PDA

View Full Version : ObamaCare Struck Down in FL!!!



Sev
01-31-2011, 02:38 PM
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Florida federal court strikes down Obamacare!! NEXT!!!</span>


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

<span style="color: #006600">
Jan 31, 3:24 PM EST

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Fla. judge strikes down Obama health care overhaul</span>

By MELISSA NELSON
Associated Press

PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Monday that the Obama administration's health care overhaul is unconstitutional, siding with 26 states that sued to block it. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson accepted without trial the states' argument that the new law violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed.

The next stop is likely the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement, but a federal judge in Virginia also ruled the insurance provision violates the Constitution.

In his ruling, Vinson went further than the Virginia judge and declared the entire health care law unconstitutional.

"This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution," Vinson wrote in his 78-page ruling.

At issue was whether the government is reaching beyond its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.

Attorneys for President Barack Obama's administration had argued that the health care system was part of the interstate commerce system. They said the government can levy a tax penalty on Americans who decide not to purchase health insurance because all Americans are consumers of medical care.

But attorneys for the states said the administration was essentially coercing the states into participating in the overhaul by holding billions of Medicaid dollars hostage. The states also said the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing money to pay for it.

Florida's former Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law in March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The nation's most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business, also joined.

Other states that joined the suit are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of</span> Use.

pooltchr
01-31-2011, 03:04 PM
We now have two judges who have ruled Obamacare unconstitutional.
Can we find one who will rule Obama unconstitutional?

Steve

LWW
01-31-2011, 03:09 PM
Excellent pst.

LWW

Sev
01-31-2011, 04:35 PM
Apparently the ruling is 86 pages long and he brings in both Madison and the Federalist Papers.

It should be a good read.

Sev
01-31-2011, 05:01 PM
I bet there is at least one individual running about her house like her hair is on fire!!!


HAHAHAHA!!!

LWW
01-31-2011, 05:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Apparently the ruling is 86 pages long and he brings in both Madison and the Federalist Papers.

It should be a good read. </div></div>

It does my heart good to see a judge respect the original intent of the COTUS.

Only a moonbat crazy court ... such as FDR's ... can take a clause which was very specifically set up to eliminate trade tariffs between the separate states and interpret it in such a manner that a farmer growing his own wheat on his own land for his own family's consumption was violating the COTUS.

LWW

LWW
01-31-2011, 05:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I bet there is at least one individual running about her house like her hair is on fire!!!


HAHAHAHA!!! </div></div>

Excellent post.

LWW

Sev
01-31-2011, 06:03 PM
Will the left comment??

We wait with bated breath.

pooltchr
01-31-2011, 06:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Will the left comment??

We wait with bated breath. </div></div>

Someone has to chime in and blame Bush. My money is on the lady from the great state of Maryland.

Steve

Sev
01-31-2011, 06:46 PM
Depends if he's a Bush appointee or not.
She wont say a word if he is a Clinton appointee.

JohnnyD
01-31-2011, 07:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I bet there is at least one individual running about her house like her hair is on fire!!!


HAHAHAHA!!! </div></div> Excellent post.

JohnnyD
01-31-2011, 07:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We now have two judges who have ruled Obamacare unconstitutional.
Can we find one who will rule Obama unconstitutional?

Steve </div></div>Excellent post.

sack316
01-31-2011, 07:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Apparently the ruling is 86 pages long and he brings in both Madison and the Federalist Papers.

It should be a good read. </div></div>

Moreso than that, he cited this argument as part of his ruling:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,'
</div></div>

Where would such an argument come from? Well the '08 campaign trail, from then Sen. Obama when he and Clinton were back and forth on how they'd handle HC.

Sack

Sev
01-31-2011, 07:21 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA!!!!!

Sweeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!

JohnnyD
01-31-2011, 07:31 PM
<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: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Apparently the ruling is 86 pages long and he brings in both Madison and the Federalist Papers.

It should be a good read. </div></div>

Moreso than that, he cited this argument as part of his ruling:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,'
</div></div>
Where would such an argument come from? Well the '08 campaign trail, from then Sen. Obama when he and Clinton were back and forth on how they'd handle HC.

Sack
</div></div>Excellent post.

sack316
01-31-2011, 07:36 PM
Thank you sir

Sack

Soflasnapper
01-31-2011, 07:44 PM
So excitable! Hold your horses, though.

Remember just recently?

