Wrut Ro Raggy (0-Care content)

[mrsleeve]

1st half or so

A federal judge ruled that Congress violated the Constitution by requiring Americans to buy insurance as part of the health overhaul passed last year, and said the entire law "must be declared void."

With his ruling, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson set up a clash over whether the Obama administration still has the authority to carry out the law designed to expand insurance to 32 million Americans.

David Rivkin, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the ruling meant the 26 states challenging the law must halt implementation of pieces that apply to states and certain small businesses represented by plaintiffs.

But the Obama administration said it has no to plans to halt implementation of the law. Already, it has mailed rebate checks to seniors with high prescription drug costs, helped set up insurance pools for people with pre-existing medical conditions and required insurers to allow children to stay on their parents' insurance policies until they reach age 26.

"We will continue to operate as we have previously," a senior administration official said.

In a pre-emptive move, the Justice Department, which represents the administration, is considering whether to seek a stay while its appeal against the decision is pending, spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.

The legal morass is the biggest blow yet to the law since President Barack Obama signed it in March. Most of the plaintiffs—governors and attorneys general in 26 states—are Republicans seeking to knock down Mr. Obama's signature legislative achievement.

The ruling by Judge Vinson, a Republican appointee in Pensacola, Fla., is the second of four to find that at least part of the law violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause by requiring citizens to carry insurance or pay a fee. But in asserting that the whole law is unconstitutional, it went much further than an earlier ruling in a Virginia case.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703439504576116361022463224.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

What to do now, ignore the courts..................................



Discuss

[gwb72tii]

there is hope

[LBJefferies]

Good. I know that in the beginning I supported the bill but I have changed my mind. Obamacare is just a tax payer funded prescription drug addiction program.

[KenC]

1st half or so

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703439504576116361022463224.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

What to do now, ignore the courts..................................



Discuss

The judge didn't issue an injunction.

[mar1t1me]

Yeah and.....

"all individuals must have coverage."

— Those below 300 percent of the federal poverty level (about $38,500 for a family of three in 2007), but not eligible for Medicaid, will have their private insurance plans subsidized at a sliding-scale rate.

— Children whose families earn below 300 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) will be given free coverage through Medicaid.

— Individuals with incomes below the FPL ($9,600) will have premiums waived on private insurance. (Currently most childless adults, no matter what their income, are not eligible for coverage under the state's Medicaid plan.)

— Those who can afford insurance will be increasingly penalized for not buying coverage. In the first year, they'll lose their state personal income tax exemption.

— Family coverage will be extended to cover young adults up to the age of 25.

— Allows the use of "health savings accounts" with cheaper high-deductible "catastrophic" coverage plans. HSAs allow consumers to invest money and withdraw it "tax free" to cover health-care costs.

Businesses

All employers who have more than 10 employees must contribute to employee health-care costs.

— Employers who don't provide insurance will pay an annual fee of $295 per full-time employee.

— Encourages private insurers to offer more low-cost options.

— Creates a "health insurance connector" to help individuals and businesses find affordable private coverage.


Free insurance for poor people?

And my kids could get free health care, even if my wife and I jointly bring $66,000? That's the 300% figure for 2010. Sounds pretty liberal.

They could if I lived where the above was signed into law. By a Republican, no less. Which makes me want to ask, if it was Bush and not Obama, would there be nearly as much push-back? Romney's plan requires you to buy something and/or pay fees, so.....?

Don't get me wrong....I'm no fan of any bill that our representatives can't be bothered to read. Just wondering if all those DA's would still be trying to find a way to kill it were it from one of their own.

[joshh]

As usual this will continue through our fucked up court system. In the end parts of the bill will be ignored and the rest will go into effect while what will go into effect will be very badly implemented requiring even more work to "fix" it (more destruction of the health care industry).
In the mean time keep handing out those waivers for (mostly) Unions to have their retirees skip out.

[Ryann]

In the end parts of the bill will be ignored and the rest will go into effect while what will go into effect will be very badly implemented requiring even more work to "fix" it..

