Obama Don't Care - Declared Unconstitutional

gdogslim · December-13-10, 12:52 PM

Obama Don't Care, The bill the dems had to pass before you could read it,
Is declared uncontitutional by a federal district judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/he.../14health.html
Judge Hudson wrote that the law’s central requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Wow, a judge is actually siding with the constitution these days, how refreshing.

**maxx** · December-13-10, 02:38 PM

If the Supreme Ct. upholds this decision, [as if they wouldn't], then we can look for a lot of hospitals going out of business. Hospitals would be caught between a law which requires them to treat everyone who comes through their doors and a ruling which doesn't require people to pay for services rendered. You can't run a business that way. We need to get the profit out of our healthcare or even more of us will be seeing a doctor in an animal stall courtesy of Remote Medical International.

**firstandten** · December-13-10, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by gdogslim

Obama Don't Care, The bill the dems had to pass before you could read it,
Is declared uncontitutional by a federal district judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/he.../14health.html
Judge Hudson wrote that the law’s central requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Wow, a judge is actually siding with the constitution these days, how refreshing.

Yea, a Bush appointed judge with a right wing partisan history. If you read the article it isn't the big deal you make it seem. It still isn't going to stop the health care train.

**Gistok** · December-13-10, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by gdogslim

Wow, a judge is actually siding with the constitution these days, how refreshing.

Here's something to ease that "refreshing" feeling you have.... if folks aren't required to pay for their health care... then when those "uninsured by choice" folks will receive their as-needed health care as indigent health care... then it will be paid for by you and I and all other taxpayers!!

**Detroitej72** · December-13-10, 07:54 PM

This partisan idiot needs to be removed from the courts since he is obviously putting his views ahead of the rule of the land. We don't need more activist judges who legislate from the bench.

**partyhardy** · December-13-10, 09:42 PM

It's going to be held constitutional when/if it gets to the Supreme Court.

**douglasm** · December-13-10, 10:02 PM

And it will go to the Supreme Court. Other Federal courts have ruled that the law IS constutional so we have diverging opinions.

**firstandten** · December-14-10, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

This partisan idiot needs to be removed from the courts since he is obviously putting his views ahead of the rule of the land. We don't need more activist judges who legislate from the bench.

OH NO !

I thought only those on the left were activist judges

**oladub** · December-14-10, 12:53 AM

When asked what part of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?”

-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi answered, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Her spokesman clarified Nancy's statement by suggesting the commerce clause could be interpreted to force Americans to buy whatever the government wants them to buy. It should get the economy going by rewarding campaign contributors anyway.

-Rep. John Conyers was more specific. "Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know -- I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know -- they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”

The Congressional Budget office noted, “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/flas...hairman-says-c

**Papasito** · December-14-10, 04:20 PM

Overturn it. My employer cancelled my health care and I can't afford to buy it on my own. I should not be forced to purchase something that I can't afford to buy. If it gets overturned, then I won't have to pay the "penalty". yay!

....Or I could just go to work for one of the 2OO [[and climbing) companies that the Obama Administration has granted immunity/exemption from the Health Care bill to.....
...which is total crap that any company should receive an exemption imo.

**justanotherboy** · December-14-10, 05:16 PM

"If the Supreme Ct. upholds this decision, [as if they wouldn't], then we can look for a lot of hospitals going out of business."

Any proof of that liberal kool aide? It is simply a return to the status quo. I don't see hospitals going out of business right now. Right now, if you show up in an ER, they are required by law to treat you even if you cannot pay.

**ghettopalmetto** · December-14-10, 06:19 PM

Our friends on the right-wing are curious creatures. They trot out "personal responsibility" at every opportunity, except when someone tries to enforce "personal responsibility".

Case in point: Currently, people who exercise personal responsibility buy purchasing health insurance are paying EXTRA--that's right--an EXTRA $1000 a year [[on average) to pay for people who CHOOSE to not be responsible.

Please reconcile your dogma with reality.

The majority of Americans who have health insurance pay a higher price because of our broken system. Every insured family pays an average of $1,000 more a year in premiums to cover the care of those who have no insurance.

Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when they need it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance, and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014.

If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it's essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121303816.html

**oldredfordette** · December-14-10, 09:33 PM

The "they are required by law to treat you" argument is a big right wing bullshit bugaboo. Yes, they have to see you. They stabilize you and get you out the door, after they charge you full retail for their services. A family member with no insurance broke her ankle and went to the emergency room. XRay, bone set, cast, crutches, prescription for Vicodin. $10,000.00. Under two hours, $10,000.00. Now, I'm sure the stupidest of the right wing chorus will chime in with reasons why this is a good thing, but people with morals will agree that in the "richest country in the world", this is a travesty of justice, unchristian and just plain wrong.

**maxx** · December-15-10, 10:21 AM

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...KmWLBZoPx-F0uw
"...The hospital has said that it is losing too much money and earlier this month stopped accepting inpatients.Because 90% of its roughly 11,000 annual inpatients are covered under the Medicare and Medicaid public assistance programs, Riverview has struggled economically... "

We need to restore the middle class and get them an affordable nonprofit healthcare system.

**johnsmith** · December-15-10, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by oldredfordette

The "they are required by law to treat you" argument is a big right wing bullshit bugaboo. Yes, they have to see you. They stabilize you and get you out the door, after they charge you full retail for their services. A family member with no insurance broke her ankle and went to the emergency room. XRay, bone set, cast, crutches, prescription for Vicodin. $10,000.00. Under two hours, $10,000.00. Now, I'm sure the stupidest of the right wing chorus will chime in with reasons why this is a good thing, but people with morals will agree that in the "richest country in the world", this is a travesty of justice, unchristian and just plain wrong.