Rahm was eligible to run for mayor of Chicago, said one court. The next court said NO, HE'S NOT!!! (Bigger headlines on the second ruling). The final court, known as the Supreme Court of Illinois, not only said he WAS eligible, but that the reasoning of the second court involved a 'novel' theory of the law that was totally unsubstantiated and without precedent in Illinois legal history.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law."</div></div>

Supreme Court of Illinois opinion (http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/January/111773.pdf)

Get it? Even semi-HIGH courts (the second Illinois court was an appellate court) may use arguments that seem good to them, but which a higher authority find so new as to be irregular and without merit, given the true history of how these things (in Rahm's case, residency) have been always determined in the past.

And WE, lay people, would know this, reading the appellate court's decision, HOW? We wouldn't. It would sound perfectly logical to us lay people.

So, the lowest federal judge can find this or that, and strike a pose of learned scholarship, which may yet turn out to be wholly bogus upon review.

AS CAN AN APPELLATE COURT PANEL (see the Rahm case).

Frankly, the actual score card on this so far is that over a dozen courts have thrown out these suits as either without merit, or for reasons of those bringing them having no standing to bring them. Just as many have heard the case, and upheld the health care reform act as entirely legal, as have held the opposite (as above).

And unlike how Steve characterizes the FIRST ruling against this bill, it did NOT invalidate the law, but only the individual mandate part.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but you should wait to have it on the day this thing is REALLY repealed, if that ever comes.

JohnnyD
01-31-2011, 08:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So excitable! Hold your horses, though.

Remember just recently?

Rahm was eligible to run for mayor of Chicago, said one court. The next court said NO, HE'S NOT!!! (Bigger headlines on the second ruling). The final court, known as the Supreme Court of Illinois, not only said he WAS eligible, but that the reasoning of the second court involved a 'novel' theory of the law that was totally unsubstantiated and without precedent in Illinois legal history.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law."</div></div>

Supreme Court of Illinois opinion (http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/January/111773.pdf)

Get it? Even semi-HIGH courts (the second Illinois court was an appellate court) may use arguments that seem good to them, but which a higher authority find so new as to be irregular and without merit, given the true history of how these things (in Rahm's case, residency) have been always determined in the past.

And WE, lay people, would know this, reading the appellate court's decision, HOW? We wouldn't. It would sound perfectly logical to us lay people.

So, the lowest federal judge can find this or that, and strike a pose of learned scholarship, which may yet turn out to be wholly bogus upon review.

AS CAN AN APPELLATE COURT PANEL (see the Rahm case).

Frankly, the actual score card on this so far is that over a dozen courts have thrown out these suits as either without merit, or for reasons of those bringing them having no standing to bring them. Just as many have heard the case, and upheld the health care reform act as entirely legal, as have held the opposite (as above).

And unlike how Steve characterizes the FIRST ruling against this bill, it did NOT invalidate the law, but only the individual mandate part.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but you should wait to have it on the day this thing is REALLY repealed, if that ever comes.

</div></div>Excellent post.

JohnnyD
01-31-2011, 08:21 PM
What a wonderful forum we have.I toast all of you with a fine aged scotch whiskey.Jesus loves you.

eg8r
01-31-2011, 09:12 PM
So what do you think about the Government forcing people to purchase healthcare? Do you think they went too far?

eg8r

Sev
01-31-2011, 09:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So excitable! Hold your horses, though.

Remember just recently?

Rahm was eligible to run for mayor of Chicago, said one court. The next court said NO, HE'S NOT!!! (Bigger headlines on the second ruling). The final court, known as the Supreme Court of Illinois, not only said he WAS eligible, but that the reasoning of the second court involved a 'novel' theory of the law that was totally unsubstantiated and without precedent in Illinois legal history.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law."</div></div>

Supreme Court of Illinois opinion (http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/January/111773.pdf)

Get it? Even semi-HIGH courts (the second Illinois court was an appellate court) may use arguments that seem good to them, but which a higher authority find so new as to be irregular and without merit, given the true history of how these things (in Rahm's case, residency) have been always determined in the past.

And WE, lay people, would know this, reading the appellate court's decision, HOW? We wouldn't. It would sound perfectly logical to us lay people.

So, the lowest federal judge can find this or that, and strike a pose of learned scholarship, which may yet turn out to be wholly bogus upon review.

AS CAN AN APPELLATE COURT PANEL (see the Rahm case).

Frankly, the actual score card on this so far is that over a dozen courts have thrown out these suits as either without merit, or for reasons of those bringing them having no standing to bring them. Just as many have heard the case, and upheld the health care reform act as entirely legal, as have held the opposite (as above).

