PDA

View Full Version : AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE NOT STRUCK DOWN



Gayle in MD
02-01-2011, 10:27 AM
Two Federal judges have approved, and two, REPUBLICAN ACTIVIST JUDGES, have RULED AGAINST, our AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT.

It has NOT been "STRUCK DOWN."

Stays and Appeals, have been filed.

The Supreme Court, will make the final judgement.

The REPUBLICAN POLICY, of a "Mandate" was included, because REPUBLICANS originally stated they would not vote for a PUBLIC OPTION, which would have quickly ended what amounts to a current tax, for all responsible citizens, those who pay for insurance, and for their own healolth costs, who have been absorbing the costs for the irresponsible, the poor, and the huge illegal population, who either cannot, or will not, purchase health Insurance, and then, when they are hurt or ill, get the most costly, expensive care, in Hospital Emergency Rooms, across this country.


This phenomenon, of course, is a major cause of higher, unsustainable rising health Care costs, and health insurance costs, which negatively impact our TAX PAYING, HARD WORKING, citizens, AND our econoomy, adding to the number of foreclosures.

Unsustainable, quickly rising costs, are causing huge numbers of foreclosures, and contributing to what amounts to a National DISASTER OF RISING, UNSUSTAINABLE HEALTH CARE AND INSURANCE COSTS WHICH REPRESENT AN ECONOMIC THREAT FOR FAMILES ACROSS THIS NATION.

This could have been avoided, if Republicans, who pretend to represent the struggling, had agreed to act responsibly and in a bi-partisan effort, to solve our growing health care crises, instead of maintaing the supreme goal, of unseating a democratic President, and agreed to simply expand medicare, which would have created lower costs, through more competition for the multi billionaire CEO's who offer health insurance, and health care, for profit, ONLY, dumping the ill when they need their care and insurance coverage, the most...

Once again, REpublicans have shown that their only concern, is for political gain, and to redistribute MORE wealth to the top, tax cuts for the rich, on the backs of the Middle Class, regardless of the FACT, that the majority of Americans, approve of the Affordable Health care Ace, or want it strengthened.

Whether there is a "Strike Down" of the Affordable Health Care Act, remains to be seen.

It cannot be "Struck Down" by any court, other than the Supreme Court, only ruled upon, by various judges.

If it is struck down, by the RW Activist S.C., millions of people will lose their coverage.

The costs for repealing it, would be in the billions, adding to the deficit.

G.

Sev
02-01-2011, 11:01 AM
Its going to the trash heap of unconstitutional laws.

Any bets on the 5-4 decision!!

LWW
02-01-2011, 11:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two Federal judges have approved, and two, REPUBLICAN ACTIVIST JUDGES, have RULED AGAINST, our AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT.

It has NOT been "STRUCK DOWN." <span style="color: #3366FF">That's funny.</span>

Stays and Appeals, have been filed. <span style="color: #3366FF">What are they appealing if nothing was struck down?</span>

The Supreme Court, will make the final judgement. <span style="color: #3366FF">This is true.</span>

The REPUBLICAN POLICY, of a "Mandate" was included <span style="color: #3366FF">So it was the R's fault?</span> because REPUBLICANS originally stated they would not vote for a PUBLIC OPTION, which would have quickly ended what amounts to a current tax, for all responsible citizens, those who pay for insurance, and for their own healolth costs, who have been absorbing the costs for the irresponsible, the poor, and the huge illegal population <span style="color: #3366FF">I thought you claimed illegals weren't covered?</span>, who either cannot, or will not, purchase health Insurance, and then, when they are hurt or ill, get the most costly, expensive care, in Hospital Emergency Rooms, across this country.


This phenomenon, of course, is a major cause of higher, unsustainable rising health Care costs, and health insurance costs, which negatively impact our TAX PAYING, HARD WORKING, citizens, AND our econoomy, adding to the number of foreclosures.

Unsustainable, quickly rising costs, are causing huge numbers of foreclosures, and contributing to what amounts to a National DISASTER OF RISING, UNSUSTAINABLE HEALTH CARE AND INSURANCE COSTS WHICH REPRESENT AN ECONOMIC THREAT FOR FAMILES ACROSS THIS NATION.

