The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   U.S. Healthcare Law Ruled Unconstitutional (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=238666)

FreakyLocz14 December 13th, 2010 12:03 PM

U.S. Healthcare Law Ruled Unconstitutional
 
A federal district judge struck down key provisions of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid healthcare experiment today. What the judge took issue with was the individual mandate clause that would force private citizens to purchase private healthcare, or face penalties.

http://tinyurl.com/36h8ju8

Netto Azure December 13th, 2010 5:15 PM

Obama-Pelosi-Reid Healthcare Experiment? Or a very close copy of the 1993 Republican counter-proposal against Clinton-care?

Very ironic.

Anyways, I really am not surprised, the Democrats were certainly stretching the Welfare, Taxation, Commerce, and "Necessary and Proper" Clauses of the US Constitution. But then again it was no holds barred, slash and burn, take no prisoners hyper-partisan atmosphere that they were operating in when crafting this law. Remember "Pulling the plug on grandma," "cornhusker kickbacks" and "death panels?" Especially the "You Lie" outburst during the Joint Session Address by the President on Healthcare. I was surprised the Democrats were still even able to pull it off by bypassing the Filibuster rule. LOL. XD

Another main reason I'd rather expand Medicare back during the Healthcare Debate, to all US Citizens and see how seniors will revolt if Medicare is struck down as unconstitutional. 8)

Plus this has been pointed out waaaaayyyyy back in March 2009.


Quote:

Obama's ambitious agenda will be scrutinized and second-guessed by conservative federal judges.

As they charge through the eventful first 100 days, President Obama and his allies are racking up legislative victories. Soon they will have to win the votes of a new audience: men and women in black robes. As the former constitutional-law professor surely knows, that can be a tough crowd. Here's the core constitutional fact: a progressive president and Congress now face a conservative judiciary, for the first time since 1937. Obama's ambitious agenda, if enacted, must go before federal courts—where judges can rewrite or strike down key provisions. From the TARP bank bailout, to climate change "cap and trade," to health-care reform, new laws could face an array of judicial doctrines recently honed by conservative lawyers. We can't know for sure, and carefully crafted laws usually withstand judicial scrutiny.

Still, imagine if Hillarycare had passed in 1994. Does anyone think the Rehnquist Court would not have vivisected those parts it found unpalatable?
Also to emphasize how Hyper-partisan this issue is, your title needs to be fixed, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been ruled Constitutional by 2 judges (Appointed by Democrats)

One from Michigan

Another from the same Virginia district that todays ruling came, which I might point out was appointed by George W. Bush.

FreakyLocz14 December 13th, 2010 9:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 6340210)
Obama-Pelosi-Reid Healthcare Experiment? Or a very close copy of the 1993 Republican counter-proposal against Clinton-care?

Very ironic.

Anyways, I really am not surprised, the Democrats were certainly stretching the Welfare, Taxation, Commerce, and "Necessary and Proper" Clauses of the US Constitution. But then again it was no holds barred, slash and burn, take no prisoners hyper-partisan atmosphere that they were operating in when crafting this law. Remember "Pulling the plug on grandma," "cornhusker kickbacks" and "death panels?" Especially the "You Lie" outburst during the Joint Session Address by the President on Healthcare. I was surprised the Democrats were still even able to pull it off by bypassing the Filibuster rule. LOL. XD

Another main reason I'd rather expand Medicare back during the Healthcare Debate, to all US Citizens and see how seniors will revolt if Medicare is struck down as unconstitutional. 8)

Plus this has been pointed out waaaaayyyyy back in March 2009.




Also to emphasize how Hyper-partisan this issue is, your title needs to be fixed, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been ruled Constitutional by 2 judges (Appointed by Democrats)

One from Michigan

Another from the same Virginia district that todays ruling came, which I might point out was appointed by George W. Bush.

The article I linked to also mentions those rulings by those two other judges.

I'm not surprised that it past. The Democrats had nearly a perfect majority (59 seats) in the Senate at the time of the bill's passage. All it took was persuading one lone Republican to stop a filibuster. And there's no filibuster rule in the House, so the Democratic majority had an even easier time there.

If judges are really going to make their decisions based on politics, than the healthcare law is doomed. The U.S. Supreme Court is made up of a majority of conservative Justices. Unless Obama gets to replace one or two of the conservative Justices with liberal ones, the healthcare law's chances of passing constitutional muster look dim. And now that the Republicans have made significant gains in the Senate (short of a majority, but a comfortable amount of gains for filibustering), Obama will be hard pressed trying to get a staunchly liberal Supreme Court nominee confirmed.

Netto Azure December 14th, 2010 10:37 AM

Oh I know that. Main reason it's no use to lament this. It all comes down to the 9 Justices on the Black robes in the US Supreme Court after all.

Will possibly remind me of Bush v. Gore again. :B

FreakyLocz14 December 14th, 2010 4:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 6341249)
Oh I know that. Main reason it's no use to lament this. It all comes down to the 9 Justices on the Black robes in the US Supreme Court after all.

Will possibly remind me of Bush v. Gore again. :B

This ruling sets a precedent that those 5 conservative Supreme Court justices can use to justify declaring the individual mandate clause of the healthcare law unconstitutional. I personally have no objections to the rest of the law. Barring insurance companies from turning down people with preexisting conditions and creating healthcare exchanges sits right with me. Even though I oppose both, I'd prefer a public option over an individual mandate because it doesn't amount to the government forcing private citizens to purchase services from a private company.

