View Full Version : Virginia federal court rules Obamacare unconstitutional
GoldenRivet
12-13-10, 02:03 PM
Discuss
Freiwillige
12-13-10, 02:13 PM
Its not rocket science. The federal government has a job, this was not one of them.
FIREWALL
12-13-10, 02:33 PM
This will be dumped onto the next Presidents plate.
Takeda Shingen
12-13-10, 02:34 PM
It would seem that a Virginia Federal Court ruled 'Obamacare' unconstitutional.
Bubblehead1980
12-13-10, 02:59 PM
Great news.Perhaps one day we will get a real health care reform law in this country that respects citizen's rights.
Bilge_Rat
12-13-10, 04:55 PM
so far, you have had two federal judges who ruled it was constitutional and one federal judge who ruled it was unconstitutional, so this is headed to the Supreme Court one way or another. More importantly, Judge Hudson refused to block the rollout of the law.
There was an interesting article a few days ago on the head lawyer at Justice heading the Health care fight:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/health/policy/10lawyer.html?pagewanted=1&ref=policy
GoldenRivet
12-13-10, 04:58 PM
i dont think a lot of the law should be blocked.
just the mandate.
ditch the mandate dems, and it looks like we have a deal... but what we had from our government was an uncompromising bill, passed in the dead of night after a speed reading short course rocketed it through the legislative process.
regardless of the content of the bill... i dont see how ANY American could be comfortable with any of that. ;)
keep in mind, there are still scores of outstanding lawsuits to be heard in numerous states... and it still has to go to the blow hards at the "supreme" court
Platapus
12-13-10, 06:28 PM
It would seem that a Virginia Federal Court ruled 'Obamacare' unconstitutional.
Not really. Only one provision was judged to be unconstitutional.
It will go before the supreme court and will have a pretty good chance of being upheld (being unconstitutional).
This was an area that the Democrats went into when they shouldn't have.
We really don't want the precedent to be set that would allow the federal government to mandate the purchase of a commercial product/service. :nope:
Takeda Shingen
12-13-10, 07:33 PM
Not really. Only one provision was judged to be unconstitutional.
It will go before the supreme court and will have a pretty good chance of being upheld (being unconstitutional).
This was an area that the Democrats went into when they shouldn't have.
We really don't want the precedent to be set that would allow the federal government to mandate the purchase of a commercial product/service. :nope:
Hey, I was given no link or information other than the title and an order to discuss, so I did my best with what I had available.
Of course minus the mandate, there is nothing there except massive unintended consequences (which the bill was already full of).
The whole point of forcing people to buy is to increase the pool of payees that are unlikely to use care (young adults—a patient population that is very well served with nothing but inexpensive catastrophic care coverage for trauma).
No mandate, plus dumb things like no denial or even raised rates for preexisting conditions means bankruptcy for insurance. Insurance margins (health insurance, anyway, I think they do well on life insurance) are actually not high. Total insurance profit is 1-2% of total healthcare cost, and ~50% of the total is not "insured, so that makes insurance profit 2-4%. With no mandate, they don't have loads of healthy people forced to pay premiums, but they still have to insure very bad risks at the same rate as the healthy. That's like charging someone the exact same premium for a Smart Car as a Bugatti Veyron.
The mandate was always a really bad idea. It wasn't just dems in favor of mandates, BTW, even though they own this entire bill. Some R plans that never left committee also had mandates as I recall. It's terrible law, IMO. The government could by the same precedent require people to buy X pounds of veggies per week, for example. No difference at all.
All right, one for the good guys.
gimpy117
12-13-10, 09:39 PM
Of course a court in VIRGINIA would rule it "unconstitutional" ironically it's basically the republicans bill with he whole mandate part
It's a federal judge.
This bill has no "republican" parts at all, the dems own it, even if the reps had similar requirements in other bills. they had supermajority, it was 100% their choice what was in, and they took no input at all from the other side.
