If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Florida judge that ruled health care overhaul unconstitutional once paid about $1000 for a white baby   (phillyburbs.com) divider line 432
    More: Interesting, health care overhaul, FISA, Republican Proposal, prescription costs, senior judge, federal judges, medications, Medal of Honor recipients  
•       •       •

13865 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2011 at 11:51 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



432 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-02-01 03:11:36 PM  

relcec: they don't have to unless they have an ER and take medicare


And you don't have to acquire coverage if you live as a bohemian either -- which is the social equivalent to going to some backwater hospital that specializes in snake handling and blood letting that shuns all federal funding.
 
2011-02-01 03:12:32 PM  

justtray: sprawl15: justtray: Six Fingered Man - Yes, you're a farking idiot. You made invalid deflections over and over and never address anyone's point. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing and that's even more pathetic than the worst troll. Either argue against my logic or kind STFU you piece of crap. You disgust me.

It doesn't matter how good an idea the health care bill is. It has to be Constitutional to be allowable. It's not. Sorry.

Just to elaborate. I'm not allowed to not carry insurance even though I can afford to pay for an accident. Same exact thing holds true in medical care. You don't know if you're going to require open heart surgery, but you need to be covered if something happens and you need it.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Even a child can understand the concept. Spoiler answer - You're too rigid to consider you're completely wrong. Good luck with that. I'm sure your expertise is in medicine and you know exactly how it works. Don't bother listening to someone who has worked in the industry their entire adult life at more hospitals than you'll ever visit.


yes you are, in some places anyway. it's called self insuring, but it's not insuring really, it's just having a big pile of money somehwere.

Link (new window)
 
2011-02-01 03:14:45 PM  

DarnoKonrad: That's irrelevant. The rationale for requiring insurance is the same. Because being uninsured in that particular market is a liability on other god damned people.


It is absolutely relevant. The Constitution specifically restricts what the federal government can do. It does not have anywhere near as strong of restrictions on the states. If someone is going to say "But the states can force you to purchase car insurance if you choose to operate a vehicle on public roads," they have to know what the fark they're talking about. There's about 5 steps removed between that and the health care mandate. They're not the same thing.

DarnoKonrad: Because being uninsured in that particular market is a liability on other god damned people.


You're mixing moral justification with constitutional justification. Again, they are not the same thing.

Phil Herup: Surely even as a transfer he could have received some award at some point as he was a student so brilliant he was accepted to Harvard law on his merits alone.


The ones you harp on over and over again are restricted to students that attended more than 2 years. The ones you are just now bringing up by scrambling for research are not publicly released and would be within the records that are sealed. Produce some evidence to justify your assertion. Difficulty: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
 
2011-02-01 03:16:39 PM  

YoMammaObama: Dr Dreidel: wat is this i don't even

// really? you think I'm an anarchist "Burn the corporations down" hippie? I mean, I'm close, but I don't know how to make a bomb

what is response... not even... where did I say "Bomb" or "Burn down" or "Anarchy!!"?


A bit of snark, me bred'ren. It looked like you were implying that I'm the kind of guy who'd rather we looted all the corporations and give their shiat to the poor. While I'm more in favor of that than letting the corporations run roughshod over the American Dream, we've got a long way to go before those are our only two options.

See my response to cam:

You mistake my purpose. I'm not trying to disprove it. I'm trying to claim that if the government can mandate commerce now by shouting "Commerce Clause", it should also take the profits of industries and create an income stream to pay for all of our bankrupting entitlements. Just shoe-horn it into the "Interstate commerce clause. In fact, you convinced me that no constitutional amendment is needed. Congress can just "Regulate" that 90% of all profits from the sale of entertainment (like movies, music, etc.) or Energy (Like oil or coal)... It's the way socialism and all the entitlements that come along with it would actually work.

That's the problem with you pussy leftys. It's impossible for you to think big.


I'm still not sure what to make of this. You're upset with how broadly the 10th is applied? Welcome to the club.

I don't think the slippery slope really applies. The types of regulation you're worried about (that you hypothesize might happen) would likely apply to specific companies (which wouldn't be allowed because of the "no bills of attainder" business) or to entire industries (which have armies of lobbyists to ensure their continued existence).

Health insurance, as an industry, is not going anywhere soon. It's still largely private (and PPACA doesn't change that), they'll still act as middlemen between patients and health care centers' billing departments, and their revenue stream is largely untouched.

The problems the president mentioned in the SoTU are with the records-keeping part of the law and some of the funding - that doesn't really affect InsurCos - and I agree, fix the shiat out of them.

