bill down, and why? because they are the losers in this bill
those people your talking about came legally they imagrated and actually became citizens.the right way.
So,..if its unconstitutional to require a citizen to have insurance,....then exactly when are the laws in nearly every state requiring car insurance going to be repealed, since they are unconstitutional as well?
Anyone else AMAZED at how fast they can appeal this but we can't get them to move faster than a frozen turtle when it comes to immigration or the budget?
Um... are you sure you talked to a Native American about "legal" immigration?!? Honestly, all Americans ARE illegal aliens, unless you are living on a reservation. How is it that your ancestors "came legally"?
Sorry. I was born here. I'm as native as any Indian.
Tracy Schmaler (former WH Communications media beagle) says.....
Wow, the White House is sending out it's big guns for the showdown. I wonder where are the rest of the Cabinet members (DSHS), Czars, and Congressional Reps (Senator Murray for example) instead of a new face in the Administration's legal teamo. Guess they have more important things on their minds:
International issues;
National issues:
Shucks, time for another round of golf or a party at the Party House.
Obamacare is one of the fastest tracks to a complete takeover of our right to life. My husband is a disabled vet. Served this country for over 20 years in the armed forces. But with his current medical condition he falls into a catagory that would stop all life sustaining medications because he can never work again. He is considered a waste of resources by the quality of life standard that was written into law with the stimulas bill. Yes, its there. This "end of life couseling is intended for those with cronic disabilities or illnesses to stop all life sustaining treatments because they no longer have the quality of life that the government considers exceptable. Still want it. What if it was your wife, husband, or even your child.
"There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law,"
Really? Oh, well OK, if you say so it must be true. (sarcasm)
Why doesn't the administration site this "legal precedent" that allows them to fine Americans for not purchasing something simply because they exist?
Scott- "So,..if its unconstitutional to require a citizen to have insurance,....then exactly when are the laws in nearly every state requiring car insurance going to be repealed, since they are unconstitutional as well?"
I've heard this argument many times. Owning a car in the first place is a choice.
states have sovereign rights granted by the 10th amendment
Ann-0920 It does not stop treatment, It allows him to seek counseling if he wants to talk to someone about stopping treatment. Basically if he want's to consider stopping treatment it allows him to talk with an expert before making that decision. It DOES NOT stop treatment, encourage him to stop treatment, recommend he stop treatment, etc, etc. I would welcome it for myself, my wife, or my son, if any of us were alone and making that kind of decision.
Doesn't anyone think it's odd that Obama suggested the Insurance giants where the bad guys, then when Obamacare was all but dead a small insurance company in California - ok one of the largest.. abruptly announced a 40% rate increase.. then a couple weeks later.. well Obama care is back on track... Insurance companies are fully supporting Obamacare since they will see significant increase in low risk customers.. The timing of the 40% rate notice was a bit suspicious, but I didn't see anyone talking about it.
So let me get this straight - the bad guys - aka Insurance Companies actually "WANT" Obamacare? I thought Obama didn't like them.. hmmm Something doesn't add up.. Oh ya just follow the $ and the answers you seek shall be revealed.
Yup we need reform - but at least lets get the bad guys to hate the plan
.
Two things, let the supreme court decide
FR had better start identifying between the HCR act that mandates everyone to have insurance vs the affordable healthcare act. Last i knew they were two different beasts. Besides the HCR act won't kick in for me until 2014 as relating to pre-existing conditions.
It's been quite a day for Obama and the Liberals. Quite a bad day. Federal Judge Roger Vinson quoted Obama himself while justifying his position. The money quote from Judge Vinson:
Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/
That's pretty low, using Obama's own words against his signature piece of legislation that he worked so hard for.
lol like any rank and file republican, this judge is a misleading, dishonest scumbag.
i dont think in 2008 obama had a plan to enact any sort of mandate. i dont think you you will find a single liberal, if you spent the rest of your life searching, who thinks the individual mandate is a better idea than a public option or a single payer system.
the individual mandate was a plan conjured by republicans in response to reform attempt in the 90s. this time around it was an attempt to compromise. but of course, republicans just move the goal post whenever they get what they want because they will have to start looking for a job the moment they agree to any measure of compromise with obama.
so if you dont like the insurance mandate, you can call your republican senator and thank him for that.
What a great line. Perfect too.
Wonder if was FDR or JFK said it first. (joke dedicated to no joe)
Anyway. as you said ....
... but the Karma is prett kool.
zaruski,
Yea, and find a liberal not detached from reality who believed public option, or single payer had a chance to pass.
but you agree then, yo the premise that the quote is misleading?
and that if anybody dislikes the individual mandate that they ought to thank republicans?
Yet the sheep will still deny that any holes exist in the Emperors New Clothes, even when presented with his own contradictory words.
How great is it that Obama's two-facedness helps to undo the mess he foisted on the country through even more two-facedness.
Uncostitutional is a fals statement to begin with ,this healthplan will be a good thing for every American Citizen although not perfect like in other countries in the world,but they can work that out in the future. Sick people don't have to drop themself on the floor or on the steps off a hospital to get medical help like they have done in the past,that's nothing to be proud off as an American I would say.We need to do better and make a start like Obama like to do, yes it cost lots of money and we have to stop throwing our money out the door to the wars we don't need.We have to change this and very soon. The people who are trying to destroy everything Obama comes forward with is nothing more then a republican and racist movement against a black president I am white but he is my President right now and need all the support he can get.Another thing is if they ever succeed to stop this healthcare plan for all of us,we might see the same thing happen like in Egypt that people are going to the street.We all need health care just like the senators and nothing less.