The government should GTF out of healthcare, frankly. yes, that means I think they should dump medicare and medicaid. The former is going to bankrupt the country unless dumped. Period.
papa_smurf
12-14-10, 12:21 PM
Its so good to see American democracy in action:D
Sailor Steve
12-14-10, 01:29 PM
Hey, I was given no link or information other than the title and an order to discuss, so I did my best with what I had available.
I noticed that, and thought you did quite well indeed.
CaptainHaplo
12-14-10, 04:26 PM
The ruling only discards and negates the mandate. However, without the mandate, the rest of the bill cannot be funded. Literally, this is the foundation upon which the rest is crafted. Without it, its like a house built with no foundation. It will fall apart.
Ultimately it does need to go before the Supreme Court. The key is how long it will take. Parts of the law are already in force, other parts won't kick in until later - up until 2014. So the longer pieces get put into place, the worse it is for us all.....
Armistead
12-14-10, 09:22 PM
It's a federal judge.
This bill has no "republican" parts at all, the dems own it, even if the reps had similar requirements in other bills. they had supermajority, it was 100% their choice what was in, and they took no input at all from the other side.
The government should GTF out of healthcare, frankly. yes, that means I think they should dump medicare and medicaid. The former is going to bankrupt the country unless dumped. Period.
Why not just kill the few million that would die without those programs and at least stop the suffering...Hope it's not someone you love...
Why not just kill the few million that would die without those programs and at least stop the suffering...Hope it's not someone you love...
The programs are the problem.
Ending them as they are currently set up can only HELP. Medicare WILL bankrupt the country. No one wants to take medicaid as it is. Specialists take it only because they have to to get privileges at hospitals—and hospitals cannot turn away emergent cases, period.
Seriously, why is the cost curve the way it is? GOVERNMENT. They force docs to take below cost, but it's fee for service. The incentive—really a REQUIREMENT with medicaid if you want to, you know, not lose money on every patient—is to do more services. Government is not the solution, it's the problem.
This idiotic bill will in fact hurt those you claim I want to kill. Docs cannot afford to see patients below cost. As soon as this passed, my wife's office stopped taking any new medicare patients at all until further notice. They have too since it's unpredictable right now, and once seen, they "own" the patient and must continue care. Her specialty is already underrepresented in the state (fewer than half the number we need) so those patients are well and truly SOL. They have to head to the U and get seen by slaves, erm, residents (the collection rate at the U is 17%, BTW. What a way to run a business, to only collect 17% of what you bill. Waits will be long. They already dumped medicaid, except those they are forced to see through the ER. Docs in town have talked about starting their own hospital that is off the grid, as it were and will not take medicaid. If you live away from the coasts, the problem currently is the lack of providers. Adding more patients they cannot afford to see—should your plumber be forced to charge you below his actual cost (not even counting his labor) since you need plumbing to live? Should the grocery store be forced to sell every product except luxury foods at a loss (you need food to live, after all)?
The US system's problem is not that we don't have enough government, but that we have too much (~46% of all healthcare is already government paid—and everyone with real insurance is paying a huge tax in premiums to subsidize the deadbeats on government care).
People I love will see docs, we can pay, and/or all our friends are docs. The government is screwing it up for you, not me. I'm trying to help everyone else by telling it like it is.
GoldenRivet
12-14-10, 10:18 PM
Hey guys look here... if you want me to hold those shovels and do all the digging for you thats good... I'll do that, its not like this information isnt available on every major news source.
The original post was made from my mobile while waiting for a plane to arrive and thus lacks the usual trumpeting fanfare - so here, pick your poison:
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40642879/40639431)
FOX (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/13/federal-judge-rules-favor-virginia-challenge-health-care-law/)
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html?iref=allsearch)
WASHINGTON POST (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/politics/blog-network/2010/12/judge_rules_parts_of_obamas_he.html)
CHICAGO TRIBUNE (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-health-20101213,0,1094666.story)
NEW YORK TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=virginia%20federal%20judge&st=cse)
DALLAS MORNING NEWS (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/121310dnnathealthcare.13b3546.html)
The programs are the problem.
Ending them as they are currently set up can only HELP.
