Obamacare Unconstitutional.......

[The Mikado]

Yes...but I never met an anti-420 libertarian

420 John Galt everyday

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The Internet Is A Very Serious Business.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

This is a victory for those who love freedom

Oh good God. Someone could write a little computer program that generates random pseudo-libertarian nonsense and spews it into a post every now and again and I think we'd have a note perfect imitation of your posting history.

I just love our on-site libertarians. All have obviously regular and comfortable internet access, which implies they're not poor. So why would they care about those in less fortunate life situation?

Are you saying that libertarians don't care about the poor? There are libertarians at all socio-economic levels. The rank and file of us in the Tea Party at least here where I am at are lower middle and working class. 

[Sbane]

Never has there been a more shameless or craven power grab by a partisan, unelected judiciary to overturn the results of the democratic process because they could not get their way playing by the rules. During the health care debate we heard from the GOP that it was a bad bill, not that it was unconstitutional. If they believed the latter, the entire matter should have been mooted to start with. Instead, they tried to play the legislative game and lost; so now they're turning to the Courts.

Isn't the individual mandate a Republican idea? These guys are so full of it......

[Skill and Chance]

I wouldn't read too much into this politically.  The National Industrial Recovery Act was struck down by the Surpeme Court in 1935 and that certainly didn't make FDR a lame duck in 1936.  If anything, it probably helped him win re-election, by positioning himself as the last, best advocate for the forsaken classes.  Clinton also skated past the rulings against the Brady Act.  

In short, conservative activists really are playing with fire here.  A SCOTUS ruling striking down the individual mandate could be the coup of the century for small government advocates and spell decades of political trouble for the left.  But it could just as easily become the next Roe v. Wade, with the sides reversed, especially if the Supreme Court strikes down the entire law.  Only this time, the impact on human lives would be much less abstract.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Never has there been a more shameless or craven power grab by a partisan, unelected judiciary to overturn the results of the democratic process because they could not get their way playing by the rules. During the health care debate we heard from the GOP that it was a bad bill, not that it was unconstitutional. If they believed the latter, the entire matter should have been mooted to start with. Instead, they tried to play the legislative game and lost; so now they're turning to the Courts.

Isn't the individual mandate a Republican idea? These guys are so full of it......

Quite honestly, I've never seen the fuss over the individual mandate (other than the fact that it legitimately is probably unconstitutional)... but if you're not going to have an individual mandate, you have to allow hospitals to turn away people without insurance... even to emergency rooms.

[seanobr]

Never has there been a more shameless or craven power grab by a partisan, unelected judiciary to overturn the results of the democratic process because they could not get their way playing by the rules. During the health care debate we heard from the GOP that it was a bad bill, not that it was unconstitutional. If they believed the latter, the entire matter should have been mooted to start with. Instead, they tried to play the legislative game and lost; so now they're turning to the Courts.

Isn't the individual mandate a Republican idea? These guys are so full of it......

I have been excoriated for pointing out that, in fact, the individual mandate and much of Obama's health insurance legislation actually has its origin in Republican proposals circulating during the early Clinton administration, to say nothing of Nixon's far more progressive measure that might have been enacted without Senator Kennedy's opposition.  It is hardly the testament to radical liberalism that some want to portray it as, and there is no question that such polarizing rhetoric has irrevocably tainted the debate over it, but some type of decision at the Supreme Court to settle the argument was inevitable.  I do recall a post-revolutionary Militia Act being submitted as evidence last year that the government can regulate economic inactivity, requiring a private citizen to procure a specific item or service, but it may not be pertinent.

I wouldn't consider myself a supporter of the individual mandate, per se.  But I think this situation is fraught with danger, because an impartial observer will recognize that we have a glaring problem on the horizon: 80 million people on Medicare at the height of the program in 2030, to say nothing of the Medicaid question and those currently without insurance.  I've often taken the unraveling of Medicare as inevitable and unavoidable, and with health care inflation continuing unabated, I expect a large portion of those impacted to have difficulty obtaining insurance comparable with what they are presently eligible for.  Let us entertain the thought that my party -- and I -- have our way and the legislation and individual mandate are ruled unconstitutional in a sweeping judgment.  What type of legal constraints will be enforced on any future effort at health care reform? 