$10,000?!?

What a ripoff. Congress should be addressing this type of medical ripoff, instead of forcing everyone to buy health insurance that continues to fund this ripoff. Having medical insurance doesn't make it any less of a ripoff, we just don't realize we're being ripped off. Seriously, when you go to the doctor or hospital, do you even look at the expense, aside from your co-pay? If you do, do you do anything about the exhorbitant costs? That's how they get away with it, does anyone get all up in arms and call them out on it on behalf of their insurance company? I doubt it.

**oldredfordette** · December-15-10, 08:17 PM

Well, you could level the costs of health care by providing it to every single American citizen. It's what other countries do and it works damned well. And yes, I do try and do something about it.

**Detroitej72** · December-16-10, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by johnsmith

Having medical insurance doesn't make it any less of a ripoff, we just don't realize we're being ripped off. Seriously, when you go to the doctor or hospital, do you even look at the expense, aside from your co-pay? If you do, do you do anything about the exhorbitant costs?

Not only do I read what my health insurance is charged, I also read what they pay out. A recent statement of mine showed that the labs charged $385.60 for some tests. My insurance payed $28.86, and the lab had to accept that rate.

My concern is not that the laboratory was payed less, but that if I had no insurance and tried to pay that much, I would be sent to a collection agency.

**maxx** · December-16-10, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by oldredfordette

Well, you could level the costs of health care by providing it to every single American citizen. It's what other countries do and it works damned well. And yes, I do try and do something about it.

For-profit healthcare is all about the bottom line.

Humana: Profits Over People
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-..._b_327311.html

United Health Care Profits Surge
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...e-lower-costs/

Record Profits
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthC...ory?id=9818699

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...t_for-prof.php
WellPoint has excuses. One that is almost reasonable is that they automatically scan claims for pre-existing "conditions that patients would likely have known about when they applied for insurance, but insisted it does not single out women with breast cancer." Which is only almost reasonable until you think it through and realize that they're admitting that they do actively search for reasons to deny coverage to women with breast cancer, and that their other justification is that they do the same thing for everyone on their plan who comes down with a disease.

gdogslim · December-16-10, 09:13 PM

How dare those evil health corporations make money. That means they may expand and provide even more services and make even more money. They should all be put out of business and have the government run them all.

**TKshreve** · December-16-10, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by gdogslim

How dare those evil health corporations make money. That means they may expand and provide even more services and make even more money. They should all be put out of business and have the government run them all.

If by your statement you mean EXPAND my co-pay and PROVIDE even more bills, then you are correct. The fault within your logic lies in the fact that these insurance companies enhance their bottom line by denying coverage. You don't see that because you probably haven't had a serious condition. And no, the government should not "run them all", however the insurance companies should be made to compete with a public option. Then we would see your capitalist wet-dream actually come to fruition. That went wrong when the insurance companies dumped 100's of millions of dollars into PR campaigns against the health care overhaul. Due to that we ended up with a compromised piece of shit that only fuels the flames of anti-government sentiment. Have another sip.

My concern is not that the laboratory was payed less, but that if I had no insurance and tried to pay that much, I would be sent to a collection agency.

Wow! Hit that nail square on the head. It's a public, legal raping. Sad really.

DetroitDad · December-17-10, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Not only do I read what my health insurance is charged, I also read what they pay out. A recent statement of mine showed that the labs charged $385.60 for some tests. My insurance payed $28.86, and the lab had to accept that rate.

My concern is not that the laboratory was payed less, but that if I had no insurance and tried to pay that much, I would be sent to a collection agency.

Having worked in the industry, I can tell you that that happens more than you think. With that in mind, I can only imagine how much the procedures and medication actually costs. More importantly, I have a very hard time staying motivated, working in an industry that operates this way. Unfortunately though, I'm told this is the future of my generation, "taking care of" our elders [[translated to putting the screws to them).

**Papasito** · December-17-10, 10:00 AM

I see the normal mouth pieces on this thread talking about the evils of the right wing or the evils of the left wing. Thruth of the matter is neither party has the stones to impliment price controls on greedy doctors, or fix the industry in the advantage of the consumer.
Sure, we got a big fat 2000 + page monstrosity that forces people to pay for something they can't afford, but it doesn't fix the problem. How can someone making $2500 a month buy $700 a month health insurance when they have a budge of $1000 mortgage/$250 heating&electric/$500 food/$400 car payment/ect ect ect.

gdogslim · December-17-10, 10:09 AM

It is the firs time in U.S. history that the government has imposed a tax on some activity that you DON"T do.
If they can do this they can tax you for NOT doing anything they want.
If you want da guvment to have REAL TIME access to YOUR bank account then support it.
If you want to lose your many of your freedoms of choice and have da guvment control your life from cradle to grave then support it.

**Papasito** · December-17-10, 04:49 PM

If the Government imposed penalties on employers for not providing health care to employees, it would make sense. To impose penalties on individuals for not buying health care is wrong.

**ghettopalmetto** · December-17-10, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

If the Government imposed penalties on employers for not providing health care to employees, it would make sense. To impose penalties on individuals for not buying health care is wrong.

How is this any different from automobile insurance? Is that wrong too?

Gee, I wonder where these "unconstitutional" arguments were when the ideas in the health care law were first proposed--by Republicans in the 1990s.