This could have been avoided, if Republicans, who pretend to represent the struggling, had agreed to act responsibly and in a bi-partisan effort, to solve our growing health care crises <span style="color: #3366FF">Didn't you just say it was their idea ... now it's their fault for not contributing anything?</span>, instead of maintaing the supreme goal, of unseating a democratic President <span style="color: #3366FF">God bless them.</span>, and agreed to simply expand medicare <span style="color: #3366FF">Medicare is broke.</span>, which would have created lower costs <span style="color: #3366FF">Then why hasn't it done that ... after 45 years?</span>, through more competition for the multi billionaire CEO's who offer health insurance, and health care, for profit, ONLY <span style="color: #3366FF">If insurance companies are the problem, how can requiring people to buy insurance from them be the solution?</span>, dumping the ill when they need their care and insurance coverage, the most...

Once again, REpublicans have shown that their only concern, is for political gain, and to redistribute MORE wealth to the top, tax cuts for the rich, on the backs of the Middle Class, regardless of the FACT, that the majority of Americans, approve of the Affordable Health care Ace <span style="color: #3366FF">What's a "HEALTH CARE ACE" ... do you mean like Ben Casey?</span>, or want it strengthened.

Whether there is a "Strike Down" of the Affordable Health Care Act, remains to be seen.

It cannot be "Struck Down" by any court, other than the Supreme Court, only ruled upon, by various judges.

If it is struck down, by the RW Activist S.C. <span style="color: #3366FF">If they didn't strike it down, would you still call them right wing activists?</span>, millions of people will lose their coverage.

The costs for repealing it, would be in the billions, adding to the deficit <span style="color: #3366FF">Balderdash and poppycock!</span>.

G. </div></div>

You are aware that other people can read your posts ... aren't you?

LWW

Sev
02-01-2011, 11:11 AM
Lets not forget there is not severability clause on the bill.

Youuuuuuuuuuur out!!!!!

Sev
02-01-2011, 11:16 AM
Which state will be first the to have its attorney general to file a brief to have the administration in contempt??

Sev
02-01-2011, 11:23 AM
If the administration requests a stay that means they are acknowledging the ruling and have to present an argument for the stay.

pooltchr
02-01-2011, 11:33 AM
I'm wondering where she found that article. It's obviously not her own writing. (no mention of Bush, no name calling, and limited to a single topic.) Since there is no link, I can only assume she wanted to protect the source.

Steve

Sev
02-01-2011, 11:43 AM
The ruling of the day is that the law is unconstitutional. As ruling was phrased the law can not now be instituted.

Now we have to see what a higher court rules. If a stay is refused will the administration want it fast tracked to the SCOTUS to get a ruling prior to 2012.

I think not.

LWW
02-01-2011, 05:01 PM
Excellent post.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 08:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lets not forget there is not severability clause on the bill.

Youuuuuuuuuuur out!!!!! </div></div>

There wasn't one in that bill when the OTHER federal judge ruled the mandate unConstitutional, but THAT judge acted with due deference to the legislative process, and ONLY threw out the mandate, keeping the rest of the bill.

This law stuff gets confusing, right?

Sev
02-04-2011, 09:51 PM
The bill should have had the severability clause. It was left out on purpose because the individual mandate is the linchpin of the law. Remove that and the rest fall apart.

They rolled the dice on this legislation gambling it would not be repealed or found unconstitutional. However I believe they miscalculated in what the public reaction was going to be at the polls.

With this ruling if it is not fast tracked to the SCOTUS states can drag their feet so that they are not ready for its implementation in 2014. Also states are now engaged in passing laws and or state amendments barring the implementation of Obamacare in their respective states.
There are 27 states currently suing against Obamacare with possibly more moving against it legislatively. It does not put the administration in a favorable position.

The individual mandate may not be the biggest problem but rather the economic burden it puts on the individual states.

JohnnyD
02-04-2011, 10:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The bill should have had the severability clause. It was left out on purpose because the individual mandate is the linchpin of the law. Remove that and the rest fall apart.