And unlike how Steve characterizes the FIRST ruling against this bill, it did NOT invalidate the law, but only the individual mandate part.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but you should wait to have it on the day this thing is REALLY repealed, if that ever comes.

</div></div>

The only thing I care about is that it goes to the SCOTUS. There seems to be a pretty good track record of 5-4 at the moment.
If 1 recuses 4-4 is still a win.

Now here is where it gets interesting. Thus far 14 democrats have signed on to repeal in the senate. Tentatively they have 60 votes for repeal.
Yes Obama can veto it. However being a triagulator if the winds of the SCOTUS appears to be blowing against him wouldn't it be a great coupe if Obama issued the repeal and then gave a great speech as to why he reversed course.

His 2012 election would be assured barring anything such as an energy disaster.

Which do you think is more important to him. Health care or 2012?

Soflasnapper
01-31-2011, 09:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what do you think about the Government forcing people to purchase healthcare? Do you think they went too far?

eg8r </div></div>

I think this is a complicated question. Even C. Boyden Gray, who was quoted somewhere on this board I think (a former Republican legal official, maybe WH Counsel, from one of the Bush administrations) said it was hardly a slam dunk question either way.

I just read the Illinois SCOTUS ruling, AND the dissenting concurring opinions (where two members of the court agreed with the ruling but not the reasoning or characterizations of the flaws of the overturned appellate court decision), and it's quite fascinating how differently people view things, even experts who agree in the end.

Overall, I'd say look back on the REPUBLICAN arguments favoring the individual mandate for the best case for them (back when this was their own preferred plan, over the pay-or-pay funding mechanism proposed by the Clintons. As late as mid-'09, Charles Grassley (R) was saying there was a consensus building (meaning among the GOP as well) that the individual mandate was the way to go). It's really kind of a moral hazard, game-the-system argument, that people now can slide without paying anything, show up at an ER and have the public pay for their lack of planning and responsibility (amounting to $1,000 a year extra premium for everybody with insurance). That's fairly unacceptable, and in the end, ruinously costly (since an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and ER health care is the most expensive and inefficient).

But I agree with Obama's position on the campaign trail, that since these people often don't have insurance BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT, this is a brute force method that maybe ought to be avoided.

One of these cases where they CAN do it (I think, legally), but maybe SHOULDN'T do it (out of practical considerations).

Still, here's the deal. Absent the wholly more logical alternatives (Medicare for all in a buy-in, single payer, or even the play-or-pay, all of which were non-starters given the hold of Big Medicine on Congress), the current situation is hideously expensive and causes the equivalent of about 15 9/11 death tolls every year. (Estimates are 45,000 persons a year die in this country from lack of adequate access to health care = insurance.)

IF THEY CALLED THE PENALTY A TAX, I don't think there would be a question of Constitutionality. Even though they didn't, I think it still passes muster as a de facto tax.

pooltchr
01-31-2011, 09:34 PM
It doesn't matter what he thinks. I will be interested to see what previous law they bring to the supreme court that shows the government has the right to force citizens to enter into a contract with an insurance company under threat of fines.

The individual mandate is just one part of it all, but it's the first part that will get to the SC. It's entirely possible that a good bit more will end up on the cutting room floor of Congress in the next couple of years.

Can you honestly imagine a government of a free people imposing a law of this magnitude considering that nearly 60% of the people don't like it, and that a very large number of representatives who supported it got voted out of office 3 months ago? How many more Dems will be voted out in 2 more years if they continue to support Obamacare? The Reps aren't going to let this die. They are going to force the hands of the remaining Dems. I'm betting even Nancy won't be able to talk them into walking the plank for the party again.

Steve

Soflasnapper
01-31-2011, 09:40 PM
Now here is where it gets interesting. Thus far 14 democrats have signed on to repeal in the senate. Tentatively they have 60 votes for repeal.

Sev, I have never heard anyone say that. On what basis do you say it? The House got only 4 votes for repeal from the Dem side of the aisle. I would expect that had 14 Dem senators done what you say, this would have been headline news.

Still, don't ignore the possibilities that even a Dem that might vote on a final vote to repeal, might still be persuaded to oppose cloture, or even the first motion to proceed to debate, i.e., agree on preliminary parliamentary moves to quash proceeding on the debate.

Also don't forget it is the Senate Majority Leader Reid who is in charge of the agenda, and what comes up and doesn't ever come up.