Funny that the industries you mentioned (entertainment and energy) are two industries that have gotten INSANE benefit from government intervention/regulation (extension of copyright laws from 17 years post-author's-death to 99 years; subsidies to energy companies).
 
2011-02-01 03:18:10 PM  

relcec: yes you are, in some places anyway. it's called self insuring, but it's not insuring really, it's just having a big pile of money somehwere.


New Hampshire, for example, doesn't have a requirement to have insurance to drive.
 
2011-02-01 03:21:56 PM  

relcec: mrshowrules: sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: No, it's spot on.

Car insurance is required on the state level.
Car insurance is not required simply by being alive.
Car insurance is only required while driving on public roadways.
Penalties for not having car insurance are levied through fines, not taxes.

They're completely farking different.

There is one basic difference. Driving is optional and living isn't.

However, there is one difference which favours the health insurance mandate. Basic emergency care cannot be denied any individual.

To my knowledge, it is the only service in the US in which the supplier is required to help you at no cost. Imagine if you could go into a restaurant, book store, body shop or electronics store and say "I can't pay" but you have to give me a burger and a DVD player.

Basic health is atypical that way. So although driving is optional, emergency health care is not.

/single-payer would have been so much simpler & smarter


they don't have to unless they have an ER and take medicare iirc. so it's not quite like burger king. they can opt out. many do.


A hospital can refuse treating a person with a critical injury? Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that all State laws require medical professionals to provide emergency care if the situation presents itself. The hippocratic oath requires it also. If the hospital doesn't operate an ER, the entrance to the building would be sufficient.
 
2011-02-01 03:22:43 PM  

sprawl15: relcec: they don't have to unless they have an ER and take medicare iirc. so it's not quite like burger king. they can opt out. many do.

I believe they legally have to regardless of medicare, and on top of that there's no tort protection (nor will/should there ever be) for a hospital and doctors who let a person die because they can't pay. Then there's the issue of the doctor losing their license for going against everything that their profession demands.

Either we need to go balls out and let sick people die on the streets, or we need to wipe out health insurance entirely and go single payer. There really is no sustainable middle ground.


this may have changed, but I kind of doubt it.

"EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals", i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals[citation needed]. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[2] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[3][4]"

Link (new window)

so hospitals can get out of it, theoretically anyway. maybe a plastic surgery hospital could make a go of it.
 
2011-02-01 03:25:27 PM  

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: That's irrelevant. The rationale for requiring insurance is the same. Because being uninsured in that particular market is a liability on other god damned people.

It is absolutely relevant. The Constitution specifically restricts what the federal government can do. It does not have anywhere near as strong of restrictions on the states. If someone is going to say "But the states can force you to purchase car insurance if you choose to operate a vehicle on public roads," they have to know what the fark they're talking about. There's about 5 steps removed between that and the health care mandate. They're not the same thing.

DarnoKonrad: Because being uninsured in that particular market is a liability on other god damned people.

You're mixing moral justification with constitutional justification. Again, they are not the same thing.

Phil Herup: Surely even as a transfer he could have received some award at some point as he was a student so brilliant he was accepted to Harvard law on his merits alone.

The ones you harp on over and over again are restricted to students that attended more than 2 years. The ones you are just now bringing up by scrambling for research are not publicly released and would be within the records that are sealed. Produce some evidence to justify your assertion. Difficulty: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


I believe Phil is actually a 6 year squirrel monkey trained by the Kato institute to post in threads base on a simple database script.

Until he provides proof to the contary, this is what I believe.
 
2011-02-01 03:27:04 PM  

relcec: "EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals", i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals[citation needed]. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[2] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[3][4]"

Link (new window)

so hospitals can get out of it, theoretically anyway. maybe a plastic surgery hospital could make a go of it.


Ah, that's a bit different than what I thought you were saying (they don't have to period). Looks like it's kind of a de facto requirement, if not de jure.

Interesting bit from that article: "More than half of all emergency room care in the U.S. now goes uncompensated. Hospitals write off such care as charity or bad debt for tax purposes." Farking tragic.
 
2011-02-01 03:27:37 PM  

sprawl15: You're mixing moral justification with constitutional justification. Again, they are not the same thing.


No I'm not. You're the one attaching qualifiers to the rationale of why congress wants to regulate health insurance is the same for why states want to regulate car insurance. To put bring the liability and cost into alignment.

But answer this:

How cann you be for single payer and claim the current reform is unconstitutional?

Single payer would scrap all state regulations and replace it with a federal insurance program -- whereas, under the current law, states still regulate insurance at the state level.

If it has the authority to scrap the system, why doesn't have the right to tweak the current system? On what constitutional basis?

This makes no sense.
 