They rolled the dice on this legislation gambling it would not be repealed or found unconstitutional. However I believe they miscalculated in what the public reaction was going to be at the polls.

With this ruling if it is not fast tracked to the SCOTUS states can drag their feet so that they are not ready for its implementation in 2014. Also states are now engaged in passing laws and or state amendments barring the implementation of Obamacare in their respective states.
There are 27 states currently suing against Obamacare with possibly more moving against it legislatively. It does not put the administration in a favorable position.

The individual mandate may not be the biggest problem but rather the economic burden it puts on the individual states. </div></div> Excellent post.Thank you Mr.Sev.

LWW
02-05-2011, 04:42 AM
<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">Lets not forget there is not severability clause on the bill.

Youuuuuuuuuuur out!!!!! </div></div>

There wasn't one in that bill when the OTHER federal judge ruled the mandate unConstitutional, but THAT judge acted with due deference to the legislative process, and ONLY threw out the mandate, keeping the rest of the bill.

This law stuff gets confusing, right? </div></div>

Which is now entirely irrelevant.

LWW

Qtec
02-05-2011, 04:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the individual mandate is the linchpin of the law. </div></div>

Who put it there?

Q

LWW
02-05-2011, 05:02 AM
The democrooks in congress.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-05-2011, 11:09 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">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the individual mandate is the linchpin of the law. </div></div>

Who put it there?

Q </div></div>

As I'm sure you know, the mandate was a REPUBLICAN policy, put forward during Hillary's efforts for health care reform.

Now, because the Reublicans will do ANYTHING to win back the W.H., and the Senate, they revert back to their usual poor loser M.O., which is to obstruct any and all progress, spread around as much slander and fear mongering as they can, and deny all statistics which prove them wrong, even if that course of action damages the country.

That includes, obviously, voting against their own policies, in a block, when they think it will aid them in continuing to lie and twist the truth, for political purposes, regardless of the critical need to address unsustainable health Care costs, and unprofessional H.C. Insurance scams against the public, a lynchpin of economic strife.

Their policies, their last congress, and Republican Administration, failed to address ANY of our domestic problems, but instead, allowed all of them to rise to critical levels, negatively impacting our entire economy, as they grew the government, crashed the economy, and borrowed us into the weakened state which we were in when we had to face the Bush Pending Depression...yet another critical domestic problem, which they created, neglected, and left for Democratics, and President Obama, to solve.

There exists, currently, a MANDATE, put forth by a REPuBLICAN GOVERNOR. I don't recall Fox Noise, nor any other RW pundit, screaming that it was Unconstitutional when Romney, launched it in his state.

There are a range of MANDATES in our history...none of which have been ruled, Unconstitutional.

The right, is hitching their attack against Health Care Reform, IOW, progress, on garbled, disjointed Hubris, as usual. Numerous bi-partisan commitees, months upon months of time for them to review various parts of the Bill, and well over a hundred of their amendments, included, yet they all voted no.

Every statement they have made about the AHCA, to block progress on Health Care Reform, has been a lie, repeated, over and over.

REPIGLICANS' only goal, is to protect corrupt corporate CEO's, who have failed to cover the ill, dropped their coverage, right when they needed it the most, and suff their pockets, at the overall expense of the nation

Hilarious, that once again, the right supports the REPIGLICAN LIES, cutting their own throats, when in reaity, they have chosen to maintain for themselves, the TAX, they are currently paying to cover health care costs, for those who are either here illegally, or are too poor, too ill, or too cheap, to be able to buy for themselves, some of whom cannot purchase it because the corrupt health Insurance Industry, refuses to cover them.

I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN! For very good reasons.


G.

LWW
02-05-2011, 11:55 AM
There actually is some truth to that.

Although this wasn't an idea inserted by the R's in this go round ... there are plenty of R's who supported it when Dole suggested it but don't now.

At the same time ... Hillary opposed it when Dole proposed it, and then proposed it herself only to find it opposed by Obama who then embraced it.

One of the key differences between Gee and I is that I can see the Bravo Sierra in both sides, and she can't.

And, FWIW, I opposed it when Dole proposed it as well.

LWW