Whoa dude, slow down. Read what you just wrote and then maybe you will see how racist and ignorant you come across. You are the first in this thread to throw race in the mix, this has nothing to do with Egypt and ALL the other countries that you state having "free" health care; well, their systems are absolutely no better than what we have now, without Obama Care.
And, it is my right as an American to disagree with anybody, regardless of their presidential status, or their racist, ignorant ramblings.
Awwww. Harry's upset that someone else may not pay for his health-care. Bummer. I guess that qualifies as racist? Oh wait, it's always race when Libs don't get their way. Should have see that one coming.
It is an agreed statement that HCR is needed. It is also agreed that republicans will not reform it. So, at least one side is in support of what is needed, as pitiful of a reform that it is. So, option 1- work with the current reform law. option 2- do without.
Mr president Don't appeal this ruling,
Just set new rules for HCR,
1 getrid of medicade part D. if the republicans were serouis about cutting cost, this would have been reppealed first, but because a fellow republicans gave us this then to them its ok to put 6 trillion toward the debt over the next 8 years.
2. have the dems in the congress vote on a bill that makes it illegal to show up at the emergency room with out health ins. its will not illegal to not have Ins, but the Government will no longer pay for a bunch of Conservative free loaders.
3. the HCR will only apply to states that have not challenges HCR in court. If these states want to challenge it, then there state will not get the cost saving from Medicaid and medicare. the people in these states will only beable to get care in there state. so if you on vacation in Ny and you get in a accident and need care, then get on a plane and go home to get taken care of.
as a Liberal I'm sick of people in red states getting a free ride.
I'm still confused on the whole Part D thing. Why was implementing it bad increasing it's reach through ACA good?
And if HCR is only going to apply to states that haven't challenged it, I sure am glad my state got in on the challenge recently! Lets see how the 20 or so states who haven't challenged it fare then figure out how to actually address the rising cost of health care instead of ignoring that while simultaneously INCREASING the cost of health insurance! When we tackle the second as the root cause of the first, we might actually get somewhere.
1. Medicaid Part D was to have been a temporary solution to the sharp increase in hospital costs by medical groups pricing health care beyond the reach of seniors
2. What about the Liberal Freeloaders? I would say there are more liberal freeloaders than conservative ones.
3. I believe there are now about 32 States challenging Obamacare. Why was Nancy so wrong about writing a good piece of legislation.
If that be the case why don't we let the 26 "red" states as you put them succeed from the union along with any other state that decides to be red. The blue states can pay the taxes for all the social programs they want and the red states can get back to building our economy and creating jobs.
Or, as an alternative, maybe we can have Congress pass legislation, and the President sign such legislation into law, that is constitutional.
We should all be able to get along if just follow that simple rule, don't you agree?
Jeff what have you been smoking, get real..since when do you think that the Federal Government has the authority to pass the laws you suggest..while you are at it ask you schools you attended to give a refund for the spelling and grammer part of your curriculum. (medicade, reppealed, challanges, there, there for example)
JoAnnaSmith1
No, too easy. Conservatives won't be able to complain and threaten seceding from the Union. You see, the Make Obama Fail plan would be in jeapordy; some say it already is. Oddly, the legislation put forth on the HCR was deemed constitutional by Congress. Although 26 states have filed, not all 26 have succeeded in deeming the legislation unconstitutional. So, signing legislation that is constitutional will be disputed by the opposite party member regardless of its legitamacy. The process of lawsuits and repeals will run its course to the Supreme Court where it will be, with no reason given for it not, deemed constitutional. At course end, the republicans can run on a platform of repeal, the democrats will run on its success.
Charlee 123
Jeff what have you been smoking, get real..since when do you think that the Federal Government has the authority to pass the laws you suggest..while you are at it ask you schools you attended to give a refund for the spelling and grammer part of your curriculum. (medicade, reppealed, challanges, there, there for example)
Typical Republican response, change the subject, attack that person personally, well my spelling has noting to do with the artical at hand, your a reagan republican, change the subject when you have nothing else to come back with.
Gloryhound,
You almost got it right.
Follow the Constitution and let the states pass whatever legislation their citizens want including HCR.
Funny that Massachusetts did it, theirs is a disaster and they are one of four states that has already received a waiver for Obamacare because they can't afford that either.
And about your ride - blue states can do whatever they want - just don't expect the red ones to bail them out when they go broke with their big government social engineering.
Bosslimo,
The Florida case was for 26 states all in one lawsuit! So yes, without appeal by the white house it would be deemed unconstitutional by those 26 states. :) Granted the white house is appealing and making a show boat with their statement about making sure medicaid continues to be paid... It would either way since we would have reverted to the old law in those states.
Jeff - F*** You. I Pay Cash!!!
Obama doesn't need any help from Republicans with failure. He's doing a wonderful job all by himself. Remember how well "Recovery Summer" was? Finding HCR to violate the Constitution is just more proof. I received an A- in Con Law in law school and was pretty well convinced the Commerce Clause could not legitimately support this legislation. Anyone recall seeing what Obama's grade was in Con Law? I'm told (ad nauseam) that he is a "constitutional law scholar" but I'd love to see his transcript.
@ glory hound.
1st if the law only applies to 24 states it does not support itself, it is then impossible to pay for and will have to be repealed. So yes the president has to appeal it.
2nd the last time major laws applied to some states and others this led to a divided country. Anyone remember the mason Dixon line? You know the line that divided the north and south declaring where slave states started and free states ended. Then there was more legislation about the number of free states and slave states. All these poorly applied dividing laws led to a divided country and civil war. Now I know you are not advocating for that. So if you want war which I'm not advocating for, go ahead start dividing the states by stupid laws liken the one you suggest.