Who would ending these programs help again? Certainly not the people who depend on them.
Ending them as they are.
People will never be denied care in emergencies, won't happen. Medicaid needs to exist mostly to cover that cost, not primary care. There are outfits doing primary care for $30 a visit. There is a market that can be filled (the benefit of primary care is overstated, IMO, 90-something % of what GPs see is self-limiting anyway).
As it is, medicare pays more now than anyone paying in could have reasonably expected. The drug beni (stupid Bush) needs to be eliminated 100%. No one receiving it now paid a penny in expecting it. 100% repeal of that. Medicaid is nothing more than charity, we can do to it what we like. We should remember it is CHARITY care. If you have a good year at work, you donate more to charity. If business is rough and you can barely make payroll... you stop giving large donations to charities. If our balance sheet (the USA) is in () then we cannot afford much charity.
Ending them as they are.
People will never be denied care in emergencies, won't happen. Medicaid needs to exist mostly to cover that cost, not primary care. There are outfits doing primary care for $30 a visit. There is a market that can be filled (the benefit of primary care is overstated, IMO, 90-something % of what GPs see is self-limiting anyway).
Don't say that it won't happen. If you're willing to let a poor person go without normal care it's not that far a stretch to someday prevent emergency care as well for the same reasons.
As it is, medicare pays more now than anyone paying in could have reasonably expected. The drug beni (stupid Bush) needs to be eliminated 100%. No one receiving it now paid a penny in expecting it. 100% repeal of that. Medicaid is nothing more than charity, we can do to it what we like. We should remember it is CHARITY care. If you have a good year at work, you donate more to charity. If business is rough and you can barely make payroll... you stop giving large donations to charities. If our balance sheet (the USA) is in () then we cannot afford much charity.When I had a minor heart attack a few years ago it cost my insurance company over 70 THOUSAND dollars for a 20 minute stent implant procedure and a two day hospital stay for observation. Since then easily another 3-4 grand for various tests and follow up doctor visits. You're saying tough tuchus to all that if I didn't have insurance? If that's so I don't think i'd want to live in your America.
Blood_splat
12-15-10, 01:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncWklJ5HFBM&feature=related :up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-oPdoT0H1A&feature=related
GoldenRivet
12-15-10, 01:34 PM
yes, the health care industry can be non-profit.
the problem with that is simple... the government shouldnt be non-profit, the government should be operating within a balanced budget, when you keep piling trillions on trillions on trillions of dollars onto the heaping debt, eventually you revert to being a third world country.
As long as my medication is paid for in full, my surgery is paid for in full, my hospital stays are paid for in full and i get to make private personal decisions about my health care - i dont give a rats anus if the insurance company paying for it all makes a profit. i dont.
the most common reason someone does not have health insurance is because they work a job that does not provide it as a perk.
guess, what? while you are entitled to health care (and have always received it for free in the ER), you are not entitled to health insurance... its a service, that you buy, with your own money.
If a person desires insurance, they need to get the proper education in order to get the job that provides it... OR... they need to go out and purchase some form of insurance suitable to their lifestyle with their own money.
you shop for car insurance that is both affordable and also commensurate with your needs, why don't more people take the time to shop for health insurance the same way?
Im insured, i pay for that luxury with my own money, I have absolutely no intent to help pay for anyone elses insurance, especially when its paid via a forced subsidy through taxation by the federal government or else i have to face legal penalties.
thats ludicrous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncWklJ5HFBM&feature=related :up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-oPdoT0H1A&feature=related
Bill Mayer is a partisan idiot. If he told me the sky was blue i'd doubt him.
DarkFish
12-15-10, 07:08 PM
the problem with that is simple... the government shouldnt be non-profit, the government should be operating within a balanced budget, when you keep piling trillions on trillions on trillions of dollars onto the heaping debt, eventually you revert to being a third world country.Non-profit doesn't necessarily mean that they make a loss. Non-profit means exactly that: no profit. Nothing more.