Sev
02-01-2011, 06:48 AM
It was on the news last week.
23 democrat senators are up for reelection. 2 are retiring. 25 seats in play. Republicans only have to defend I believe 14.

Harry Reid may have to bend to the will of the house and pressure from the senate.

LWW
02-01-2011, 06:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now here is where it gets interesting. Thus far 14 democrats have signed on to repeal in the senate. Tentatively they have 60 votes for repeal.

Sev, I have never heard anyone say that. On what basis do you say it? The House got only 4 votes for repeal from the Dem side of the aisle. I would expect that had 14 Dem senators done what you say, this would have been headline news.

Still, don't ignore the possibilities that even a Dem that might vote on a final vote to repeal, might still be persuaded to oppose cloture, or even the first motion to proceed to debate, i.e., agree on preliminary parliamentary moves to quash proceeding on the debate.

Also don't forget it is the Senate Majority Leader Reid who is in charge of the agenda, and what comes up and doesn't ever come up. </div></div>

Just because it wasn't on PMSNBC and the Clinton New Network doesn't mean it isn't factual.

Might I suggest broadening your sources of information?

LWW

Sev
02-01-2011, 07:16 AM
Did anybody catch the clip where Obama said forcing people to buy homes to solve homelessness was ridiculous?

The government forcing a free people to engage in commerce does not resemble what our republic was founded on.

pooltchr
02-01-2011, 08:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
(Estimates are 45,000 persons a year die in this country from lack of adequate access to health care = insurance.)


</div></div>

I don't know of any case where the cause of death on a death certificate was listed as "no access to healthcare".

This number is some vague number dreamed up by some bean counter with too much education, and not enough common sense.

People die from injuries in car accidents. People die from falling off a ladder. People die from heart attacks. People die from cancer. People die from gun shots. In almost every case, they had access to healthcare. Doctors are not Gods, and they can not save every life.

If a homeless man who has no insurance gets run over by a bus, did he die because he didn't have healthcare, or because the bus was bigger than he was? (Guess which way he was counted by your bean counter)

Steve

LWW
02-01-2011, 09:32 AM
Excellent post.

LWW

Stretch
02-01-2011, 10:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now here is where it gets interesting. Thus far 14 democrats have signed on to repeal in the senate. Tentatively they have 60 votes for repeal.

Sev, I have never heard anyone say that. On what basis do you say it? The House got only 4 votes for repeal from the Dem side of the aisle. I would expect that had 14 Dem senators done what you say, this would have been headline news.

Still, don't ignore the possibilities that even a Dem that might vote on a final vote to repeal, might still be persuaded to oppose cloture, or even the first motion to proceed to debate, i.e., agree on preliminary parliamentary moves to quash proceeding on the debate.

Also don't forget it is the Senate Majority Leader Reid who is in charge of the agenda, and what comes up and doesn't ever come up. </div></div>

Excellent post. St.

Sev
02-01-2011, 11:09 AM
Also on another note.
This also may revise the role of the commerce clause. It could just cut the hands off of the thieves.

Chopstick
02-01-2011, 12:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(Estimates are 45,000 persons a year die in this country from lack of adequate access to health care = insurance.)

</div></div>

<span style="color: #000099">55,000 persons die each year because people drive like friggin idiots. Mandatory Drivers ED, better traffic management, and tougher traffic laws don't make sexy political headlines.</span>

eg8r
02-01-2011, 01:41 PM
Maybe I missed your answer because I did not see it in your response.

What do you think about the Government forcing people to buy healthcare?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-01-2011, 01:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was on the news last week.
23 democrat senators are up for reelection. 2 are retiring. 25 seats in play. Republicans only have to defend I believe 14.

Harry Reid may have to bend to the will of the house and pressure from the senate. </div></div>

Yes, the number of Dem seats in the Senate up this next cycle is indeed greater than the number of GOP seats.

Is the '14' you cite for the seats the GOP must defend the same as the '14' Dems you say have signed up for repealing this thing?

Which wouldn't make sense, of course, but you haven't really addressed my question at all, otherwise.

Look, there is interest on the left side as to this bill's fate, and that there are (supposedly) 14 Dem Senators signed onto agreeing to vote to repeal this, would be a key fact as to its near-term fate.

So, Sev and LWW, where is that claim sourced, anywhere?

Soflasnapper
02-01-2011, 01:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe I missed your answer because I did not see it in your response.