Good post Rick!
Perhaps if our previuos goverment had paid more attention to the manufacturing jobs going over seas we wouldn't be in this mess and our conversations would not be as aggressive and we might be able to solve the problems in a more sival manner. We deffinately need health care reform.
This is typical gop politics as usual. Find a judge that will rule in your favor no matter if it would cost 129 million americans their health care coverage and add 260 billion dollars to the deficit. This is why I'm no longer a republican. They are so filled with hate and prejudice. They would send this nation to hell in a handbag before they would work with this president for any reason . What a repulsive party!!!
M.matt,
That is why in my first post, if you read it, I am all for just letting the country divide now. A time would be given to allow people to move to the properly aligned state over that time. No war is needed just the Conservative states of America and the liberal states of America would be created. Liberals can pass all the laws and taxes they want and Conservatives can do what ever they want with laws and taxes. Each group can have their own military to protect their member states. We can call it the great social experiment.
Why was this post collapsed by the community?...
Mixed Bag Comment collapsed by the community
When President Obama signed a health care reform bill passed by Congressional Democrats:
That was opposed by pluralities or outright majorities of the public, depending on the poll;
That lacked any bipartisan support whatsoever in Congress;
And, that contained no measures (like tort reform or the permitting of the sale of health care plans across state lines to encourage competition among providers) to restrain the rate of increase of health care costs...except for the reprehensible 40% excise tax (the so-called "Cadillac Tax") on the health care plans of many working class Americans;
He virtually guaranteed that there would be ongoing, implacable, and determined opposition to its implementation.
You reap what you sow, Mr. President.
#2.1 - Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:42 PM EST
Intelligent comments by both sides should be respected and defended. Those responsible for collapsing this post should be subject to moderation...
"Intelligent comments by both sides should be respected and defended. Those responsible for collapsing this post should be subject to moderation..."
Dangerfield- I'll see your 'intelligent comments' and raise you an "ALL comments...."
As I mentioned on the other thread, I agree with that, even though I disagreed 100 percent with Bag Boy's comment. (I wouldn't want him to think that my agreeing with him was going to become a habit.)
We shouldn't be cowards about this. We should confront it.
If the republicans would have worked with Obama on the new health care law maybe we would have a better plan instead they ( republicans) choose to go against everything. I still don,t see their plan.
As always the republicans are looking out for big business (insurance companys) Yet health insurance keeps going up, they really don't care about the little guy. Bush stopped us from going to Canada and getting percriptions filled that really helped us. WAKE UP AMERICAN.
Knowitall are you really that stupid
Anna Molly, why do you need to slur Mix Bag in your post? Bag Boy? Really? THAT is the sort of crap that makes me want to report posts as inflammatory. I could care less if we agree or disagree, that's what makes the debate fun, but there's no need for baseless snark.
dangerfield You ignore historical facts friend. Much of the legislation signed into law was created or modified by republicans. Those earmarks and the removal of a public option was in agreement with republicans. You leave out the fact that the republicans watered down the bill as much as was possible before it was passed. And, after conceding to the republicans in all manner of legislation they apposed, the republicans still refused to vote in favor of thier own legislation and modifications.
Isn't 2500+ pages "watered down" enough. Americans simply need to realize that we will not and are not guaranteed to live forever. So what if i don't want to buy health insurance. You know what I do with the money i save by not buying it? I buy more life insurance!!! My kids will benefit from my demise.
Libs say "health care is hindering our economy". I say BS. 2 things are hindering our economy.
1. The internet - cuts productivity at work, decreased local sales due to online purchases to save a buck.
2. Baby Boomers who refuse to retire because they squandered their resources instead of saving.
In my personal opinion more old and sick people need to die if the United States will prosper again.
Bosslimo most of those republicans you speak of are rinos , the others were in crash mode . You know, you'r skidding in your car and do your best to controll the crash so as to keep damage to a minimum.
If the previous government had paid more attention to what was happening with our manufacturing jobs going over seas and perhaps offered tax incentivesto stay we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. I no other issues came into play but this was a big one especially for the long term, our conversation would be a little less stressed if we all were working and probably be less aggressive and more civil and then we could really solve problems instead of allowing our anger take away from the main issues. we deffinately need health care reform and as our President has said if you have better Idea's on how to cover more people then lets here them we can tweek what is inplace we don't need to repeal.
TK-2141973 #4.7,
If you look at the entire global picture, most (if not all) countries (including the US), have done a miserable job of paying closer attention to growth in population vs jobs and the advances in technology that greatly reduce the need for larger populations. Advances in technologies such as machinery, computers, computer automation have greatly lowered the need for the larger populations to support these advances. If you look, you will see this throughout the world __— even here in the US and other more technologically advanced countries.
Don't believe it or don't want to? Look at the numbers for the time it took the US population to reach 100M, then see the much shorter time span to reach 200M, now look at the even shorter time span to reach 300M. And don't think that this is NOT happening throughout the world.
I hardly EVER agree with my pal Steve, but on the previous thread, he got collapsed. People, will you PLEASE stop doing that? It ain't right (or left, for that matter). Let a guy speak.
It doesn't bother me DBO,.. It means i hit a never with some on the left.
I never vote to Collapse a post either.. but in the end its all good.
Thanks.. I dont agree with you much either. but i go with the flow..
I agree DBO - Especially when it takes down 50 or so comments in the process...
I peeked in over there and knew it was going to deteriorate rapidly into a collape-a-thon!
First Read would be MUCH better served if they de-activated the collapse feature!