2011-02-01 03:27:55 PM  

sprawl15: The ones you are just now bringing up by scrambling for research are not publicly released and would be within the records that are sealed. Produce some evidence to justify your assertion.



If he got them he would release the records. That is evidence enough. You have to agree with me on this. The only reason they are sealed is due to his performance.

I'd rather end this threadjack for another place and time, and now discuss the biatchslap of ObamaCare
 
2011-02-01 03:31:20 PM  

justtray: Yes, and they pay for that by making you pay $1000 for your CT instead of $750.


No. Do the math.

MRI: Price $750
100 MRI's: Anticipated revenue $75,000.
100 MRI's: Actual revenue $69,000 ($75k minus avg. 8% uncollectable)
100 MRI's Internal subsidy required: $6000
Internal Subsidy per MRI $60.
Total Cost per MRI including bad debt: $810.

Not $1000. And not a "crisis" as you've been told. Right about in line with other businesses.
 
2011-02-01 03:34:09 PM  

DarnoKonrad: How cann you be for single payer and claim the current reform is unconstitutional?


I've explained it over and over again. The mandate is nominally a capitation, and is not an income tax. That makes the tax unconstitutional on its face. In addition, it's not actually a tax, since the goal of it is not to raise money, but a different beast entirely which puts its justification solely on the interstate commerce clause. Health insurance cannot be sold across state lines, and mandating purchase of a product as a requirement for living in the country is a completely new concept.

On the other hand, a single payer system would increase your income taxes (constitutional) to provide for the general welfare (constitutional) and provide the people with a service. Tax wise, it would function constitutionally much like Social Security functions now. Health insurance companies would be relegated to the luxury they should be.

DarnoKonrad: You're the one attaching qualifiers to the rationale of why congress wants to regulate health insurance is the same for why states want to regulate car insurance. To put bring the liability and cost into alignment.


And, for maybe the 10th time this thread, I'm saying the car insurance argument is completely and utterly irrelevant to the HCR bill.

mrshowrules: I believe Phil is actually a 6 year squirrel monkey trained by the Kato institute to post in threads base on a simple database script.


He used to be entertaining. But he's no longer snarky and distantly amused, he's just bitter and whiny. It's kind of saddening to see an amusing troll go sour.
 
2011-02-01 03:36:06 PM  

Phil Herup: If he got them he would release the records. That is evidence enough.


sprawl15: Difficulty: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


You haven't yet said in this thread that you don't molest farm animals. If you didn't molest farm animals, you would have said so, that's a pretty important thing for people to know you don't do. That's evidence enough, goat farker.
 
2011-02-01 03:46:07 PM  

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: How cann you be for single payer and claim the current reform is unconstitutional?

I've explained it over and over again. The mandate is nominally a capitation, and is not an income tax. That makes the tax unconstitutional on its face. In addition, it's not actually a tax, since the goal of it is not to raise money, but a different beast entirely which puts its justification solely on the interstate commerce clause. Health insurance cannot be sold across state lines, and mandating purchase of a product as a requirement for living in the country is a completely new concept.

On the other hand, a single payer system would increase your income taxes (constitutional) to provide for the general welfare (constitutional) and provide the people with a service. Tax wise, it would function constitutionally much like Social Security functions now. Health insurance companies would be relegated to the luxury they should be.

DarnoKonrad: You're the one attaching qualifiers to the rationale of why congress wants to regulate health insurance is the same for why states want to regulate car insurance. To put bring the liability and cost into alignment.

And, for maybe the 10th time this thread, I'm saying the car insurance argument is completely and utterly irrelevant to the HCR bill.

mrshowrules: I believe Phil is actually a 6 year squirrel monkey trained by the Kato institute to post in threads base on a simple database script.

He used to be entertaining. But he's no longer snarky and distantly amused, he's just bitter and whiny. It's kind of saddening to see an amusing troll go sour.




He was cheerful when Obama's popularity was dropping. Now that they are rising again, it is like someone is pissing in his Corn Flakes every morning.
 
2011-02-01 03:51:30 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Funny that the industries you mentioned (entertainment and energy) are two industries that have gotten INSANE benefit from government intervention/regulation (extension of copyright laws from 17 years post-author's-death to 99 years; subsidies to energy companies).


I wasn't kidding when I said that I was proposing a way for socialism to work. I was, and still am. Socialism does not work at all if there is no income stream for the government other than taxation.

Dr Dreidel: A bit of snark, me bred'ren. It looked like you were implying that I'm the kind of guy who'd rather we looted all the corporations and give their shiat to the poor. While I'm more in favor of that than letting the corporations run roughshod over the American Dream, we've got a long way to go before those are our only two options.