It's not partisan to concede that we are severely deficient in health care accessibility and cost.  Some concerted attempt to mitigate these failings would have to be undertaken eventually.  What if the only plausible alternative left after the Supreme Court's ruling is Medicare for all, a close approximation of European health care?  The suffering of America's population -- with a significant percentage possessing inconsistent insurance coverage or none at all -- will eventually overpower ideological intransigence, and we would be forced to embrace such an outcome.  What I am trying to caution against is that, for those of us who should be celebrating this Florida judgment, we may have yet been far too clever in our handling of this issue.  We do not want to eliminate the opportunity for moderate or incremental reform to be implemented, and I refuse to put anything past the Supreme Court.

[WillK]

... A law flatly denying service to those who can't pay contradicts the already-existing federal law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which forces providers to offer treatment to people whose lives are in imminent danger or who are in active labor.  

I'm not saying that there be a law denying service; rather repeal EMTALA so there is no federal mandate to provide service.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the current Health Care Law is unConstitutional, is EMTALA even Constitutional?   And why have these exceptions if the point is to eliminate cost shifting?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why would it have to have this feature?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But if the legal hurdle is Constitutionality, does our moral sense matter?

[Silent Hunter]

2-2 isn't a definitive loss; SCOTUS could go either way.

However, even I've got trouble with the individual mandate. Hopefully that's the only thing that gets struck down because otherwise Obama has nothing to show for his efforts and there's no way he'll get it through again.

[Franzl]

2-2 isn't a definitive loss; SCOTUS could go either way.

However, even I've got trouble with the individual mandate. Hopefully that's the only thing that gets struck down because otherwise Obama has nothing to show for his efforts and there's no way he'll get it through again.

Why do people not seem to understand what happens with ObamaCare without a mandate?

[Person Man]

2-2 isn't a definitive loss; SCOTUS could go either way.

However, even I've got trouble with the individual mandate. Hopefully that's the only thing that gets struck down because otherwise Obama has nothing to show for his efforts and there's no way he'll get it through again.

Yup.

Never has there been a more shameless or craven power grab by a partisan, unelected judiciary to overturn the results of the democratic process because they could not get their way playing by the rules. During the health care debate we heard from the GOP that it was a bad bill, not that it was unconstitutional. If they believed the latter, the entire matter should have been mooted to start with. Instead, they tried to play the legislative game and lost; so now they're turning to the Courts.

Isn't the individual mandate a Republican idea? These guys are so full of it......

I have been excoriated for pointing out that, in fact, the individual mandate and much of Obama's health insurance legislation actually has its origin in Republican proposals circulating during the early Clinton administration, to say nothing of Nixon's far more progressive measure that might have been enacted without Senator Kennedy's opposition.  It is hardly the testament to radical liberalism that some want to portray it as, and there is no question that such polarizing rhetoric has irrevocably tainted the debate over it, but some type of decision at the Supreme Court to settle the argument was inevitable.  I do recall a post-revolutionary Militia Act being submitted as evidence last year that the government can regulate economic inactivity, requiring a private citizen to procure a specific item or service, but it may not be pertinent.

I wouldn't consider myself a supporter of the individual mandate, per se.  But I think this situation is fraught with danger, because an impartial observer will recognize that we have a glaring problem on the horizon: 80 million people on Medicare at the height of the program in 2030, to say nothing of the Medicaid question and those currently without insurance.  I've often taken the unraveling of Medicare as inevitable and unavoidable, and with health care inflation continuing unabated, I expect a large portion of those impacted to have difficulty obtaining insurance comparable with what they are presently eligible for.  Let us entertain the thought that my party -- and I -- have our way and the legislation and individual mandate are ruled unconstitutional in a sweeping judgment.  What type of legal constraints will be enforced on any future effort at health care reform? 