Steve:
I agree with DBO and Feisty. I do not like the collapse feature on this board as it is over used to basically institute a form of Censure. I think I used it maybe twice and in both cases the poster wanted somebody to come to harm. You are entitled to your thoughts as is every one else. I just ask that people do not promote hate or violence as that adds nothing to the conversation. Be well.
This one I didn't see, but if it was no more inflammatory than Bag Boy's comment, I agree. Like US Navy, I do not like the collapse feature, any more than I like the "hide rating" at Daily Kos. Both are frequently subject to abuse and the tyranny of the pack mentality.
If posts need moderation, that's up to the moderators. They're the only ones who know what their standards mean.
Anna Molly...
Who is "Bag Boy"? I know who "US Navy" is, but I can't find anyone here calling themselves "Bag Boy"...
Yeah. Leave Steve alone.
Who's Steve?
Darn straight the Obama administration is appealing the Federal judges decision. Obama and the Democrats took a major hit at election time last Nov02/2010 because of the ObamaCare legislation. People didn't like it when Obama signed it into law, and they still don't like it now. If the law falls in the courts, as it should, Obama and the Democrats will have exactly nothing to run on in 2012 (even for their base), well, except for $1.5 trillion dollar deficits, near 10% unemployment, a foreign policy that resembles Swiss cheese., and the pending expiration of the Bush, and now Obama, tax cut extentions.
Or, maybe the "Win The Future" slogan will catch on like "Hope And Change" did.
'Democrats took a major hit at election time last Nov02/2010 because of the ObamaCare legislation'
I thought it was jobs.....no, the economy..... no,....
Foreign policy? NOW wer're gettin' somewhere. What, exactly, should be done about Egypt, Smiff? Sounds like maybe YOU know? IF you DO, you really should share with an entire administration, includiing the Secretary of State that seem to be lacking YOUR insight. They NEED you!
I approve of this message..
Wait. is this something like . "they" do.. Oh well ..
JoAnnaSmith1
So Now the Bush tax cuts are Obama cuts,
Joanna lets be real, your republicans brothern are fill of Horse Dunk, HCR is not as expensive as medicade part D, my question is why hasn't that been repealed, it was a unfunded mandate the same as HCR, but the cost to this is 6 trillion over 10 years. lets be real Joanna the republicans want to repeal because a dem passed it.
the CBO during the 08 election made it known that Medcade Part D will do more Damage to the deficts than the Bush Tax cuts and HCR, so why haven't the republicans reprealed that?
last Joanna, the CBO forcast for the deficet at 1.5 trillion this year is because extending the bush tax cuts , which is what EVERY ONE wanted, so how the hell are they obama tax cuts now. shouldnt they be americans tax cuts, since all americans wanted them extended including YOU.
so we will call all tax cuts from Now on
the Joannasmith1-Bush-Bohner-Obama tax cuts.
i put your name first, I bet this makes you feel important now for the first time in your long life.
Is that Drive By changing the subject?
Golly if I wanted to learn about all the goings on in Egypt I head over to that article. This here is about healthcare and the FLA ruling.
So on that topic Drive By, can you tell how in the heck the drafters of ObamaCare failed to include a severability clause?
"Horse Dunk"?
So repeal it. Oh, you mean like ObamaCare is getting thrown out in the courts? Ya'see unfunded mandates aren't unconstitutional, whereas ObamaCare is unconstitutional for requiring people to buy something they don't want.
But I'm with you on the Part D thing. If it's unfunded, repeal it.
[ More "It's Bush's fault!" rhetoric deleted to save bandwidth ]
And "Horse Dunk"?
Yeah, it all got tied to together around election time. Obama and the Democrats have really screwed things up badly, and in so many ways. It's hard to keep track of it all.
Of course the "WTF!?" election slogan the Democrats have for 2012 is a sure winner!!
WTF obama.................. I can't wait to see that on a campaign sign.
Joanna I never said anything was Bush's fault, that is you concise telling you that, Now me,
HCR and medicade Part D are the same thing, Unfunded Mandates, put upon the american people, the only difference is that medicade part D was passed by a republicans and will cost 6 trillion over 10 years and HCR was passed by a Demorcate and is going to save billion over 10 years. Joanna I'm glad you a republican only a Idiot would be for something as backwards as saving billions Veras costing trillion over the same time.
Now you saying reppeal medicade part D, Joanna that should have been reppealed before HCR but once again this shows how backwards you and your republicans brothers are.
In the end If and when this Is struck down, what is the republicans Plan ? i though republicans didn't take a crap with out a plan.
Back to the Joannasmith1-Bush-Bohner-Obama tax cuts. 400 billion was added with the extendion of the tax cuts for 2 years, whats the republicans plan for offsetting this cost, the 100 billion they are trying to cut will not come close, so again what their plan.
Jobs Joanna, whats their plan? once the reppeal has goan to the senate for a quick death, thats next, after the cuts, I guess then they will get to creating jobs, but i thought that was Job Number 1.
"Is that Drive By changing the subject?"
Sorry, no. It was Drive By replying to a comment refering to foreign policy and 'Swiss Cheese'.
HERE'S an example of changing the subject:
"Of course the "WTF!?" election slogan the Democrats have for 2012 is a sure winner!!"
Oooh Ooooh- it's almost beer-thirty! Whoo Hoo!!
A lot of people were saying "WTF?!" as they watched Obama and his minions in Congress in action last year.
And what will republicans run on, JoAnna? Twenty years of NOTHING?
Oh, wait. I forgot the wedge issues. I'll have mine with blue cheese, Thousand Island dressing, and walnuts.
And maybe a margarita. For the salt.