But that is just it... I was naming a middle ground. Or was I naming a starting point? It is hard to tell, I agree. I suppose once the government owned Hollywood and Haliburton, the national treasure of VIVID and the rest of the porn industry should not be too far behind, amirite? You know... for national economic security... besides, none of the people I listed really earn their money and it would be better spent helping the waitress next door, comrade.
 
2011-02-01 03:51:56 PM  

sprawl15: The mandate is nominally a capitation, and is not an income tax.


It's levied at income. If you don't have an income you don't pay it. But the excises to enforce the mandate is different than the mandate itself anyway.

sprawl15: On the other hand, a single payer system would increase your income taxes (constitutional) to provide for the general welfare (constitutional)


This law does the same thing. The taxes on various forms of compensation, like health insurance, are used to create subsidies for those that can't afford or can't acquire coverage.

No where in the Constitution does it say the benefit must be public provided. Which is even more ridiculous when you consider Pual Ryan is trying to do the same thing to Social Security as the Democrats just did with Health Insurance. Which is farking stupid, but it's not unconstitutional.

sprawl15: mandating purchase of a product as a requirement for living in the country is a completely new concept.


Not what the law says at all.


sprawl15: And, for maybe the 10th time this thread, I'm saying the car insurance argument is completely and utterly irrelevant to the HCR bill.


And you're quite wrong about that. The power to regulate commerce was given to congress, not the states. And the supremacy clause makes any state commerce law moot if congress is so moved.
 
2011-02-01 03:57:26 PM  

DarnoKonrad: But the excises to enforce the mandate is different than the mandate itself anyway.


There are no excises to enforce the mandate.
 
2011-02-01 03:59:55 PM  
Just wanted to add what I heard in my head when I finished reading this headline:

images.wikia.com

A-heh-huh-heh-huh-heh-huh-huh!
 
2011-02-01 04:01:48 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: DarnoKonrad: But the excises to enforce the mandate is different than the mandate itself anyway.

There are no excises to enforce the mandate.


The Dick Cheney style of argumentation. Repeat until true. Yes, there is. It in the 1986 internal revenue code
 
2011-02-01 04:01:59 PM  

DarnoKonrad: It's levied at income. If you don't have an income you don't pay it. But the excises to enforce the mandate is different than the mandate itself anyway.


It is not levied at income, it's levied per head. Exemptions by income do not define or constitutionally enable the tax. If you have zero income, you still have to file your exemption from the mandate.

DarnoKonrad: Not what the law says at all.


That's the intent. Get insurance, or get fined. Calling the fine a tax does not make it so.

DarnoKonrad: And you're quite wrong about that. The power to regulate commerce was given to congress, not the states. And the supremacy clause makes any state commerce law moot if congress is so moved.


You're sort of right on the supremacy clause, but not in the way you think. The supremacy clause means the states can't overturn federal law locally, but that doesn't grant the fed jurisdiction over everything the states can do. Supremacy just means regulations that apply to the fed flow down.

Also, the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to the states. If the HCR bill allowed insurance to be sold across state lines, my concern about interstate commerce would disappear. My concern about the fed not being able to mandate purchase (or obtaining, if you want to continue being uselessly nitpicky about a tiny minority of cases) of a product would still remain
 
2011-02-01 04:03:19 PM  

justtray: Boy there's a lot of retards on the right.

ERs are not allowed to turn you down. The consequence of this is that underinsured or uninsured people have the burden of their cost passed on to those of us that do pay.

This law helps solve that problem.

The analogy to car insurance is identical. You want to have access to government funded facilities (most hospitals are), then you are required to be able to pay for the cost of those services if bad things happen.

There's no counter argument, and healthcare will not be repealed. Just farking deal with it you idiots. We're helping you even if you can't understand it because you're too dumb or bias.


The problem with this is, there are probably Republicans and right wingers out there right now trying to figure out a way to get rid of the EMTALA law (that's the one that says an ER can't turn you away for care, even if you cannot pay). I get the feeling if they can figure out a way to destroy the only bit of major change we've had to healthcare in something like 25 years, they'll go whole hog.
 
2011-02-01 04:06:10 PM  

meanmutton: Wow, an entire article dedicated to argumentum ad hominem?


Reminds me of a recent Onion segment where a watcher corrected the host about the date of the Alamo being built, so they stalked the women and pointed out all sorts of bad things about her. Again, the Onion was eerily too real this time.
 
2011-02-01 04:08:57 PM  

DarnoKonrad: This law does the same thing. The taxes on various forms of compensation, like health insurance, are used to create subsidies for those that can't afford or can't acquire coverage.