What do you think about the Government forcing people to buy healthcare?

eg8r </div></div>

I believe such a plan is legal, as in, Constitutional, but not the best way to proceed.

justnum
02-01-2011, 01:50 PM
In NYC they don't require people to buy anything. They just impose taxes on you until you can't afford to live here. Or they provide competition that can outspend you and then force you to leave. Or they place licenses and regulations on jobs that make acquiring one difficult unless you know someone in the administration, like the upcoming teacher cuts.

My interpretation of ObamaCare is that it will be optional, since repeal may prove challenging. The vision for what ObamaCare in terms of a working program hasn't been defined or tested. I imagine they will need a few decades to work out the fraud and potential over-billing errors. Right now they are collecting fees to put on a big show for the first operational year of Obamacare. After that it is all cuts and billing errors.

eg8r
02-01-2011, 01:51 PM
What part of the Constitution do you believe supports the Government forcing citizens to purchase health insurance from a third party?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-01-2011, 01:53 PM
Just because it wasn't on PMSNBC and the Clinton New Network doesn't mean it isn't factual.

Might I suggest broadening your sources of information?

May I suggest you enlighten me then?

I see most of the right's latest propaganda lie efforts by simply cruising Drudge's website daily. I prolly visit a half-dozen other politics-oriented compilation sites, many of which monitor and report on the right's latest, as well. And they look at exactly such things as headcounts on important votes, sponsor-numbers, who has said what, when, etc.

It's too big a story not to have made Drudge, and I therefore infer it wasn't ever a credible report (cause he'll even run with incredible reports).

Sev
02-01-2011, 02:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was on the news last week.
23 democrat senators are up for reelection. 2 are retiring. 25 seats in play. Republicans only have to defend I believe 14.

Harry Reid may have to bend to the will of the house and pressure from the senate. </div></div>

Yes, the number of Dem seats in the Senate up this next cycle is indeed greater than the number of GOP seats.

Is the '14' you cite for the seats the GOP must defend the same as the '14' Dems you say have signed up for repealing this thing?

Which wouldn't make sense, of course, but you haven't really addressed my question at all, otherwise.

Look, there is interest on the left side as to this bill's fate, and that there are (supposedly) 14 Dem Senators signed onto agreeing to vote to repeal this, would be a key fact as to its near-term fate.

So, Sev and LWW, where is that claim sourced, anywhere? </div></div>

I believe it was on FOX. One of the republican senators was stating that 14 dems were possibly open to signing on to repeal.
Its possible I misheard. However I was pretty sure that is what was said.

Sev
02-01-2011, 02:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe I missed your answer because I did not see it in your response.

What do you think about the Government forcing people to buy healthcare?

eg8r </div></div>

I believe such a plan is legal, as in, Constitutional, but not the best way to proceed. </div></div>

Do you believe the federal government can mandate that every American has to buy and carry a gun?

Sev
02-01-2011, 02:37 PM
Also keep in mind the does not allow the implementation while under appeal.
Which means that if a stay is not granted Obamacare is void until such a time as the SCOTUS takes it up.

Gayle in MD
02-01-2011, 02:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now here is where it gets interesting. Thus far 14 democrats have signed on to repeal in the senate. Tentatively they have 60 votes for repeal.

Sev, I have never heard anyone say that. On what basis do you say it? The House got only 4 votes for repeal from the Dem side of the aisle. I would expect that had 14 Dem senators done what you say, this would have been headline news.

Still, don't ignore the possibilities that even a Dem that might vote on a final vote to repeal, might still be persuaded to oppose cloture, or even the first motion to proceed to debate, i.e., agree on preliminary parliamentary moves to quash proceeding on the debate.

Also don't forget it is the Senate Majority Leader Reid who is in charge of the agenda, and what comes up and doesn't ever come up. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thus far 14 democrats have signed on to repeal in the senate. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Sev, I have never heard anyone say that.</div></div>


<span style='font-size: 11pt'> That's because it isn't true. Just another lie from yet another misinformed rightie.

Just as it isn't true that there are any fines, on people, who don't get Health Insurance. Another RW myth.

These lies are repeated, over and over again, by RW pundits, and their followers, who swallow them up, like the perpetually shovel ready, myth hungry, sheep that they are.

Bah Bah Bah....


Typical....</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
02-01-2011, 03:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also keep in mind the does not allow the implementation while under appeal.
Which means that if a stay is not granted Obamacare is void until such a time as the SCOTUS takes it up. </div></div>

Interesting. So would the government continue to collect the associated fees with the plan (as they are planning between now and 2013) while the appeals process is completed? That would certainly allow the dems to claim that obamacare actually didn't cost as much as projected.