"So on that topic Drive By, can you tell how in the heck the drafters of ObamaCare failed to include a severability clause?"
Again, sorry- no, as I'm no lawer- but that DOES sound pretty incompetent for those that are.
Ahh, they're all crawling out of the woodwork now. Too many roaches, not enough Raid. Here, lets hose this one down:
When are you Libs going to learn? The government doesn't create jobs. The government gets out of the way so private business can create jobs. We've got trillions of dollars of deficit spending to show that the government just isn't that good at this job creation thingy. The House tried to do so by repealing ObamaCare (hint:Big Job Killer), but the Democrats in the Senate and White House didn't want to play ball. Thank-goodness for a Federal Judge to get it right and throw the entire ObamaFlop mess out.
Silly Libs. Will you ever learn?
Awww, don't be so touchy Drive By.
So how about an answer to my question? Why no severability clause? Did they run out of space?
And just for fun is Schumer an attorney? I thought he was, until I read that quote from him this morning: three branches of gov. are the house, senate and presidency.
If he is and atty. I got to wonder if he ever practiced law. If he had he'd have to know about seveability clauses Of course as a US senator, I'd kind of assume he'd know about that other branch, you know the one that starts with a J.
You'll need to forgive them, the Liberals have had a really bad day today. Show some compassion for them, it will only be getting worse for them. Here, let me be the first:
I forgive all you Liberals. I understand where your rage is coming from, and I know it's not your fault.
"So how about an answer to my question? Why no severability clause? Did they run out of space?"
This crossed in the mail, right? I don't know how they missed that (severability clause).
Don't know much about old man Schumer, either.
Anyone have any background on old man Schumer? I'd look him up, but I gotta go get a cold beer in a few minutes.
@ JoAnna ~ Good gracious, no. It's all George W. Bush's fault.
And no, we libbies will never learn. WHERE ARE THE JOBS, JOANNA?
@ drive-by ~
Don't discount the possibility that they knew exactly what they were doing when they drafted it without the severability clause ... or at least someone did.
"I forgive all you Liberals. I understand where your rage is coming from, and I know it's not your fault."
That's right Smiff- it's BUSH'S fault! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.....
(sorry- couldn't resist. Besides, if I didn't do it, someone else would have, right?)
True that. Just think we'll be getting a steady dose [even here ] of debt ceiling and deficit spending talk.
So broke it hurts. Not even talk about fairy dust and rainbow powered cars are going to help.
Ok Anna M. what do you think - you draft a contract/assignment/settlement agreement and you "forget" to include a severability clause. Are you 1. fired; 2. sued for malpractice, or C. all of the above?
But yes - I will assume they purposefully did not include the clause. As long as you could give me one viable reason why they did not. Can you, or is this a Liberal Jedi mind trick brought to us by Reid and Pelosi?
Oooops- too slow on the old keyboard today!
Thanks, Miss Anna.
This is the alternative campaign slogan Obama is thinking of for 2012. Not as charming as "WTF", but it still carries the day with the loon crowd.
You don't have to answer that Annie. Plead the 5th, or something.
JoAnnaSmith1
When are you Libs going to learn? The government doesn't create jobs. The government gets out of the way so private business can create jobs. We've got trillions of dollars of deficit spending to show that the government just isn't that good at this job creation thingy
Oj so what your telling me is that when the republicans said that jobs were there Number 1 priorty they and you were lying. they told us that they can and will do a better job creating jobs, so what there plan, Joanna I'm going to ask you this everyday.
Are they going to tell business to hire ?
Are they going to go overseas and bring the jobs back?
Are they going to scale back the minumin Wage to $3 buck a hour ?
so far there plan is the same that got us where we are now, No jobs, tax cuts, No healthcare and 400 billion more on the deficts. Boy Bohner, your doing a great job, Lying to the american people. WAY TO GO.
so Joanna everyday i'm going to ask the republicans plan, the same as i ask No Jo when the hell is jersey going to pay the feds the 271 million back,. i wish i knew where you were from so i can have a even better arguement against you and your brother from another mother republicans.
Remember Republicans don't take a crap with out a plan. so far there crapping all over the hands. NO PLAN!!!!!
My, my, aren't we uppity today. In caps and everything. Gosh.
The House has been at it for a month Annie dear, give them some time. They need to pass a few trillion dollar bills paying off the Republican lobbyists first, talk about "Green shoots", and "Creating 400,000 jobs a month" along with "Shovel ready jobs". And if that doesn't work, and why wouldn't it, the GOP can just shrug it off and say "Well at least we saved a bunch of jobs".
That sounds like a good plan. If nothing else, at least it's original.
Could be. Unless you meant to do it. Lawyers sometimes have their tricks. But my favorite is when someone drafts an integration clause that swallows up and then spits out previous agreements, like non-competes.
Don't you just hate that, Spanky?
Why should I plead the 5th, JoAnna? I didn't do it.
Thank heaven. ;-)
I'm still trying to figure out "Horse Dunk". After that, I figure I'll need a linguistic expert to parse out this latest work of yours.
"Horse Dunk", is that something they used to do to punish the horse, you know, if someone accused it of being a witch? Or are horses now allowed in the NBA?
Why? Your side has already been trying to take credit for the uptick in the fourth quarter, even before they took office. I guess you must have "scolded [us] into harmony and plenty," like Lady Catherine in PRIDE AND PREJUDICE.
Personally, I think we should just sit back and watch your side work. I'm still waiting to hear how the private sector will be incented to create jobs, if the incentives already in front of them aren't already enough. More tax cuts? The ones we have now don't seem to work. Besides, it just sounds like more government interference to me.