Through an unconstitutional method. Payment for government rendered services by increasing your income tax is not the same thing as levying a capitation to incentivize people to purchase private services.

DarnoKonrad: No where in the Constitution does it say the benefit must be public provided.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

This provides restrictions on why you can tax, section 9 and the 16th Amendment provide restrictions on how you can tax.
 
2011-02-01 04:11:52 PM  
disgusting. one doesn't need to dig through this judge's personal history to disagree with the ruling.

although i'm generally for the healthcare reform (and refuse to use the republican blame-name-game and call it obamacare), on a constitutional level i gotta agree a mandate to citizens to purchase a service is untested waters. but so was the federal reserve at one point, constitutionally speaking, when it was conceived.

the ridiculous part of this judge's decision to me is that he claims he cannot address the unconstitutionality of this tiny part of the law without invalidating the rest. which is completely untrue, he simply doesn't want to put the fair effort into something he disagrees with.
 
2011-02-01 04:12:49 PM  

DarnoKonrad: The_Six_Fingered_Man: DarnoKonrad: But the excises to enforce the mandate is different than the mandate itself anyway.

There are no excises to enforce the mandate.

The Dick Cheney style of argumentation. Repeat until true. Yes, there is. It in the 1986 internal revenue code


Show me. Since Chapter 48 doesn't exist yet, I'm thinking you might have a hard time showing me using the IRC. So I'll even allow you to use the bill. Show me where in PPACA the word excise is used in conjunction with failing to maintain minimum essential coverage.
 
2011-02-01 04:14:05 PM  

evilmousse: the ridiculous part of this judge's decision to me is that he claims he cannot address the unconstitutionality of this tiny part of the law without invalidating the rest. which is completely untrue, he simply doesn't want to put the fair effort into something he disagrees with.


Why do you think the mandate was important?
 
2011-02-01 04:14:46 PM  

sprawl15: He used to be entertaining. But he's no longer snarky and distantly amused, he's just bitter and whiny. It's kind of saddening to see an amusing troll go sour.



I miss those times.

You can thank the "higher-ups" and "betters" in the ivory towers of FARKdom for that. Often my sense of humor was not appreciated by many.

But I am not bitter at all, or sour for that matter. I am very happy just being part of a small group of people here who are not blind lefty libs.
 
2011-02-01 04:20:29 PM  
"Vinson's first major case was the 1985 trial of two young couples who were accused of bombing and conspiring to bomb three Pensacola-area abortion clinics. Jurors found the men guilty of bomb making, damaging buildings with bombs and conspiring to make bombs and the women guilty of conspiracy. Vinson allowed the four to remain free on bond for a month before he sentenced the men to 10 years in prison and the women to five years probation."

Blatant sexual discrimination from a judge? Welcome to Florida!
 
2011-02-01 04:23:44 PM  

Phil Herup: You can thank the "higher-ups" and "betters" in the ivory towers of FARKdom for that. Often my sense of humor was not appreciated by many.


There's no fun in trolling by just being idiotic in every thread for two posts before bailing, or spouting ridiculous indefensible claims. I mean this in the nicest way: have some self respect. You're better than this.
 
2011-02-01 04:25:38 PM  

evilmousse: disgusting. one doesn't need to dig through this judge's personal history to disagree with the ruling.

although i'm generally for the healthcare reform (and refuse to use the republican blame-name-game and call it obamacare), on a constitutional level i gotta agree a mandate to citizens to purchase a service is untested waters. but so was the federal reserve at one point, constitutionally speaking, when it was conceived.

the ridiculous part of this judge's decision to me is that he claims he cannot address the unconstitutionality of this tiny part of the law without invalidating the rest. which is completely untrue, he simply doesn't want to put the fair effort into something he disagrees with.


It is all in the way it is structured. Philosophically, the Government can compell a citizen to purchase a category of service. Building codes, safety regulations are an example of this.

Take the example of Bush's truck tax credit. It was structured properly, give a tax credit for buying a catergory of service. You cannot get that credit unless you buy what we tell you to. Nobody would argue that this was against the constitution even though it is compelling you to buy a particular item. In this case, the tax credit was much higher than the penalty imposes for not having insurance.

The solution is simple, raise taxes and give everyone a tax credit who has health insurance.

Alternately, restructure Medicare which most people buy into eventually. When you apply/buy into Medicare, add a discount for every year the applicants that were previously insured.

I'm not sure how Medicare works but let's say you charge $20K for the first year of a new subscriber instead of $10K (for instance).

