PDA

View Full Version : Obamacare has been ruled unconstitutional.



Chopstick
12-13-2010, 10:59 AM
Don't have much info yet. It just came over the traders news.

Gayle in MD
12-13-2010, 11:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't have much info yet. It just came over the traders news. </div></div>

It's also been thrown out of several courts, FYI. Ruled perfectly Constitutional.


The RW judges, will rule against it, and the left, will rule for it, and my guess, is that Republicans won't do a damned thing to overturn it, or they will never get re-elected.

G.

sack316
12-13-2010, 11:21 AM
Found the ruling, courtesy of Business Insider:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A judge has ruled that a key part of Obamacare to be unconstitutional...

Spericially, a conservative low-level judge in Virginia ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Healthcare stocks like United Healthcare and Aetna are jumping on the news.

While the individual mandate to buy insurance is just one slice of Obamacare, it is definitely a crucial aspect to it, since the requirement that everyone be part of it is what ensures a sufficiently diversified risk pool.

The suit was brought by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who just tweeted "HC Ruling is in. Va won this round."
</div></div>

Not sure what, if any, effect this could have being this was a lower level judge and higher courts have already ruled the other way previously... and this ruling is only as to the one specific part of the bill. I'm guessing possibly trying to set up for some sort of state or local exemption... but just a wild guess there.

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-13-2010, 11:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Found the ruling, courtesy of Business Insider:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A judge has ruled that a key part of Obamacare to be unconstitutional...

Spericially, a conservative low-level judge in Virginia ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Healthcare stocks like United Healthcare and Aetna are jumping on the news.

While the individual mandate to buy insurance is just one slice of Obamacare, it is definitely a crucial aspect to it, since the requirement that everyone be part of it is what ensures a sufficiently diversified risk pool.

The suit was brought by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who just tweeted "HC Ruling is in. Va won this round."
</div></div>

Not sure what, if any, effect this could have being this was a lower level judge and higher courts have already ruled the other way previously... and this ruling is only as to the one specific part of the bill. I'm guessing possibly trying to set up for some sort of state or local exemption... but just a wild guess there.

Sack
</div></div>

It won't work.

We have other laws, everywhere, across this country, which require all to abide, in the interest of the common good.

Seat belts?

No smoking in public?

Automobile insurance?

Laws against Texting while driving?

Selling alcohol to minors?

Selling cigarettes to minors?

The right is fooling themselves. This will go the way of the birther BS, also thrown out.

G.

sack316
12-13-2010, 11:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It won't work.

We have other laws, everywhere, across this country, which require all to abide, in the interest of the common good.

Seat belts?

No smoking in public?

Automobile insurance?

Laws against Texting while driving?

Selling alcohol to minors?

Selling cigarettes to minors?

The right is fooling themselves. This will go the way of the birther BS, also thrown out.

G. </div></div>

Actually, all the instances you listed there are mandated on local and state levels (texting while driving, for example is illegal in my city... 5 minutes up the road it is not in 2 neighboring cities. Smoking in public varies from state to state, city to city. What is defined as a "minor" for cigarette sale varies, etc.)

Which is why there is a possibility such a move could work. I doubt it would, but it's possible. And again, I don't know if my theory is indeed the reasoning behind the ruling or not... was just my guess. But IF that is the reasoning and IF it does work, then that could be the first in a long line of dominoes.

Sack

sack316
12-13-2010, 11:44 AM
oh, also want to add that I'm sure it will all probably go out once it hits the supremes... and this whole little thing from the article was a waste of time and money for Virginia.

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-13-2010, 11:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It won't work.

We have other laws, everywhere, across this country, which require all to abide, in the interest of the common good.

Seat belts?

No smoking in public?

Automobile insurance?

Laws against Texting while driving?

Selling alcohol to minors?

Selling cigarettes to minors?

The right is fooling themselves. This will go the way of the birther BS, also thrown out.

G. </div></div>

Actually, all the instances you listed there are mandated on local and state levels (texting while driving, for example is illegal in my city... 5 minutes up the road it is not in 2 neighboring cities. Smoking in public varies from state to state, city to city. What is defined as a "minor" for cigarette sale varies, etc.)

Which is why there is a possibility such a move could work. I doubt it would, but it's possible. And again, I don't know if my theory is indeed the reasoning behind the ruling or not... was just my guess. But IF that is the reasoning and IF it does work, then that could be the first in a long line of dominoes.

Sack </div></div>

We all have to pay our share. When some do, and some don't, have health care, those without it, run up costs, for those who pay for it.

It is one of the most important cost saving parts, of the health care Bill.