Im insured, i pay for that luxury with my own money,I wouldn't exactly call healthcare insurance a luxury. It saves lives. Everyone should have an equal chance to have medical treatment. If a rich man with an insurance gets some disease, his treatments get paid for and he lives. If a poor man without insurance gets a disease, he can't pay for it and he dies. Fair?
If you were talking about paying for another man's car, or TV, or house or cellphone or whatever, I couldn't agree more with you. Those things are luxury items. Healthcare isn't. Healthcare isn't something you can do without, healthcare is something you *need*.
I have absolutely no intent to help pay for anyone elses insurance, especially when its paid via a forced subsidy through taxation by the federal government or else i have to face legal penalties.So why do you still pay to maintain the countless roads you'll never use? Why pay tax to maintain the fire brigade, while your house will probably never burn down?
Why pay tax at all?
Aramike
12-16-10, 03:28 AM
Whenever this comes up, all that anyone ever considers are talking points. Why not solutions?ditch the mandate dems, and it looks like we have a deal... That would be horrible. Forcing insurers to cover preexisting conditions without requiring people to carry coverage would be a disaster to the industry. Why then would anyone carry coverage? Insurers make money from HEALTHY people.
In my opinion, there's no reason we can't keep our current, effective system (save for the financing) while addressing the potential disasterous financial pitfalls that could occur in emergencies. Why not simply have the feds cover any annual expenditures over a certain amount? Make it high enough so that people don't clog the system with colds while low enough to allow production citizens a safety net in case of emergency.
Whenever this comes up, all that anyone ever considers are talking points. Why not solutions?That would be horrible. Forcing insurers to cover preexisting conditions without requiring people to carry coverage would be a disaster to the industry. Why then would anyone carry coverage? Insurers make money from HEALTHY people.
In my opinion, there's no reason we can't keep our current, effective system (save for the financing) while addressing the potential disasterous financial pitfalls that could occur in emergencies. Why not simply have the feds cover any annual expenditures over a certain amount? Make it high enough so that people don't clog the system with colds while low enough to allow production citizens a safety net in case of emergency.
Well I like that idea Mike!
Growler
12-16-10, 12:02 PM
When I had a minor heart attack a few years ago it cost my insurance company over 70 THOUSAND dollars for a 20 minute stent implant procedure and a two day hospital stay for observation. Since then easily another 3-4 grand for various tests and follow up doctor visits. You're saying tough tuchus to all that if I didn't have insurance? If that's so I don't think i'd want to live in your America.
Amen, trooper.
Just before she passed, I found two statements from the hospital that was treating my mom for leukemia: One week's stay, with treatment: $139,000. The next week's stay: $148,000. That was only two weeks across her sixth month illness. Other statements, including the initial treatment period when she was first diagnosed, were comparable.
Good thing our health care system as it exists today isn't broken. [/sarcasm]
The fundamental flaw with ANY health care plan legislation is that it's trying to fix a currently unrecoverable system. Legislation can't fix a system that is rife with exploitation, experimentation, and frivolous or spiteful lawsuits.
mookiemookie
12-16-10, 03:25 PM
Legal scholars are already picking apart the judge's ruling:
The key portion of the ruling reads:
"If a person's decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution."
Kerr notes that this is all wrong. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to take steps beyond those listed in the Constitution to achieve its Constitutional ends, including the regulation of interstate commerce. Hudson's argument wipes a key part of the Constitution out of existence. Kerr says Hudson "rendered [it] a nullity."
I think that's a very valid point that's being raised.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/amateur-hour-va-judge-makes-elementary-error-in-health-care-ruling.php
GoldenRivet
12-16-10, 03:30 PM
I have to wonder why some folks push SO hard to have the government control every solitary detail of their private lives.
i cant understand it.
I have to wonder why some folks push SO hard to have the government control every solitary detail of their private lives.
i cant understand it.
Did the government ever deliberately sell people fake medicine? Did the government ever use paperclips instead of proper dental posts?
I'm no great supporter of government run health care but medical treatment for profit is nothing more than a perpetual rip off.
GoldenRivet
12-16-10, 03:56 PM
Different Strokes to Different Folks i guess.