However, if your were previously insured since HCR was implementented offer a $10K discount (10 years x $1,000). Someone never bothering to have insurance would have effectively lose a $10K discount.

Medicare is within the full mandate of the Government. There were many possible work-arounds but the law was very hard to pass with the roadblocking of the Republicans.
 
2011-02-01 04:27:09 PM  

evilmousse: the ridiculous part of this judge's decision to me is that he claims he cannot address the unconstitutionality of this tiny part of the law without invalidating the rest.




I heard the Obama administration told the judge, on several occasions, that the individual mandate was a vital requirement for the entire law.

So it is really not a tiny part. Also, did the law not allow for separate sections to be eliminated? I think it did not.

All in all it was a very sloppy piece of legislation.. typical of the mess that was Congress at the time.
 
2011-02-01 04:28:39 PM  

YoMammaObama: I suppose once the government owned Hollywood and Haliburton, the national treasure of VIVID and the rest of the porn industry should not be too far behind, amirite?


That made my mind produce this phrase: "Government Porn"

sciencefun.files.wordpress.com

// I'll thank you to never send my mind in that direction again
 
2011-02-01 04:33:36 PM  

Dr Dreidel: YoMammaObama: I suppose once the government owned Hollywood and Haliburton, the national treasure of VIVID and the rest of the porn industry should not be too far behind, amirite?

That made my mind produce this phrase: "Government Porn"

sciencefun.files.wordpress.com

// I'll thank you to never send my mind in that direction again


So "Government Porn" is scary, but "Government Healthcare" is not? That is confusing. But again I ask you: Why not take over energy and entertainment and porn like we did Amtrack? Think of the children!!!

Also, "Government Porn" brings me a whole new meaning to the phrase "Slippery Slope"... just sayin...
 
2011-02-01 04:33:46 PM  

Phil Herup: I heard the Obama administration told the judge, on several occasions, that the individual mandate was a vital requirement for the entire law.

So it is really not a tiny part. Also, did the law not allow for separate sections to be eliminated? I think it did not.

All in all it was a very sloppy piece of legislation.. typical of the mess that was Congress at the time.


It's not just that, the law didn't have the standard boilerplate language that the various parts of the law are severable (where if one part gets overturned, it doesn't negate the rest). That's default language.

It makes sense when you think about some of it wouldn't be severable, though, since the extra costs to the insurance companies would have been made up via the mandate. Why portions of the bill that had nothing to do with that weren't severable is beyond me.

mrshowrules: The solution is simple, raise taxes and give everyone a tax credit who has health insurance.


The problem with this that I can see is that the people who don't have health insurance tend not to have large enough of a tax burden to have any possible tax incentive outweigh the cost of buying insurance. If you're only paying 900 in taxes a year, and insurance would cost you a grand a year, there's no way to properly incentivize that without additional money given to help people purchase the insurance. At that point, though, we're so close to single payer (constitutionally) that we might as well take that last step.

That method would bypass most of the constitutionality issues, but would be grossly impractical.
 
2011-02-01 04:38:57 PM  
sprawl15: Why do you think the mandate was important?

evilmousse: the ridiculous part of this judge's decision to me is that he claims he cannot address the unconstitutionality of this tiny part of the law without invalidating the rest. which is completely untrue, he simply doesn't want to put the fair effort into something he disagrees with.


i'm not sure i understand the question. why do _i_ think the mandate was important? because allowing the government to mandate their citizens purchase another private citizen's service rubs me all the wrong ways, despite agreeing with the intentions. i'm only an armchair constitutional scholor, but i believe it boils down to whether you believe any rights & powers not enumerated in the constitution are reserved to the people or the congress. if it's the people, then congress would have to amend the constitution to allow such a mandate before the law could be legal; if it's the congress, then they're free to make such a law so long as it doesn't run afoul of anything already present in the constitution. my personal opinion is that unenumerated powers rest with the people, but such thinking is contrary to the already-longtime-operational federal reserve.

but unlike the judge, i believe that once the constitutionality of the mandate is determined by people smarter than i, and then regardless to outcome, the issue can be addressed and corrected without invalidating the other 98% of the law. this judge is all to eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
2011-02-01 04:41:47 PM  

evilmousse: i'm not sure i understand the question.


Maybe I should have been clearer. Do you think the mandate was added for practical reasons as well as moral (i.e., not "because more people with insurance is good")? If so, what do you think they are?
 
2011-02-01 04:41:56 PM  
Actually, the law doesn't say you must buy health insurance or you will get jail time and a criminal record. It simply says that if you elect not to buy health insurance, you will be fined. (Possibly in order to make up for the burden you are placing on society as a whole.)

