Virginia federal court rules Obamacare unconstitutional
 

Discuss

Its not rocket science. The federal government has a job, this was not one of them.

This will be dumped onto the next Presidents plate.

It would seem that a Virginia Federal Court ruled 'Obamacare' unconstitutional.

Great news.Perhaps one day we will get a real health care reform law in this country that respects citizen's rights.

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/he...d=1&ref=policy

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

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.

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.

Its so good to see American democracy in action:D

I noticed that, and thought you did quite well indeed.

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.....

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.

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

FOX

CNN

WASHINGTON POST

CHICAGO TRIBUNE

NEW YORK TIMES

DALLAS MORNING NEWS

Who would ending these programs help again? Certainly not the people who depend on them.