I wonder what else should be not for profit?
I feel bad for those docs and nurses now.
there should be financial profit in digging a hard boiled egg out of a 480 lbs woman's anus.
(just one thing on the list of things i have known friends and family to have to do while working in the med field)
Different Strokes to Different Folks i guess.
I wonder what else should be not for profit?
Fire fighting and policing are two things that come to mind.
GoldenRivet
12-16-10, 03:59 PM
maybe im not understanding... are you saying doctors nurses firefighters and police should not be paid for their services due to their industries operating at a perpetual loss?
somehow i dont think thats what your meaning.
maybe im not understanding... are you saying doctors nurses firefighters and police should not be paid for their services due to their industries operating at a perpetual loss?
somehow i dont think thats what your meaning.
Where do you get the idea that not for profit means people work for free?
Let me turn your question around. Should fire fighters and policemen be able to set their own rates? Should you have to pay, say 70 thousand dollars, before the FD will come and put your house fire out? Or maybe you think it's not unreasonable to pay 100 thousand bucks before the cops will investigate who murdered your family?
Those are the type of things that people without insurance, and all too many with insurance, have to deal with before getting medical care. As long as that is the case you can't tell me our present health care system is all that great.
GoldenRivet
12-16-10, 04:29 PM
Where do you get the idea that not for profit means people work for free?
Let me turn your question around. Should fire fighters and policemen be able to set their own rates? Should you have to pay, say 70 thousand dollars, before the FD will come and put your house fire out? Or maybe you think it's not unreasonable to pay 100 thousand bucks before the cops will investigate who murdered your family?
Those are the type of things that people without insurance, and all too many with insurance, have to deal with before getting medical care. As long as that is the case you can't tell me our present health care system is all that great.
Easy man, wasnt meaning to strike a nerve.
but yes, i think firefighters and policemen and Drs and Nurses should be paid and paid well.
I think our present tax dollars cover police and fire services well enough.
I just dont think that the mandate of Obamacare is the end all be all answer to our problems.
and i certainly dont think the government is the end all be all answer to our problems either.
a dangerous precedent we are setting in America is greater and greater government reliance.
soon, it seems, the government will be all there is and your choices will be to either a. work for the federal government b. collect welfare or c. be homeless
and i certainly dont think the government is the end all be all answer to our problems either.
Certainly not, but nor is unbridled, take-no-prisoners capitalism. I had an ultrasound the other day, a simple 20 minute procedure run by a couple medical techs, no doctor or nothing, and it cost me and my insurance company over $2500 bucks! I'm sorry but that just ain't right.
But understand, it's not the concept of paying that I have the problem with, just the unaffordable prices now associated with it. Make health care affordable. That is the key.
Easy man, wasnt meaning to strike a nerve.:DL I must not be emoting properly if you thought that was striking a nerve! I'm just being the normal me.
CaptainHaplo
12-17-10, 11:31 AM
August - but you have to look at WHY that cost was so high. Malpractice insurance - the cost of the machine (which is astronimical) - not counting the money the techs made. Sure, they make a decent living - but if you think the majority of that went into their pockets your wrong.
The biggest costs in medical care are overhead - facilities and equipment. Followed closely by the costs of medication. Now - if everyone who accessed medical care PAID for it - even if it was a reasonable sum - then the costs of doing BUSINESS in health care would decrease. But between the insurance, R&D, non-payments, etc - the costs are huge. Then you have the employees - be they docs, nurses or whatnot.
When a "miracle pill" is developed - that first pill off the line may cost 10's of millions of dollars. All the ones after? A few pennies. But the business has to average that out. The cost of the MRI machine? Average over 1 Million. The business then has to figure maintenance etc - so every usage has to help cover those costs...
Fix the overhead problems, get people to actually PAY for services, not sue at the drop of a hat, etc - and medical costs would drop drastically.
Sailor Steve
12-17-10, 11:48 AM
Where do you get the idea that not for profit means people work for free?