Steve

Soflasnapper
02-01-2011, 03:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was on the news last week.
23 democrat senators are up for reelection. 2 are retiring. 25 seats in play. Republicans only have to defend I believe 14.

Harry Reid may have to bend to the will of the house and pressure from the senate. </div></div>

Yes, the number of Dem seats in the Senate up this next cycle is indeed greater than the number of GOP seats.

Is the '14' you cite for the seats the GOP must defend the same as the '14' Dems you say have signed up for repealing this thing?

Which wouldn't make sense, of course, but you haven't really addressed my question at all, otherwise.

Look, there is interest on the left side as to this bill's fate, and that there are (supposedly) 14 Dem Senators signed onto agreeing to vote to repeal this, would be a key fact as to its near-term fate.

So, Sev and LWW, where is that claim sourced, anywhere? </div></div>

I believe it was on FOX. One of the republican senators was stating that 14 dems were possibly open to signing on to repeal.
Its possible I misheard. However I was pretty sure that is what was said. </div></div>

Mystery solved.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In addition to the full repeal amendment, a separate amendment sponsored by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) that would repeal the unpopular 1099 provision of the health-care law is also on the table this week. Reid said that the Senate would likely move to that measure "very quickly."

As of late last week, a similar measure sponsored by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) had garnered the support of more than 60 senators, including 45 Republicans and 15 Democrats. </div></div>

So, that claim is true as to the Dem supporters of repealing the 1099 reporting part of the bill, which does NOT repeal the whole bill, and rather leaves the rest of it in place.

Depending upon how that was characterized where you heard it, it may have been factual, and true, or factual but mischaracterized by that source to mean something it didn't mean.

Soflasnapper
02-01-2011, 03:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What part of the Constitution do you believe supports the Government forcing citizens to purchase health insurance from a third party?

eg8r </div></div>

The commerce clause (as it's been interpreted over centuries), the general welfare clause, and the necessary and proper clause.

NOT having these people pay into the system makes everyone else pay on average $1,000 EXTRA to pay for them.

And yes, prolly the government COULD require everyone to buy a gun, if that can be worked into the above framework (I don't know how that argument would go, but it's possible.)

Sev
02-01-2011, 05:57 PM
To bad that amendment was not added to the healthcare bill when it was being pushed through.

Could you imagine the fur flying over that???

Sev
02-01-2011, 05:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was on the news last week.
23 democrat senators are up for reelection. 2 are retiring. 25 seats in play. Republicans only have to defend I believe 14.

Harry Reid may have to bend to the will of the house and pressure from the senate. </div></div>

Yes, the number of Dem seats in the Senate up this next cycle is indeed greater than the number of GOP seats.

Is the '14' you cite for the seats the GOP must defend the same as the '14' Dems you say have signed up for repealing this thing?

Which wouldn't make sense, of course, but you haven't really addressed my question at all, otherwise.

Look, there is interest on the left side as to this bill's fate, and that there are (supposedly) 14 Dem Senators signed onto agreeing to vote to repeal this, would be a key fact as to its near-term fate.

So, Sev and LWW, where is that claim sourced, anywhere? </div></div>

I believe it was on FOX. One of the republican senators was stating that 14 dems were possibly open to signing on to repeal.
Its possible I misheard. However I was pretty sure that is what was said. </div></div>

Mystery solved.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In addition to the full repeal amendment, a separate amendment sponsored by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) that would repeal the unpopular 1099 provision of the health-care law is also on the table this week. Reid said that the Senate would likely move to that measure "very quickly."

As of late last week, a similar measure sponsored by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) had garnered the support of more than 60 senators, including 45 Republicans and 15 Democrats. </div></div>

So, that claim is true as to the Dem supporters of repealing the 1099 reporting part of the bill, which does NOT repeal the whole bill, and rather leaves the rest of it in place.

Depending upon how that was characterized where you heard it, it may have been factual, and true, or factual but mischaracterized by that source to mean something it didn't mean. </div></div>

That is a distinct possibility.

eg8r
02-01-2011, 06:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NOT having these people pay into the system makes everyone else pay on average $1,000 EXTRA to pay for them.
</div></div>You are implying the costs will not go up (even though they have to if for administrative costs alone) and the additional payers will help share the burden. We both know this is not the case and as you have pointed out in other posts you ignored competition in the marketplace so why now do you think prices would drop? There would be no real reason for prices to drop since the government is forcing you to pay whatever rate is out there.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And yes, prolly the government COULD require everyone to buy a gun, if that can be worked into the above framework (I don't know how that argument would go, but it's possible.) </div></div>I would never find it constitutional for the Government to require citizens to buy guns any more than health care. The reasons you gave in the beginning don't even come close.