We have other Government mandates, also, like SS and Medicare taxes.

Just saying, it will never be overturned, in the State or Federal Courts....IMO, the states will have to fall in line, and go with the program, for the common good.


G.

pooltchr
12-13-2010, 12:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It won't work.

We have other laws, everywhere, across this country, which require all to abide, in the interest of the common good.

Seat belts?
<span style="color: #FF0000">Nobody is forced to buy a seat belt. If you don't want seat belts, buy a 65 Mustang...or don't even own a car...use public transportation (which don't generally have seat belts) </span>

No smoking in public?
<span style="color: #FF0000">Again...the government is not forcing every American to buy a product. </span>

Automobile insurance?
<span style="color: #FF0000">Not required for every American...only those who choose to own an automobile. </span>

Laws against Texting while driving?
<span style="color: #FF0000">The government isn't forcing all Americans to buy a product here </span>

Selling alcohol to minors?
<span style="color: #C0C0C0">Ditto </span>

Selling cigarettes to minors?
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Ditto</span>

The right is fooling themselves. This will go the way of the birther BS, also thrown out.

G. </div></div>

[/quote]

Steve

sack316
12-13-2010, 12:42 PM
more good points.

Sack

LWW
12-13-2010, 12:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It won't work.

We have other laws, everywhere, across this country, which require all to abide, in the interest of the common good.

Seat belts? <span style="color: #3366FF">NOT covered by federal law.</span>

No smoking in public? <span style="color: #3366FF">NOT covered by federal law.</span>

Automobile insurance? <span style="color: #3366FF">NOT covered by federal law.</span>

Laws against Texting while driving? <span style="color: #3366FF">NOT covered by federal law.</span>

Selling alcohol to minors? <span style="color: #3366FF">NOT covered by federal law.</span>

Selling cigarettes to minors? <span style="color: #3366FF">NOT covered by federal law ... do I detect a trend?</span>

The right is fooling themselves. This will go the way of the birther BS, also thrown out. <span style="color: #3366FF">Do I detect an ideologue in denial?</span>

G. </div></div>

eg8r
12-13-2010, 01:29 PM
Which of your examples are federal law?

eg8r

eg8r
12-13-2010, 01:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is one of the most important cost saving parts, of the health care Bill.
</div></div>It is also a tax on the American people including that beloved group making below $250k which Obama promised would not have their taxes increased.

eg8r

LWW
12-13-2010, 04:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is one of the most important cost saving parts, of the health care Bill.
</div></div>It is also a tax on the American people including that beloved group making below $250k which Obama promised would not have their taxes increased.

eg8r </div></div>

The regime said it wasn't a tax ... and technically it isn't.

That very reason is why it was booted in court.

LWW

LWW
12-13-2010, 04:32 PM
Remember <span style='font-size: 11pt'>THIS (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-when-asked-where-constitution)</span>?

LWW

eg8r
12-13-2010, 05:31 PM
Webster defines tax as...a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes. That seems to fit the HC bill.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-13-2010, 05:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which of your examples are federal law?

eg8r </div></div>

Two out of three judges, have ruled that this health Care Bill, and all of it's parts, ARE constitutionally sound.

The one that didn't? A Bush appointee, with ties to the Republicans.

You righties are just mad, that you are beginning to realize that once again, you've been duped, by Republicans, who have no problemo, voting for another 900 billion on the deficit, to get tax cuts for their millionaire, and billionaire, base, LMAO!

the big deficit hawks, running up the deficit, like always, holding out for the one part, which econoists all say, does not stimuloate the economy....

If it did,Bush wouldn't have lost millions of jobs.

Oh, and how's that Reagan Amnesty working for ya?

BWA HA HA HA...you guys are really funny!

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, Obama Care ruled unconstitutional, LMAO! Yeah, a right winjut, says it..and you righties jumpr right on board!

WOOOOOOOOOOOO, Democratics are turn against Obama, LMAO, still at 87% approval by the Democratic voters....

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, the country is center right, LMAO!

But, the rightie press, said so, so it must be true, LMAO!

You flyover guys are truly hilarious!

G.

eg8r
12-13-2010, 07:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two out of three judges, have ruled that this health Care Bill, and all of it's parts, ARE constitutionally sound.

The one that didn't? A Bush appointee, with ties to the Republicans.

</div></div>Why are you ignoring my question?

eg8r

Sev
12-13-2010, 08:17 PM
The law lacks the severability clause.
If one portion of the law is determined to be unconstitutional the entire package is rescinded.

sack316
12-13-2010, 09:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
WOOOOOOOOOOOO, Democratics are turn against Obama, LMAO, still at 87% approval by the Democratic voters....
</div></div>

Last I saw since the tax stuff, his approval is down to 74% among democratic voters (down from 83% last month) and down to 69% among Liberals (down from 78% last month).