It's not partisan to concede that we are severely deficient in health care accessibility and cost.  Some concerted attempt to mitigate these failings would have to be undertaken eventually.  What if the only plausible alternative left after the Supreme Court's ruling is Medicare for all, a close approximation of European health care?  The suffering of America's population -- with a significant percentage possessing inconsistent insurance coverage or none at all -- will eventually overpower ideological intransigence, and we would be forced to embrace such an outcome.  What I am trying to caution against is that, for those of us who should be celebrating this Florida judgment, we may have yet been far too clever in our handling of this issue.  We do not want to eliminate the opportunity for moderate or incremental reform to be implemented, and I refuse to put anything past the Supreme Court.

So, by the 2020s, if the Affordable Health Care for Americans Act of 2010 is ruled unconstitutional, the question then becomes whether ot not we mush have either a totally private or totally public health care system. Do we accept single payer or do we simply learn to live without credit or medical treatment?

[Silent Hunter]

2-2 isn't a definitive loss; SCOTUS could go either way.

However, even I've got trouble with the individual mandate. Hopefully that's the only thing that gets struck down because otherwise Obama has nothing to show for his efforts and there's no way he'll get it through again.

Why do people not seem to understand what happens with ObamaCare without a mandate?

I understand, but there's other good bits in there, like the stuff on pre-existing conditions.

[anvi]

I know that the law invokes Commerce Clause authority for penalizing non-exempt individuals for failing to have coverage, so the constitutional challenge attempts to undermine that claim to authority.  But, even so, the unfortunate, even pathetic, thing about the version of the "mandate" in the current law is that it doesn't even need a unconstitutionality charge to undermine it, because it undermines itself.

From Section 1501 of PPACA (from page 336 of linked pdf):

(2) SPECIAL RULES Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.-- In the case of any fallure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.-- The Secratry shall not--
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by means of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or,
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

http://hdhpexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HR%203590%20Full.pdf

In other words, the law permits non-exempted individuals to choose between buying health insurance and paying a penalty, but at the same time it doesn't even enable the IRS to collect the penalty if it's not paid!  The way the "mandate" (a toothless requirement) was crafted in the final law qualifies for a starring role in the theatre of the absurd.  I suspect this portion of section 1501 was written into the bill in the 11th hour of Senate debate, which was the first time the unconstitutionality charge was leveled.  To the Senators who wrote the above section of the "mandate": "boo...hiss...go back to school!" 

The court record on the constitutionality of the mandate is 2-2 when the case has been heard; I think 12 other courts have thrown out the challenge.

By the way, the "mandate" here and the ban on insurance companies denying people for pre-existing conditions go hand-in-hand.  Without a mandate, or something that effectively functions like a mandate, it's not possible, either in a for-profit or non-profit system, to finance the coverage of people who have pre-existing conditions but wait till they find out about them to sign up for coverage.   I agree with the need for something that functions like a mandate, and even think it could pass constitutional muster.  But the authors of the law's language above screwed it up.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The "score" isn't 2-2, it's 14-2. There were at least 12 other cases where the judge dismissed the anti-HCR lawsuits out of hand as frivolous.

Of course the media don't report that fact because then the "game" would be much less exciting.

[Silent Hunter]

The "score" isn't 2-2, it's 14-2. There were at least 12 other cases where the judge dismissed the anti-HCR lawsuits out of hand as frivolous.

Of course the media don't report that fact because then the "game" would be much less exciting.

Of course, but it only takes one.

[Free Palestine]

The "score" isn't 2-2, it's 14-2. There were at least 12 other cases where the judge dismissed the anti-HCR lawsuits out of hand as frivolous.

Of course the media don't report that fact because then the "game" would be much less exciting.

And how many of those were dismissed by Democratic-appointed judges?