What other examples do we have of the federal government forcing citizens to buy something?

eg8r

Sev
02-01-2011, 06:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also keep in mind the does not allow the implementation while under appeal.
Which means that if a stay is not granted Obamacare is void until such a time as the SCOTUS takes it up. </div></div>

Interesting. So would the government continue to collect the associated fees with the plan (as they are planning between now and 2013) while the appeals process is completed? That would certainly allow the dems to claim that obamacare actually didn't cost as much as projected.

Steve </div></div>

The state attorney generals can call the administration out on the that and the courts could find the administration in contempt.

That would look good on the news.

Soflasnapper
02-01-2011, 06:09 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">NOT having these people pay into the system makes everyone else pay on average $1,000 EXTRA to pay for them.
</div></div>You are implying the costs will not go up (even though they have to if for administrative costs alone) and the additional payers will help share the burden. We both know this is not the case and as you have pointed out in other posts you ignored competition in the marketplace so why now do you think prices would drop? There would be no real reason for prices to drop since the government is forcing you to pay whatever rate is out there.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And yes, prolly the government COULD require everyone to buy a gun, if that can be worked into the above framework (I don't know how that argument would go, but it's possible.) </div></div>I would never find it constitutional for the Government to require citizens to buy guns any more than health care. The reasons you gave in the beginning don't even come close.

What other examples do we have of the federal government forcing citizens to buy something?

eg8r </div></div>

Assuming you are employed or an employer, you are forced to pay (or match the payment of) 7.65% out of your wages to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S retirement check, Medicare reimbursements, survivor's benefit, and disability. Which services don't even go to the work age cohort, but (mainly) seniors.

If they can force us all to do THAT, and apparently they can, forcing us to buy insurance for ourselves seems far less far afield.

LWW
02-02-2011, 03:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Assuming you are employed or an employer, you are forced to pay (or match the payment of) 7.65% out of your wages to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S retirement check, Medicare reimbursements, survivor's benefit, and disability. Which services don't even go to the work age cohort, but (mainly) seniors.

If they can force us all to do THAT, and apparently they can, forcing us to buy insurance for ourselves seems far less far afield. </div></div>

And you expose the Ponzi scheme you deny while attempting to send up a false flag argument in defense of the regime:

1 - SS is a tax and it guarantees you nothing. The SCOTUS has ruled twice you are not entitled to a pension check ... you receive it as a benevolent gesture by the state.

2 - Nobody is forced to participate in SS, we can all not work if we so choose.

3 - OBAMACARE was sold as not being a tax, and the premiums do not go to the state ... yet.

But it is your last sentence that sends chills up my spine ... "If they can force us all to do THAT, and apparently they can, forcing us to buy insurance for ourselves seems far less far afield."

Why are you so willing to accept tyranny from the state ... or, as is my guess, why do you welcome and embrace said tyranny with open arms?

LWW

eg8r
02-02-2011, 08:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Assuming you are employed or an employer, you are forced to pay (or match the payment of) 7.65% out of your wages to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S retirement check, Medicare reimbursements, survivor's benefit, and disability. Which services don't even go to the work age cohort, but (mainly) seniors.
</div></div>That isn't the line of BS our politicians told us. They say I am putting that money in so that it will be available when I retire and need it.

Did you have any examples of the government forcing citizens to buy any third party goods?

eg8r

Sev
02-02-2011, 08:49 AM
Its interesting how people seem to struggle with the difference between a tax and a fine.

Soflasnapper
02-02-2011, 11:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And you expose the Ponzi scheme you deny while attempting to send up a false flag argument in defense of the regime:

1 - SS is a tax and it guarantees you nothing. The SCOTUS has ruled twice you are not entitled to a pension check ... you receive it as a benevolent gesture by the state.

2 - Nobody is forced to participate in SS, we can all not work if we so choose.

3 - OBAMACARE was sold as not being a tax, and the premiums do not go to the state ... yet.

But it is your last sentence that sends chills up my spine ... "If they can force us all to do THAT, and apparently they can, forcing us to buy insurance for ourselves seems far less far afield."

Why are you so willing to accept tyranny from the state ... or, as is my guess, why do you welcome and embrace said tyranny with open arms?

LWW </div></div>

Much of that is incorrect, or needs clarification.