JoAnnaSmith1
I'm still trying to figure out "Horse Dunk". After that, I figure I'll need a linguistic expert to parse out this latest work of yours.
i was trying to find a word that was nicer than saying Horse Sh*t!!!
the republicans are full of Horse Sh&t!!! that is what i was trying to say.
It's ok Anna M. we all knew it was option C all along.
But isn't it just silly how often integration clauses are ignored? As are non-ccompete clauses, at least around here. Remeber, I get the joy and fun of practicing in California. As you can see the Supreme no likey the 9th circuit so much.
And of course there are dirty tricks, but more often there is just more gross incopetence. Like what we have here with the legal scholars that drafted Obamacare.
One more thing here for the conservatives who laugh at me. I'm mostly against the mandates, but not for the same reasons that you claim to be.
I'm against them merely because I think the purpose of the mandates was to line the pockets of the insurance companies and give them a windfall so they would accept the other things, like the pre-existing condition provision, contained in the bill. I'm against the mandates because I think that this will do nothing to improve coverage, or at least not much. Poor people who can't afford insurance now aren't likely to be able to afford it under the mandates because nothing is being done to contain costs. Because they won't be able to afford it, ultimately they will be required to pay a penalty on top of whatever out-of-pocket costs they will pay for health care. Where that money comes from in a poor family escapes me altogether, but assuming that it comes out of other purchases, the provision will further crimp economic recovery in every sector other than the health care -- or maybe more properly, the health insurance -- industry.
No one will read this, of course, but I'll feel better for having written it.
@ Spankster #6.29 ~ I think that "not so much" (between the Supremes and the 9th Circuit) is pretty much mutual.
On the issue of incompetence, though, I have this nagging feeling in the back of my mind that I've heard that part about no severability before. Like maybe it was something the insurance companies wanted because they felt they wouldn't want the other parts of the bill unless they got the windfall.
I'm going to look around on that. It really does ring a very faint bell.
In one part, you claim people didn't like it when it was signed, then you state they won't have it to run on should it die in the courts. Either they don't like it, or they do. You can't have both. As for nothing to run on...
2009
2010
2011
But at least they'll always have public transit. Oh, wait that was last week's argument.
Check this out, Spankster ... from a conservative blog, the earliest article I have found so far that mentions loopholes in the bill, although I couldn't find a specific reference to severability as one of them ...
http://capital-flow-watch.net/2010/03/31/obamacare-loopholes-and-enforcement/
And this one suggests that they intended to leave it out. It had been in the previous drafts, but was omitted from the final version. A staffer said it was an accident, but the administration admitted that certain other provisions would not work without the mandate -- exactly. It may be that they were hoping to persuade a court that if it didn't uphold the entire bill, the good parts of it would also die, and the court wouldn't want that on its hands. If that's true, then that would be VERY bad political -- or judicial -- calculus.
http://www.obama@!$%#list.com/2010/11/27/learning-what-is-in-obamacare-the-severability-edition/
Well isn't that just fantastic Anna M? So turns out, after all this time, and like a billion posts from folks like Fiesty, Ron, Navy and you that it has been the democratic party that has been in bed with those EVILLL insurance compainies.
Now, it late around here and all the respectable folk have gone home/turned off the computer. But are you going to be the one to make them cry over this tomorrrow? Between you and me, I really do not believe they can handle the truth. Cause if true then the only inference is that Reid and Pelosi allowed and condoned "insurance company lobbyists" to participate in the actual drafting of the bill. Oh No!
So I suggest, for their sake, that we forget about this theory of yours and let them go back to thinking that Reid and Pelosi are just incompetent boobs, and not corporate insurance company stooges.
Your move Anna M.
I can't get it to copy, but at about pp. 67-69 of the opinion, the judge makes it QUITE clear that he believes the severability clause was DELIBERATELY left out of the bill because if the mandate fell, the rest of it wouldn't work.
How's that for my move? Read it and weep, Spankster.
You may feel free to break the bad news. I'm not sure I have the heart.
Anthony Weiner was just on Larry O's show, and he didn't deny it. Rather, he merely stated that the mandate was put it for the benefit of the insurance companies. Well, duh.
And, Spanky, I don't care who else reads this or not, or whether or not the truth offends them.
I copied this longer quotation from the opinion, pp. 67-68 --
This isn't activism. This is pretty much dead-on centrist legal construction, bolstered by the facts as admitted by the administration during the course of the lawsuit. I'd be hard-pressed to predict that any court, especially the current Supreme Court, will overturn the severability part of this decision. I think it is a reasonable interpretation that Congress and the administration made a calculated bet, drew the wrong judge in the wrong district, and are about to lose the bet.
Didn't Obama already Spend The Future? WTF indeed.
Debate the opinion and you may win or lose, but if you attack/disparage/insult the person BECAUSE of their opinion, you are a loser before you begin...
I love you, dangerfield, but ummmm .....
"if you attack/disparage/insult the person BECAUSE of their opinion, you are a loser before you begin..."
I would say the same rule applies if you praise/defend/exalt a person because of their title in spite of their actions and the ramifications thereof.
Based on the Court decision, as decided and if the supreme court would also decide based on the same argument or ruling, then it would over turn almost 150 years of law and several constitutional amendments.
The supreme court cannot overturn a constitutional ammendment as unconstitutional, because the ammendment becomes part of the constitution.
As for overturning years of case law and legislative law, you are most correct...
Peter ,seattle wa Thank you for pointing out that the Supreme court cannot overturn a constitutional amendment! Seems too many folks out there have not read it, let alone understand that the document is a blueprint for the way the 3 branches of govt should be conducted.