The government fines people all the time, for doing many different things, or failing to do many different things. To say this particular fine is "unconstitutional" is just asinine.

It doesn't say much for the supposed impartiality of our judiciary though when the two Federal judges appointed by Democrats don't have a problem with Obama's bill, and the two Republican federal judges do. They're all looking at the same constitution, right? It's kind of like the 5-4 Supreme Court decision that appointed Bush president back in 2000 - straight down party lines.

/ To paraphrase Jon Stewart, in the 2000 election conservative Supreme Court judges got the opportunity to vote for George W. Bush twice - the second time counted for more...
 
2011-02-01 04:43:31 PM  

evilmousse: but unlike the judge, i believe that once the constitutionality of the mandate is determined by people smarter than i, and then regardless to outcome, the issue can be addressed and corrected without invalidating the other 98% of the law. this judge is all to eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


I too am an armchair scholar, and you may be right about the judge, but I have also seen it in contract law where the entire contract is void because of a single issue. I imagine that concept may apply to deciding the validity of a law as well as contract law. So it is possible that he is just following protocol as he understands it.
 
2011-02-01 04:47:22 PM  

JustTheTip: Actually, the law doesn't say you must buy health insurance or you will get jail time and a criminal record. It simply says that if you elect not to buy health insurance, you will be fined.


In fact, it specifically says that criminal prosecution is not allowed (like it would be if you didn't pay your income taxes): "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

JustTheTip: The government fines people all the time, for doing many different things, or failing to do many different things. To say this particular fine is "unconstitutional" is just asinine.


Fine for action is vastly different than fine for inaction. Every example of a similar situation shown so far has been on the state level. If you can find a similar Supreme Court ruling or federal level law that has not been overturned, please let me know. I've been looking for one in vain for a few days now.
 
2011-02-01 04:52:23 PM  

catpuncher: Phil Herup: AlphaTwin: Liberal Bad, Republican good.

So sad.

It is not the "liberals" who are bad, it is the "leftists" who are. There is a difference.

AlphaTwin: Contrary to what you've heard, ALL Liberals do not want to burn down your church or decapitate your unborn babies.

I will cede you that if you'll admit that SOME liberals do.



Oh come on... you guys can do better than that.
 
2011-02-01 04:53:48 PM  

YoMammaObama: I too am an armchair scholar, and you may be right about the judge, but I have also seen it in contract law where the entire contract is void because of a single issue. I imagine that concept may apply to deciding the validity of a law as well as contract law. So it is possible that he is just following protocol as he understands it.


From what I understand, there is almost always a severability provision in laws, and the HCR bill did not have this provision. If it did, there would need to be justification for overturning each part, but since there isn't, the whole thing can be thrown out in one go.
 
2011-02-01 04:53:58 PM  
It is all in the way it is structured. Philosophically, the Government can compell a citizen to purchase a category of service. Building codes, safety regulations are an example of this.

you make a very interesting point, but i'm not sure it's fair to compare the regulations put upon voluntary actions to an inescapable one. someone can choose to not build a house, but it's unreasonable to call living a discretionary choice. the regulations you described are all tied to voluntary choices, like driving requires a drivers' license. i'd be similarly irritated if the government dictated we needed a license to live in the country.

Phil Herup
I heard the Obama administration told the judge, on several occasions, that the individual mandate was a vital requirement for the entire law.


and THIS is where i find myself potentially forced to agree with the judge's ruling. personally, i'd hope that the judges responsibility to gauge the intent of the lawmakers is in the context of what the law was intended to accomplish, and not so far as to accommodate the deal-making over key points that goes on between opposing legislative teams. but if the lawmakers were quoted repeatedly speaking about the inexorability of that aspect from the rest of the law while creating it, the judge is appropriate in considering that.

still, is the consideration of lawmakers' intent the paramount issue to be considering when deciding this? is their opinion all needs to be considered about the situation, or is there a matter of fact to be determined about how inexorable this clause is?
 
2011-02-01 04:55:04 PM  

YoMammaObama: Dr Dreidel: YoMammaObama: I suppose once the government owned Hollywood and Haliburton, the national treasure of VIVID and the rest of the porn industry should not be too far behind, amirite?

That made my mind produce this phrase: "Government Porn"

sciencefun.files.wordpress.com

// I'll thank you to never send my mind in that direction again

So "Government Porn" is scary, but "Government Healthcare" is not? That is confusing. But again I ask you: Why not take over energy and entertainment and porn like we did Amtrack? Think of the children!!!


If I want something cookie-cutter, done the same way for everyone, and small variations don't matter, I don't mind government involvement. The DMV and IRS are great examples.