1 - SS is a tax and it guarantees you nothing. The SCOTUS has ruled twice you are not entitled to a pension check ... you receive it as a benevolent gesture by the state.

Not really. You receive a check because it is the (current) law. Depriving you of that check can only be done by due process of law. Could they CHANGE that law by passing something else, either a repeal or some change in formula? Yes, but that is what it would take to alter the payout in any fashion, let alone repealing the program checks altogether.

2 - Nobody is forced to participate in SS, we can all not work if we so choose.

If that is barely true, which it is maybe, it's stretching the bounds of reality to claim it is so in any meaningful way.

3 - OBAMACARE was sold as not being a tax, and the premiums do not go to the state ... yet.

What about the fines? (Those do go to the Treasury, as enforced via the IRS tax mechanism.)

Taxing and fining people is a kind of tyranny, in that taken to an extreme, it can destroy personal wealth and freedoms. ("The power to tax is the power to destroy," is a famous quote from Chief Justice John Marshall.) However, in our system, so long as these things are imposed via the representative democracy our republic is based upon, within lawful limits, it is not considered tyranny. (The saying is, 'taxation without representation is tyranny.')

For instance, the federal government essentially imposed the restriction in our ability in our states to drive over 65 mph, via holding the highway funding hostage to a state's agreeing to the limit. This is a backdoor imposition of something the federal government has no power to impose, via a money trick. The same kind of thing is how they essentially outlawed marijuana or hemp, by imposing a ruinous $1,000 a pound tax back in the '20s.

Sev
02-02-2011, 11:57 AM
Much like Obama is doing right now with Czars and imposing regulation rather than bringing forth legislation.

Soflasnapper
02-02-2011, 12:06 PM
Government by regulation, by the regulatory bodies given these powers by legislation, is very common, and probably necessary.

Would we really want all drug approvals or withdrawals from the market to be individually done as legislation before the Congress? Isn't it better to have the FDA do it (if it weren't the target of regulatory capture by the industry, I mean).

Mostly the czar criticism is off base. When those people aren't subject to Senate approval, they do not have serious power, and only act as point persons to coordinate efforts that go across agencies and cabinet level departments. When they do have serious power, they go through Senate approval.

Sev
02-02-2011, 02:05 PM
There is a difference between regulation done for the general good and regulation enacted to push an unpopular agenda.

JohnnyD
02-02-2011, 02:12 PM
The truth must be told.

LWW
02-02-2011, 03:29 PM
So I'm wrong because I'm right?

LWW

LWW
02-02-2011, 03:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Much of that is incorrect, or needs clarification.

1 - SS is a tax and it guarantees you nothing. The SCOTUS has ruled twice you are not entitled to a pension check ... you receive it as a benevolent gesture by the state.

Not really. </div></div>

Yes, really. From the SCOTUS HELVERING VS DAVIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis) :

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>"The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way"</span> </div></div>

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 07:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Much of that is incorrect, or needs clarification.

1 - SS is a tax and it guarantees you nothing. The SCOTUS has ruled twice you are not entitled to a pension check ... you receive it as a benevolent gesture by the state.

Not really. </div></div>

Yes, really. From the SCOTUS HELVERING VS DAVIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis) :

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>"The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way"</span> </div></div>

LWW </div></div>

By law, the current payment schedule for SS recipients is due and must be paid. Yes, they COULD change the law and change a lot of these arrangements. But they'd have to pass a law that repeals or amends the current law. (what do you think 'entitlement' means, exactly?)

JohnnyD
02-04-2011, 10:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Much of that is incorrect, or needs clarification.

1 - SS is a tax and it guarantees you nothing. The SCOTUS has ruled twice you are not entitled to a pension check ... you receive it as a benevolent gesture by the state.

Not really. </div></div>

Yes, really. From the SCOTUS HELVERING VS DAVIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis) :

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>"The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way"</span> </div></div>

LWW </div></div>

By law, the current payment schedule for SS recipients is due and must be paid. Yes, they COULD change the law and change a lot of these arrangements. But they'd have to pass a law that repeals or amends the current law. (what do you think 'entitlement' means, exactly?) </div></div> A great post.The truth has been told,now we all need to ponder how it will affect our future.The truth will set the future.The truth will set us free.

LWW
02-05-2011, 04:47 AM
From the SCOTUS Flemming v. Nestor decision in 1960:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right" </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor)

LWW

Sev
02-05-2011, 07:51 AM
More simultaneous combustion!!!!

LWW
02-05-2011, 11:45 AM
Truth often does that to leftists.

LWW