Ok, I may have misstated by saying overturn, but there are at least two different camps of thoughts about the 16th amendments. One ultra conservative camp claims the 16th amendment was not ratified. The other school of thought is that the 16th amendment is not constitutional because it nullifies or ignores the original constitutional intent of the power of the federal government to collect taxes. Both groups have advocated that the 16th amendment is not valid and have fought or brought cases to court.
Well said, Drive-by.
A couple threads were nasty from the beginning; I decided to leave rather than read and comment. It appears this one is also full of juvenile nasty so have a good time being whatever.
Just for fun Jody, do you find Louis J. and his "United we stand..." at all silly given that every one of his posts seems to bash conservatives?
"disagree with" and "challenge" and "question" do not equate to 'bash'. Geez- you sound like a born-again that always sees 'Christian-Bashing' when people question them and some of thier tennets.
You nailed it again - but I think it might be in the opposite of the way you think. Kind of like how all that was great on YOUR side from 2001-2008, but not so much after 1/21/2009.
And come on, let's see if Jody can respnd for herself. Or did you and your contrarian ways scare her off? Bad Drive By!
Admittedly I am ignorant....but I do have a quick question! Why is mandating health coverage unconstitutional, but mandating liability auto insurance not unconstitutional? Just wondering!
Because the states regulate both driver qualifications and insurance, not the federal government. And even then, most states say that you can either buy insurance or provide certificates of financial responsibility.
But that does raise an issue -- could the STATES require private citizens to purchase health insurance? The Commerce Clause would not be implemented. What would be the argument against that?
For anyone who hasn't seen this yet ....
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47908341/Florida-vs-U-S-Dept-of-Health-and-Human-Services
The thing that I would argue is that the purchase of private health care services, or even availing oneself of health care services at an emergency room, automatically brings people within the stream of commerce, just like going down to your local office supply store and buying paper clips pretty much puts you in the stream of commerce. Once they've entered the stream of commerce, then it seems to me that payment for the services can be regulated. But I need to read some more. I can't believe the administration missed that obvious argument. I'm just guessing right now.
FWIW
Anna M. gunning for a position at the DOJ?
So if you enter the "stream" you can never leave? When you buy those paper clips how many times are you taxed? At the time of purchase, correct. Now how would you feel if the cashier came to your office the next day, and every single day after that and hit you up for more taxes? After all you bought the clips and entered the stream, right?
Or can it be a discreet event? I got to give the judge props for flipping the bird to Obama by rocking the tea tax reasoning. After all it was the tea tax that lead to the tea party. Yeee Haww.
It's not just tax, Spanky, or even tax in many cases. It's regulation that's permitted by being in the stream of commerce. But I need to read the opinion and see how that argument was handled. That may make some difference in my thinking.
From the decision, p. 19 --
And sure enough, here it is, p. 51 --
The judge just rejects this concept out of hand. That doesn't make him right. We'll see. But this does seem to suggest that the law could be changed to make the requirement apply whenever people actually seek care.
You mean the law could be re-drafted and re voted on by the congress, cause the current one is no good - no severability clause.
Given the curremt make up of the congress I just don't think it'll pass again, even if amended. But if they do I'm thinking they'd include a severability clause this time, what do you think?
Thanks Anna
Sure, let's make it constitutional for people to refuse to purchase health care, and then make it mandatory for those of us who are insured to pay for those who show up at the ER or for long term health problems with no insurance! What about my rights! Let all have health insurance and let all pull their own weight.
If this is such a good thing, how come there have been waivers granted (Just asking)?
I think that, to qualify for a waiver, you already have to be offering some form of coverage. The waiver is supposed to be temporary, to allow companies to transition. As far as I understand it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/140533-hhs-grants-new-reform-waivers-amid-heightened-scrutiny
We are the GOVERNMENT so that the "the government" is told to stand down and do not appeal.
waivers are only for the friends of the almighty....they exist because they crammed this though with out finishing it.......the left always does dumb things
I believe the waivers include, among others, McDonald's Corporation.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/140533-hhs-grants-new-reform-waivers-amid-heightened-scrutiny
I love it.
A so called president who is supposed to be a so called constitutional lawyer gets righted.
It would probably helped if he had read what garbage was written.
The American people do NOT want this law enacted in it's current form.
And the American People will have their way on this one.
Waivers HAVE to be granted for those (government employees included) who will refuse to participate.
If you want to see the courts FLOODED with lawsuits, keep the stupid sh!t up.
You haven't considered any polling in you opinion. When half the country is for it and half against, your glass half empty theory doesn't mean all Americans.
Once again, you haven't read anything about waivers.
26 lawsuits is not a flood.
Franko ~
That's why we elect government, Franko -- to protect us against nuts like us.
Besides, I say appeal. How do we resolve this? Second Amendment solutions?
Medicare part D is NOT funded by the government. This is a drug plan that the individual has to purchase out of pocket to help offset the cost of prescription drugs. I pay $44.00 per month to United Health Care for this. policy. I pay $110.00 per month taken from my SS check for Medicare part B. Medicare is not cheap unless you qualify for Medicade. Illegals etc.
Thank you for this. So many people don't understand that they have actually paid into this system at the rate of 7 1/2 percent per year. If those benefits are reduced or taken away completely, then this amounts to a hidden tax to the extent of the reduction from what people would have been entitled to otherwise.
It's called an "entitlement" for a reason: The reason is that we're entitled to it.
The pinschers of the will of the American people are closing on Obamacare. This law will be over-turned this year. Then we can work on something which is the best for the majority. No socialism. I dont know when or where it came about that health care is an American right. Even without paying for it???