The Republicans in the 112th Congress will be a lot more polarized to the right than the Republicans of 1993 that proposed a healhcare bill similar to the one that passed this year. With moderate Republican and Democratic incumbents losing to Tea Party-backed candidates, what little, if any (and I'm really stretching that term), bipartisanship there was in the 111th Congress will cease to exist come January. Besides, the Clinton era Republicans weren't going up against a far-left liberal like Obama. Clinton was a moderate Southern Democrat. More members of Congress from both parties were more moderate than today as well. That's why things were a lot better during the Clinton years.

Corvus of the Black Night December 14th, 2010 5:33 PM

Like seriously, though? What the hell was so unconstitutional about it, besides it being too much on the left for our righty-tighty judges? From what I saw most of the stuff in the health-care bill had nothing to do with "forcing people to use a nationalized plan", most of it was just preventing insurance companies from pulling the rug under people's feet. You know, some freaking rules for the healthcare system. lolol

Netto Azure December 14th, 2010 5:47 PM

Actually, the law requires you to buy private health insurance or get into Medicaid or you'll get levied fees/taxes. But that's waaaayyyy into 2014.

But the upside is, you get a whole lot of government subsidies to buy it.

And yes, I know the political landscape for the next 2 years. :3

Corvus of the Black Night December 14th, 2010 6:02 PM

I see why they don't like it. Hahahaha that's kinda pathetic really. I've always viewed a national healthcare plan as a basic covering while insurance companies could be a silver platter version of healthcare. What's so unconstitutional about that? We're forced by law to go to school lol

Netto Azure December 14th, 2010 6:51 PM

Same here. That's what it's supposed to be on the first place. But the current system is so ingrained that what we got was basically an expansion of coverage through subsidies. :B

FreakyLocz14 December 14th, 2010 6:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corvidae (Post 6341956)
I see why they don't like it. Hahahaha that's kinda pathetic really. I've always viewed a national healthcare plan as a basic covering while insurance companies could be a silver platter version of healthcare. What's so unconstitutional about that? We're forced by law to go to school lol

This is nowhere near a nationalized healthcare plan. Some income limits were raised for Medicaid eligibility, but this law largely forces everyone to buy private health insurance from healthcare companies. Yes, there will be subsidies for people who just barely miss the Medicaid cut-off lines, but the judge said that it's beyond Congress' authority to mandate citizens to buy a commercial service from a private company. The "public option" was scraped from both the House and Senate version of the bill in order to prevent a filibuster in the Senate and to prevent Blue Dog Democrats from siding with the Republicans in the House. Even after that concession was made, the House vote was still narrow. And the government can force you to go to school if you are a minor. The government can treat you differently in a lot of ways if you are minor that it can't if you are an adult. That's comparing apples to oranges.

Netto Azure December 14th, 2010 7:12 PM

It's ultimately the government paying for the entire healthcare system after all.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires hospitals to accept emergency room patients, and those hospitals who accept patients are given "charity grants" by the government to pay for such care. (Which under this act will be lowered due to coverage) So it's better to have people covered early so they can see the doctor before medical problems metastasize. And when a person gets in an accident, who pays for their care in the end?

Also the government provides subsidies already to health insurance companies by not taxing the benefits given by employers, thereby already giving the government incentives to have a deeper role in regulating lost revenue.

FreakyLocz14 December 14th, 2010 8:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 6342097)
It's ultimately the government paying for the entire healthcare system after all.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires hospitals to accept emergency room patients, and those hospitals who accept patients are given "charity grants" by the government to pay for such care. (Which under this act will be lowered due to coverage) So it's better to have people covered early so they can see the doctor before medical problems metastasize. And when a person gets in an accident, who pays for their care in the end?

Also the government provides subsidies already to health insurance companies by not taxing the benefits given by employers, thereby already giving the government incentives to have a deeper role in regulating lost revenue.

I actually agree, but the court battles will probably all be waged solely on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. The question for judges is whether or not Congress has the constitutional authority to force private persons to purchase a commercial service from a private service provider. The judge in the article I link to didn't think that the individual mandate was a tax, because the revenue from taxes goes towards the direct benefit of the government, while revenue from a healthcare mandate goes to the direct benefit of private entities. A common argument that is raised by the pro-healthcare law side in comparing the individual mandate to car insurance mandates that the several states impose. Well I find a number of flaws in that analogy. First off, there are alternatives to driving. By walking, biking, taking public transportation, etc. one can easily avoid having to purchase auto insurance. There is no similar way to avoid the healthcare mandate. Also, there is no federal-level auto insurance mandate. All of these laws are at the state and local levels. It has been consistently held that the states have a lot more authority to regulate public health and safety, and the states have much broader police powers than the federal government has by way of the 10th Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.).

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire December 14th, 2010 8:36 PM

What part of the Constitution did the Health care bill break for it to be declared unconstitional? Just wondering, besides I don't like the Obamacare plan...

Red1530 December 15th, 2010 7:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magmaruby and Aquasapphire (Post 6342244)
What part of the Constitution did the Health care bill break for it to be declared unconstitional? Just wondering, besides I don't like the Obamacare plan...

It violated the Commerce Clause. The judege stated
Quote:

Originally Posted by [FONT=arial
Judge Henry E. Hudson[/FONT]][n]either the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market

Source: http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2010/12/13/federal-judge-rejects-commerce-clause-argument-finds-ppaca-health-insurance-individual-mandate-is-unconstitutional.aspx


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:49 PM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.