Federal judge rules Obama care Unconsititutional

[yubba]

Not alittle bit of it, all of it.

[ETR3(SS)]

Link or it didn't happen.

[Platapus]

I thought the news reported that parts were unconstitutional.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I thought the news reported that parts were unconstitutional.

Well so far it's 2-2 in the lower courts

[Aramike]

Interesting how the judge cited Obama's own words:

if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house

[gimpy117]

Theres good parts of the bill and bad parts. Personally i'd like to see the mandate part go...

If i Had my way i'd like to see it replaced with some real form of health care. Maybe Like a "opt in" style program through the government

[Platapus]

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.

This is an interesting and contentious issue. And one not universally agreed to by the SCotUS.

There is a presumption that any law is constitutional until demonstrated that it is unconstitutional. Under this proviso, courts, when declaring a part of a law unconstitutional, have upheld other articles in the law not directly affected by the unconstitutional part.

Other courts, in different cases have declared the entire law unconstitutional if part of the law is found unconstitutional if the unconstitutional part is determined to be a core part of the entire law.

It all depends on if the unconstitutional part can be stripped out of the law and have the law stand in its new form. It is not a black and white issue.

In my opinion, I think the states should concentrate on only the specific parts of the law that can reasonably be considered unconstitutional i.e., the mandate and the state penalty.

That will be a much cleaner challenge and one, in my opinion, that will stand up in court.

I believe that the concept behind health care reform is valid, but the implementation was wrong.

Let's fix the bad and keep the good instead of trashing the whole thing and perhaps waiting another 40 years to try again.

I was actually in favour of an incremental plan for fixing health care. Find out what was wrong and fix that specific problem and see how it worked. Trying to fix all of health care in one fell swoop is risky and I believe did not work out well.

This is going to be an interesting Supreme Court case. I look forward to reading the opinions of the court on this one.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

Link or it didn't happen.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/...nal/index.html

[yubba]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

Link or it didn't happen.

Listening to the Shnit show on the radio. Whats the world come ing to when a mans word isn't worth anything. I should have worded it as a question, Alex, I'll take unconsitutional law for three hundred.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by yubba

Listening to the Shnit show on the radio. Whats the world come ing to when a mans word isn't worth anything. I should have worded it as a question, Alex, I'll take unconsitutional law for three hundred.

The intent of my comment was to get you to provide a source for your news, not call into question your word as a man. Generally when you look around GT those topics based on some sort of news contain a link to the original article and possibly even a brief quote from the article. If I were to open a thread about aliens being found on Mars and that they had made contact with us certainly you would want to know the full story. And just to be clear I'm not calling your topic silly or ridiculous.

[CaptainHaplo]

Aliens on Mars...

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406300128.html

I linked it - its on the interwebs... it must be true.

Seriously, back to the OP - I do like the homeless quote. Goes to show how stupid the idea is that if you can't afford health insurance, we will charge you a fine. I guess few on the left have ever heard the old saying "You can't get blood out of a turnip".

[breadcatcher101]

I would think the whole plan would be canned if the SC agrees.

I am sure there are good things in it, I haven't read all of it.

For example doing away with pre-existing conditions would be good, especially the way the insurance companies are taking advantage of it.
This was meant to keep people from taking advantage of the insurance companies but now it is the other way around.

Let's say you or your family elect not to have health insurance. You find one of your kids has to have a minor operation, so you get him/her on a policy. After the operation you cancle the coverage until next time you need it. This isn't fair to the insurance company IMO.

Now, let's say you have always had coverage, but have switched jobs and have a new plan with a different company. In most cases you pay for full coverage even though you have a 2 year wait on pre-existing conditions. Not so bad, you'd think, but if years back a tumor was found and removed under your old plan and over the course of the next 2/5 years you go back for routine follow up blood tests and X rays, the new plan would not cover it--even though you are paying full coverage rates, you are in fact not getting what you are paying for which is full coverage.

In this case the insurance compamy is taking advantage of you, the other way around.

Things in it that are bad? IMO there are many.

For example:

It gives the goverment direct access to your bank accounts in order to withdraw money, ref pages 58 and 59.

It doesn't apply to all Americans, with union members, groups like ACORN, and of course congress theirselves, refer to page 65.

The goverment will set what doctors will be paid and all will make the same, regardless of their specialty, refer to pages 241 and 253.

Cancer care will be rationed according to the patient's age, refer to page 272.

Ones on SS will be required to attend a "end of life planning" seminar every 5 years, refer to page 425.

The goverment chooses which doctors will write an end-of-life order, refer to page 429.

This is a dandy: The bill would give insurance to those who are not even Americans that are in the country illegally, refer to page 50.

There are many others, but it is no wonder congress elected not to be a subject of such a thing.

Funny now that the house speaker said we have to pass it on order for us to see what was in it.

[yubba]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

The intent of my comment was to get you to provide a source for your news, not call into question your word as a man. Generally when you look around GT those topics based on some sort of news contain a link to the original article and possibly even a brief quote from the article. If I were to open a thread about aliens being found on Mars and that they had made contact with us certainly you would want to know the full story. And just to be clear I'm not calling your topic silly or ridiculous.

It's alright I was messin with you, I wasn't offended, some one said judge was from home town I'm in Florida Cocoa Beach 80 degrees today. Sleep easy Yubba's on duty.

[CaptainHaplo]

I kinda liked the SD legislator's idea. If government can mandate people buy something, all for the public good of course - then lets mandate everyone above the age of 21 who is not disqualified for criminal or mental reasons, must purchase a gun. That way, they are prepared to adequately defend themselves. This of course would be for the good of society, and they would need to pay for and attend the requisite classes for gun safety, etc. as well.

Yes, they are proposing this only to prove a point, but I think its bloody brilliant. If the government can mandate you buy insurance, it can mandate you buy a gun.