Another blogger who hasn't read any polls and assumes legislation passed by a president is titled after him.
the "something" is nothing unless you count Boehner's "seek charity" plan.
I suppose anarchy is better?
I guess you missed the manditory clause in the HCR bill.
you are so correct,26 states are against this and more will come ,you dont see the pres or his followers saying they are going to put thier families on it, you know lead by eaxample.If obama don;t get stARTED ON JOB,S FUEL PRICES, GROCIRIES, HE WILL LOOSE IN 2012,HE CANNOT MAKE PROMISES CAUSE WE ALLREADY FELL FOR THat bag of lies.but he will still blame bush and the democatic congress for the last 4 years.
This whole farce is proof of two stark things that as an Independent I find reprehensible. The two major parties are not really determined to better life for the common people. 1.. The GOP will defend their status quo with the rich and powerful-the Dems will continue to argue among themselves how best to spur social progress. 2. the vast majority of Americans are apathetic about politics; ignorant about how government works, and vote for or against issues that appeal to their emotions like abortion, gun rights, liberal or conservative labels, and lean on the bizarre opinions of slick talk-show hosts. Our government is incompetent and we, the people, continue to send people to Congress who are primarily interested in positions whereby they can improve their personal wealth and prestige. The whole GOP agenda is to handicap Obama's programs of progress and stop regulation. Sad!
I am a simple person, but have dealt with growing bills and lessening income for over 20 years. I believe in the change Obama calls for, whether or not I understand all the ins-n-outs of how he plans to change things - I simply believe change is NECCESSARY. I expect that many people will disagree with my next statements but I also believe giving a possible solution gets you farther than pointing fingers and complaining...
Medical Reform - a possible solution.
1) Create Medical HSA account: this account requires a $3000 min contribution per year, has all the restrictions and caveats the existing HSA accounts have with an EXCEPTION of the required medical insurance premium being associated. Instead additional medical insurance can be purchased just like cancer insurance or plastic surgery for examples, things that are above and beyond life saving and preventative natures.
2) Law 1: Cap common/general medical expenses: take the average of all legal insurance companies acceptable medical procedures cost. This data already exists and has been detailed to death but insurance companies to come up with costs that are fair and acceptable among most medical professionals, this also already itemizes the acceptable medial procedure list that can be used to determine what procedures should be considered cap procedures vs. elective procedures. Any increase in a medical procedure on this list must be justified and agreed upon BEFORE it’s increase is allowed.
3) Law 2: Employers MUST provide the 'Medical HSA' as a benefit of being employed: As a cost of living employers are REQUIRED to provide this to any fulltime employee.
Outcome:
1) $3000 in medical costs for an employed person are paid-in-full and covered
2) An employee get a $3000 a year raise and never has to consider just how sick their child is before seeking medical help
3) Employers save {$6000} a year - this is variable but taking my personal situation (employer pays full medical on my whole family per month ($800+ monthly and $3000 yr contribution)) Yes - I have an AWESOME employer!!
4) A generation of retirement is now being funded (fyi - the HSA account allows yearly rollovers to retirements plans and you NEVER lose your money)
5) government controls life saving and preventative medical costs, no more wondering where to go to get help and no more outrageous costs because its after hours or an emergency room - you just get medical help you can afford to pay at the time of service!
6) Suddenly being LEGALLY employed is a better benefit to the under-the-table employee, now we all see a benefit to being legally employed Americans!
7) Specialists are still specialists, money grubbers can go into plastic surgery fields, insurance is an elective and the poor folk like me will not be spending money on fines or jail time just because we are poor and cannot afford insurance premiums on top of medical costs.
WHO LOOSES - insurance companies - but isn’t the reason insurances companies are useful because they keep a cap on medical expense - currently I see them as a HUGE part of the problem - I mean really - if I could afford $800 a month in medical costs I would not need insurance!
So keep it simple..
Everyone pays out of pocket up to 5k per year (that's like 416 per month).. Then the fed tax kicks in and pays everything else.. Then kick the goofy lawyers out of the game to reduce dr's need to order ridicules tests just to cover their own but (lawsuits).
How might this work.. Well if EVERYONE had to pay something up front - folks would evaluate spending their $ before going to the doctor for every little ache or cold and may consider not ordering those zillion pills that us Americans take that other countries don't - even though they live longer. If the patent has to pay the first 5k it's cheaper than monthly insurance and makes up a significant portion of medical costs (insert no lawyers here)..
Jeff, you hit the nail on the head! If forcing people to carry insurance coverage is "unconstitutional", then so should the practice of forcing emergency rooms to provide free health care to every freeloader who walks in the door without insurance coverage (which forces the rest of us to pay for it).
Part of the problem with that is that doctors, as part of their Hippocratic oath, are mandated to provide service. They can't let people die just because of money.
Having said that, it should be incumbent on all providers to do everything legal to pursue people that don't pay to get every penny they can. There also needs to be a way to force illegals to pay for their services, although I surely don't know what that would be. Perhaps deporting them as soon as they leave the ER.
A federal judge appointed by Bush ? The plan is to get it to go to the Supreme Court where any ruling is cut and dried in favor of the GOP. Remember the ruling in 2008 when Kerry with more votes lost to Bush in Florida, and consequently the general election. Wall St was elated ! Corporate America, Insurance companies, Chambers of Commerce, the NRA, the oil and gas industry, and others against change, celebrated at your expense for the next eight years. Sad ! Wake up America-vote Independent !
I'm all for health care reform, but agree that a mandate to purchase or face penalty is unconstitutional.