Sack

Qtec
12-14-2010, 01:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
WOOOOOOOOOOOO, Democratics are turn against Obama, LMAO, still at 87% approval by the Democratic voters....
</div></div>

Last I saw since the tax stuff, his approval is down to 74% among democratic voters (down from 83% last month) and down to 69% among Liberals (down from 78% last month).

Sack </div></div>


Of course his approval ratings are down, but he is still the best Democratic candidate for the next election. Still way ahead of any Republican candidate.


Q

LWW
12-14-2010, 03:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Webster defines tax as...a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes. That seems to fit the HC bill.

eg8r </div></div>

But the state isn't collecting the money directly, they are forcing one to pay a third party.

I have studied this bill and agree with many others that when the ultimate goal of a complete govt system similar to the NHS couldn't be achieved, the bill then was set up in a manner that would destroy the current private system ... which it is well on it's way to doing ... leaving the state primed to step in and "FIX" a national catastrophe of their own creation.

This bill, if not stopped, is not only a job killer ... it's a human killer.

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-14-2010, 05:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is one of the most important cost saving parts, of the health care Bill.
</div></div>It is also a tax on the American people including that beloved group making below $250k which Obama promised would not have their taxes increased.

eg8r </div></div>

Not true.

READ THE BILL!

There is no legal action or remedy, when someone does NOT get Health Care Insurance.

When you fail to pay TAXES, you are subject to fines and jail.

SS and Medicare, are called taxes....this subject of Constitutionality, is completely ridiculous.

G.

READ THE BILL!

Gayle in MD
12-14-2010, 05:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
WOOOOOOOOOOOO, Democratics are turn against Obama, LMAO, still at 87% approval by the Democratic voters....
</div></div>

Last I saw since the tax stuff, his approval is down to 74% among democratic voters (down from 83% last month) and down to 69% among Liberals (down from 78% last month).

Sack </div></div>


Of course his approval ratings are down, but he is still the best Democratic candidate for the next election. Still way ahead of any Republican candidate.


Q </div></div>

A poll which was highlighted on monday, on MSNBC, showed an 87% approval rating of the president among Democratics.

Gayle in MD
12-14-2010, 06:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
WOOOOOOOOOOOO, Democratics are turn against Obama, LMAO, still at 87% approval by the Democratic voters....
</div></div>

Last I saw since the tax stuff, his approval is down to 74% among democratic voters (down from 83% last month) and down to 69% among Liberals (down from 78% last month).

Sack </div></div>


Of course his approval ratings are down, but he is still the best Democratic candidate for the next election. Still way ahead of any Republican candidate.


Q </div></div>

This judge should have recused himself, anyway. He was in a Republican fund raising PAC, paid by Republicans, I think I heard he made a hundred thousand dollars, as a campaign advisor, for, GET THIS, Boehner, Rand Paul, and Michele Bachmann, aloll three of which ran on repealing the HC bill.


He had no business making ANY ruling on this case!

His opinion should be overturned.

And guess who had the same mandate in his own health care legislation during the Clinton Administration???

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/21/orrin-hatch-slams-health-_n_786563.html
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif
Republicans are doing what they always do, blocking progress, for political purposes.

Republicans turn against their own policies, when they are included in Democratic legislation. Just last night, Anderson Cooper, showed clips of McCain, campaigning against Bush, on ending the tax cuts for the top two percent, loads of them.

They have consistantly voted against their own policies. PIGS!

I just hope the Republicans keep it up, and take thirty million people off their health coverage, and end all of the other hugely helpful parts of the HCB, like no more being dropped by your health insurance company, accusing your baby of having a pre-sxisting condition, before it was born!

And your kids being able to stay on your insurance, until they're twenty-eight.

And getting a fifty percent reduction on your prescription drugs, when you're in the doughnut hole.

Polls have shown, that when people find out what is actually in it, and not in it, like Palin's lies about Death Panels, they like it very much.

This is the usual RW lies, at work, and I see little hope for our country, as long as FUX Noise, is allowed to present themselves as a Fair and Balanced news organization, annd Limpballs is allowed to spew his hate filled, racist, homophobic, misogynistic rhetoric.



G.

LWW
12-14-2010, 06:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
A poll which was highlighted on monday, on MSNBC, showed an 87% approval rating of the president among Democratics. </div></div>

Then why don't you link to it?