Any reasonable person has to know that this will be the end result regardless of what side you're on. Our Federal Gov't is a worthless, incapable slug. I think this applies to ALL new legislation. Well said.

[mrsleeve]

The judge didn't issue an injunction.

why would an injunction be necessary when the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, there for NUll and void by its very nature. Cease and desist is implied.

[CorvallisBMW]

why would an injunction be necessary when the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, there for NUll and void by its very nature. Cease and desist is implied.

No, a judge would have to order an injunction for the law to be overturned immediately. Since the gov't will no doubt appeal all the way to the supreme court the law will stay on the books and in effect until which time the supreme court rules either in favor of the gov't or against it.

That's standard procedure in the legal system no matter what kind of law or at what level of the judiciary it's being challenged. Anything that has been signed in to law remains law while appeals are ongoing unless an injunction is ordered by a judge (and even then the injunction can be appealed and delayed).

This is a fight that will end up going all the way to the supreme court, guaranteed. It just maintains to be seen whether the outcome will be to support the law in it's current form, to rule the 'mandate' section unconstitutional or to nullify the whole thing.

[mrsleeve]

No, a judge would have to order an injunction for the law to be overturned immediately. Since the gov't will no doubt appeal all the way to the supreme court the law will stay on the books and in effect until which time the supreme court rules either in favor of the gov't or against it.

unconstitutional = unconstitutional that means NO GO its and illegal law. This is not a average every day ruling, that a law in violation of some other provision or power. This has been ruled to be a direct violation of the Constitution, there for you cant to do it. (this is how I remember it from my HS law class)

That's standard procedure in the legal system no matter what kind of law or at what level of the judiciary it's being challenged. Anything that has been signed in to law remains law while appeals are ongoing unless an injunction is ordered by a judge (and even then the injunction can be appealed and delayed).

no argument at all, for any other type of ruling

This is a fight that will end up going all the way to the supreme court, guaranteed. It just maintains to be seen whether the outcome will be to support the law in it's current form, to rule the 'mandate' section unconstitutional or to nullify the whole thing.

yup I fully agree with this as well, there is no doubt in my mind this will be the end result


but you have to admit the administration thumbing its nose at the SCOTUS a year ago and now this is just plain despicable is it not???

[CorvallisBMW]

The legal procedures are the same in this case or any other. If a law is on the books it stays on the books until all appeals are exhausted OR a judge orders an injunction. You may not like it, but that's how it is. Tough shit.

Also note that the purchase mandate has not gone in to effect yet and will not go in to effect until 2014, so an injunction is unlikely for a law which currently does not apply.

And what exactly is "despicable"? Appealing a ruling you don't agree with? It happens hundreds of times every day.

[mrsleeve]

.

And what exactly is "despicable"? Appealing a ruling you don't agree with? It happens hundreds of times every day.

the out right contempt and ignoring of the courts

[KenC]

the out right contempt and ignoring of the courts

That was one judge in one state. It still has to go through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court.

[mrsleeve]

well 2 judges ignored and the entire SCOUTS called out in the SOTU last year

[CorvallisBMW]

the out right contempt and ignoring of the courts

Contempt? How have they ignored it? Are you suggesting that by not dropping all their appeals and rolling over at the first sign of trouble they are somehow doing something illegal? If you were in a hard-fought court case over something to felt passionately about that didn't go your way, would you NOT appeal?

Appealing a case is NOT contempt and it is NOT ignoring... c'mon man, I know you are smarter than that.

well 2 judges ignored and the entire SCOUTS called out in the SOTU last year

The SCOTUS didn't call out shit in the SOTU because the court doesn't say anything during the state of the union. They just sit there and listen.

And the first 2 judges who ruled said is WAS constitutional. Currently the score is 2-2.

God knows if if the conservatives passed a law that you felt passionatly about and agreed with, you'd be defending that to the nth degree if the Democrats tried to challenge it in court.

As much as you want the law to bend to you're own will, it doesn't