[Badger]

Jesus Christ, the judge even included a shout out to the "Tea Party" in his ruling. *cringe*

Also, this is the textbook definition of judicial activism, but that's not surprising.

Sums it up.

Come on conservatives! Let's vent at the activist judiciary thwarting the democratic will of the electorate!



<crickets chirping>

[Landslide Lyndon]

The "score" isn't 2-2, it's 14-2. There were at least 12 other cases where the judge dismissed the anti-HCR lawsuits out of hand as frivolous.

Of course the media don't report that fact because then the "game" would be much less exciting.

And how many of those were dismissed by Democratic-appointed judges?

So you admit that the decisions against the law's constitutionality are actually political.

[Free Palestine]

The "score" isn't 2-2, it's 14-2. There were at least 12 other cases where the judge dismissed the anti-HCR lawsuits out of hand as frivolous.

Of course the media don't report that fact because then the "game" would be much less exciting.

And how many of those were dismissed by Democratic-appointed judges?

So you admit that the decisions against the law's constitutionality are actually political.

Duh.  The constitutionality of something depends on who appointed the judge who's deciding it's constitutional.  Which is why the whole notion of a "living constitution" is crap.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Which is why the responsibility of the appointment of judges should be taken away from politicians, apart from perhaps a sign off.

And the election of judges, as a Lawyer (though not practicing) makes me feel physically ill...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Jesus Christ, the judge even included a shout out to the "Tea Party" in his ruling. *cringe*

Also, this is the textbook definition of judicial activism, but that's not surprising.

Sums it up.

Come on conservatives! Let's vent at the activist judiciary thwarting the democratic will of the electorate!



<crickets chirping>

How in the world do you leftist spinsters turn judicial review upholding the Constitution into Judicial activism?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Jesus Christ, the judge even included a shout out to the "Tea Party" in his ruling. *cringe*

Also, this is the textbook definition of judicial activism, but that's not surprising.

Sums it up.

Come on conservatives! Let's vent at the activist judiciary thwarting the democratic will of the electorate!



<crickets chirping>

How in the world do you leftist spinsters turn judicial review upholding the Constitution into Judicial activism?

Why don't you ask that question while you look yourself at the mirror?

[DrScholl]

How in the world do you leftist spinsters turn judicial review upholding the Constitution into Judicial activism?

FYI, the word spinster refers to an older woman who has never been married, it's not political. Second FYI, using the courts to overturn legislation based on sketchy constitutional reasons is judicial activism. Sorry, that's how it is.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Jesus Christ, the judge even included a shout out to the "Tea Party" in his ruling. *cringe*

Also, this is the textbook definition of judicial activism, but that's not surprising.

Sums it up.

Come on conservatives! Let's vent at the activist judiciary thwarting the democratic will of the electorate!



<crickets chirping>

How in the world do you leftist spinsters turn judicial review upholding the Constitution into Judicial activism?

Why don't you ask that question while you look yourself at the mirror?

Why do you always seek to make debates on this board both bitter and personal? I seek enlightment as to how liberals think. I don't see how you can fit the word "you" into that response unless its either a hypothetical, a strawman or an insult. Since its not one or two...

[Landslide Lyndon]

Jesus Christ, the judge even included a shout out to the "Tea Party" in his ruling. *cringe*

Also, this is the textbook definition of judicial activism, but that's not surprising.

Sums it up.

Come on conservatives! Let's vent at the activist judiciary thwarting the democratic will of the electorate!



<crickets chirping>

How in the world do you leftist spinsters turn judicial review upholding the Constitution into Judicial activism?

Why don't you ask that question while you look yourself at the mirror?

Why do you always seek to make debates on this board both bitter and personal? I seek enlightment as to how liberals think. I don't see how you can fit the word "you" into that response unless its either a hypothetical, a strawman or an insult. Since its not one or two...

Just remember who entered the term "Judicial Activism" into the american political lexicon and you will understand how hilariously hypocritical your question is.