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-14-2010, 06:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">oh, also want to add that I'm sure it will all probably go out once it hits the supremes... and this whole little thing from the article was a waste of time and money for Virginia.

Sack </div></div>


Sack,
After what the RW Activist, Supreme Court did to this country, with their ruling on campaign contributions, allowing multi national, corporate, foreign money, into our election campaigns, and treating a corporation, as a person, removing all safe gaurds against fascism, I don't put anything past their unAmerican RW judges.

G.

Qtec
12-14-2010, 06:14 AM
It will be overturned. The Judge is a crook.

Q

Gayle in MD
12-14-2010, 06:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It will be overturned. The Judge is a crook.

Q </div></div>

He's absolutely a crook, but we have crooks on the S.C.!

Nothing surprises me anymore.

LWW
12-14-2010, 06:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This judge should have recused himself, anyway. He was in a Republican fund raising PAC, paid by Republicans, I think I heard he made a hundred thousand dollars, as a campaign advisor, for, GET THIS, Boehner, Rand Paul, and Michele Bachmann, aloll three of which ran on repealing the HC bill.

G.</div></div>

Are you saying that because he is not a supporter of the regime that he has no rights as an individual to make a living?

Are you saying that if a democrook judge didn't recuse their self under similar circumstances you would have the same outrage? <span style="color: #3333FF">Yes. I'm LMFAO over that question.</span>

LWW

LWW
12-14-2010, 06:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It will be overturned.

Q </div></div>

On what basis?

Edify us.

LWW

Qtec
12-15-2010, 03:36 AM
link (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/23/cuccinelli-washington/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why George Washington would disagree with the right wing about health care’s constitutionality.

Yesterday, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced that he would join a growing list of right-wing attorneys general who are suing to have health reform declared unconstitutional. According to Cuccinelli, the new law’s provisions that require individuals to carry health insurance violate the Constitution because <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“at no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service.”</span> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>The truth, however, is that the Second Militia Act of 1792, required a significant percentage of the U.S. civilian population to purchase a long list of military equipment:</span>

gilberts[E]very citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

This Act became law only a few years after the Constitution was ratified, in President George Washington’s first term. Many of the Members of Congress who voted for the Act also were members of the Philadelphia Convention that wrote the Constitution. In other words, they probably knew a little bit more about the Constitution than Ken Cuccinelli. </div></div>


Q

LWW
12-15-2010, 03:51 AM
Do you read what you post ... EVER?

Your article proves the interpretation of the COTUS to be correct.

NOBODY, in your ridiculous article, was compelled to buy ANYTHING!

What it says is that people who <u><span style='font-size: 11pt'>WILLINGLY ENROLLED</span></u> in militias were required to buy things. IOW ... this is no different than the ridiculous analogy of car insurance.

If they didn't want to buy anything then they didn't have to <u><span style='font-size: 11pt'>WILLINGLY ENROLL</span></u> in the first place.

Your desperation is showing.

LWW

Qtec
12-15-2010, 04:41 AM
If you WILLINGLY drive a car you must have insurance.
If you are WILLINGLY alive you must have HC insurance.


Q

LWW
12-15-2010, 05:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you WILLINGLY drive a car you must have insurance.
If you are WILLINGLY alive you must have HC insurance.


Q </div></div>

No matter how low the bar is set ... you can always get under it.

LWW

eg8r
12-15-2010, 08:39 AM
I am sure my thoughts on this being a tax will not hold up in court but I am looking at it from the poor and middle class point of view. It is "taxing" on them to be forced to pay more out of pocket if they don't want to.

eg8r

LWW
12-15-2010, 05:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am sure my thoughts on this being a tax will not hold up in court but I am looking at it from the poor and middle class point of view. It is "taxing" on them to be forced to pay more out of pocket if they don't want to.

eg8r </div></div>

I get what you mean and agree with you in principle.

That being said, the state took over healthcare by forced commerce rather than taxation so that they could claim it wasn't a state takeover and didn't raise taxes, now they are trying to backpedal and say they aren't forcing commerce because it's a tax.

Doublethinkers will nod their collectivist heads in unison and believe that it both is and isn't a tax at the same time because dear leader told them to believe that it both is and isn't a tax at the same time. Leftist judges who believe that the COTUS is full of suggestions and is malleable as need be to fit their agenda will go along with the regime. Judges which follow the COTUS will call a scam a scam ... as this judge did.

The whole thing is going down to yet another 5-4 decision ... which is why the defeat of Obama in 2012 is so critical.

One more moonbat like Sotomayor on the SCOTUS could destroy America.

LWW