Let me turn your question around. Should fire fighters and policemen be able to set their own rates? Should you have to pay, say 70 thousand dollars, before the FD will come and put your house fire out? Or maybe you think it's not unreasonable to pay 100 thousand bucks before the cops will investigate who murdered your family?
Those are the type of things that people without insurance, and all too many with insurance, have to deal with before getting medical care. As long as that is the case you can't tell me our present health care system is all that great.
Some excellent points. I'm personally not against government having a hand in this sort of thing. I just believe our Federal government was created for a specific purpose, and this wasn't it. None of the other services you described are provided by the Feds. They are necessary, and in the case of police and fire departments, the government is the only way to make them work. The state and local governments do a very good job of managing those services. Perhaps medical care could be run the same way.
Fix the overhead problems, get people to actually PAY for services, not sue at the drop of a hat, etc - and medical costs would drop drastically
That sounds all well and good Hap but I have my doubts that costs would ever drop to any great degree regardless of how the system was manipulated. There are just too many people and companies in the industry trying to maximize their profits. Again this isn't about some lab tech or doctor making big coin.
As for restricting a patients ability to sue we both know that whatever scheme is enacted it will soon be used to limit damage payments to people who really do deserve that large financial judgment. Like that guy up here awhile back that had the wrong leg amputated for instance.
Perhaps medical care could be run the same way.
Maybe so. Having the Feds administer it just opens the door to more graft and misappropriation.
mookiemookie
12-18-10, 03:46 PM
August - but you have to look at WHY that cost was so high. Malpractice insurance - the cost of the machine (which is astronimical) - not counting the money the techs made. Sure, they make a decent living - but if you think the majority of that went into their pockets your wrong.
The biggest costs in medical care are overhead - facilities and equipment. Followed closely by the costs of medication. Now - if everyone who accessed medical care PAID for it - even if it was a reasonable sum - then the costs of doing BUSINESS in health care would decrease. But between the insurance, R&D, non-payments, etc - the costs are huge. Then you have the employees - be they docs, nurses or whatnot.
When a "miracle pill" is developed - that first pill off the line may cost 10's of millions of dollars. All the ones after? A few pennies. But the business has to average that out. The cost of the MRI machine? Average over 1 Million. The business then has to figure maintenance etc - so every usage has to help cover those costs...
Fix the overhead problems, get people to actually PAY for services, not sue at the drop of a hat, etc - and medical costs would drop drastically.
I don't see in your post any mention of repealing the antitrust exemption for the insurance industry. If insurance companies were forbidden from collusion, price fixing, market allocation, bid rigging, etc, don't you think that would naturally have a greater effect on lowering prices than limiting the rights of the people to seek redress in court?
If any politician had any stones at all, they'd repeal the McCarran Ferguson Act, and you'd see real insurance reform. Unfortunately, it will never happen. Corrupt political hacks in the pocket of big insurance like Ben Nelson, as well as rules that allow special interest to pour their money into political campaigns (Citizens United decision) will make any kind of real repeal and reform a pipe dream.
Skybird
12-20-10, 05:58 AM
Judge Who Ruled Health Reform Law Unconstitutional May Have Conflict of Interest (http://www.prwatch.org/node/9810)
CaptainHaplo
12-20-10, 08:51 AM
Mookie - we don't often find areas to agree on, but I totally agree with you on the insurance exemption. Heck, I am all for letting companies sell nationwide instead of by state because it would help the consumer.
mookiemookie
12-20-10, 09:37 AM
Mookie - we don't often find areas to agree on, but I totally agree with you on the insurance exemption. Heck, I am all for letting companies sell nationwide instead of by state because it would help the consumer.
Fun fact: the original health care "reform" bill that they proposed had a repeal of McCarran Ferguson in it. Nebraska senator Ben Nelson (ex state insurance commissioner and recipient of over $1 million lifetime donations from the insurance industry) held his vote hostage saying that he wouldn't vote for a bill that included it, oh yeah, and also have the taxpayer fund $100 million of Nebraska's Medicare obligations.
And they went along with it. Politics as usual. :nope:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.