Where there is required a degree of artistic flourish, innovation, competition, and each product is different from the last, I don't really want government involved. Which is why I support NEArts grants in principle (not always in practice, but Piss Christ falls under the heading of "shiat I support funding"; we can talk about that later), and not Federal Government Art (is there such a thing?).

Generally speaking: Government should provide services. Government should not produce goods.

Also, "Government Porn" brings me a whole new meaning to the phrase "Slippery Slope"... just sayin...

files.effectsdatabase.com
 
2011-02-01 04:56:24 PM  

sprawl15: YoMammaObama: I too am an armchair scholar, and you may be right about the judge, but I have also seen it in contract law where the entire contract is void because of a single issue. I imagine that concept may apply to deciding the validity of a law as well as contract law. So it is possible that he is just following protocol as he understands it.

From what I understand, there is almost always a severability provision in laws, and the HCR bill did not have this provision. If it did, there would need to be justification for overturning each part, but since there isn't, the whole thing can be thrown out in one go.


www.polytickle.com
 
2011-02-01 05:02:14 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Generally speaking: Government should provide services. Government should not produce goods.


In a nutshell, this is why the socialism model will not work. If you have no income stream, you can't afford entitlements. (Taxing the people may be an income stream, but it is over extended and needs help badly.)

I wish the socialists would at least try to make the unicorn/rainbow package pay-go. Not that I think you are a socialist, mind you ... My lament is a universal one.
 
2011-02-01 05:05:56 PM  
Maybe I should have been clearer. Do you think the mandate was added for practical reasons as well as moral

yes, i would strongly guess there were practical reasons; far more than i could guess, but off the top of my head: to balance out the responsibility the insurance companies are mandated to cover; similar to how the post office gets to keep a monopoly on the delivery of mail because they have the added legal responsibility of providing a baseline level of service to absolutely everyone and everywhere. if insurance companies can't decline people, people can't decline companies and vice versa... again, just my opinion here.


I too am an armchair scholar, and you may be right about the judge, but I have also seen it in contract law where the entire contract is void because of a single issue. I imagine that concept may apply to deciding the validity of a law as well as contract law. So it is possible that he is just following protocol as he understands it.

indeed, and i think you're probably right. therein lies the limit of my armchairness, we'd need someone less armchair to get a real answer. i've heard of situations both ways, where whole contracts invalidated over one technicality, and others where corrections could be made. i'm not sure what makes for the key differences in those scenarios, nor how well contact law compares to constitutional. fun stuff to think about tho~
 
2011-02-01 05:10:41 PM  

evilmousse: yes, i would strongly guess there were practical reasons; far more than i could guess, but off the top of my head: to balance out the responsibility the insurance companies are mandated to cover; similar to how the post office gets to keep a monopoly on the delivery of mail because they have the added legal responsibility of providing a baseline level of service to absolutely everyone and everywhere. if insurance companies can't decline people, people can't decline companies and vice versa... again, just my opinion here.


Exactly, which is why the mandate was considered not severable. If the mandate is required for other parts of the bill to be valid, and the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of the bill is invalidated.
 
2011-02-01 05:20:03 PM  

YoMammaObama: Not that I think you are a socialist, mind you ... My lament is a universal one.


I consider myself subscribing to many ideologies - socialism, libertarianism, democracy, capitalism, minarchism/propertarianism.

Some are for theoretical reasons (as in, "I think, ideally, a socialist government would be best; I recognize that you'd need to eliminate the greed and power motives to make it workable"), some are me coming to terms with realities ("So people are greedy assholes. Capitalism - a regulated free-ish market - lets them satisfy their greedy urges. And usually we get some cool shiat*, to boot").

If I could wave a magic wand and create a government, it'd probably look like Sweden - democratic socialism.

* though I was thinking last night - the government created cellular technology, DARPANet, GPS, memory foam, and sent people into outer farking space, to the farking MOON AND BACK. Private industry has given us per-GB data plans, Twitter, TomTom, and still can't get people into space (let alone to the moon), 40 years later
 
2011-02-01 05:24:30 PM  
Didn't a provision of the health care bill make every business file a form for any transaction over $600 as well?

Bunch of crap in the bill that should not have been there. Whole thing is a stinker.

Apart from people with pre-existing conditions, which I believe is 90% of Farkers for some reason, how will the health bill help people? Me? I make too much to qualify for any benefits. My premiums will go up to subsidize 30 million more people. The type of businesses I work for will be hit. The federal deficit will increase. Health care costs will actually go up more than they normally would because of the bill, according to the latest CBO and other studies.

Honestly, how will it help each of you?
 
Displayed 50 of 432 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report