Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Judge in Va. strikes down federal health care law

Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:12 PM EST
us-news, business, politics, us, health-care, supreme-court, care, virginia, overhaul
Larry O'Dell, Associated Press
Advertise | AdChoices

RICHMOND — A federal judge rejected a key provision of the Obama administration's health care law as unconstitutional Monday, ruling the government cannot require people to buy insurance, in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two other federal judges in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida.

The government had argued the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the government the power to require individuals to buy health insurance or face a penalty, a provision due to take effect in 2014.

But Hudson sided with Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli in saying the mandate overstepped the Constitution.

"This case, however, turns on atypical and uncharted applications of constitutional law interwoven with subtle political undercurrents," Hudson wrote. "The outcome of this case has significant public policy implications. And the final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court."

There was no immediate comment from the White House.

The Department of Justice, which defended the law in court, stood by its argument that Congress was within its rights to enact the law.

"We are disappointed in today's ruling but continue to believe — as other federal courts in Virginia and Michigan have found — that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.

The lawsuit was filed by Cuccinelli, a Republican, in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance.

Cuccinelli argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government's reach.

"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," Cuccinelli said in a statement after the ruling.

Hudson, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, sounded sympathetic to the state's case when he heard oral arguments in October, and the White House expected to lose this round.

Administration officials told reporters last week that a negative ruling would have virtually no impact on the law's implementation, noting that its two major provisions — the coverage mandate and the creation of new insurance markets — don't take effect until 2014.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Larry O'Dell's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Bar Room Debates, Democrat Watch, Gut Check America, NewsVine Addicts, ObamaVine, US Constitution , US News and Views
  • Regions: United States , Richmond/Petersburg
  • Public Discussion (122)
Driftwood1

Excellent news! Of course, it will be on to the Supreme Court now, but still, this is a start. I don't see how any judge can rule any differently than this.

  • 16 votes
#1 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:30 PM EST
Catch22

I don't see how any judge can rule any differently than this.

Why not exactly? This article doesnt even explain the ruling.
Thats also interesting since the article points out that at least two already have and that others have tossed similar cases out of court.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.

Not surprsingly, the headline is sensational and a bit misleading. The judge held a single element unconsitutional and did not "strike down the law." Another example of a sensationalistic media.

This article is missing key information and reads like the whole law was struck down, it was not.

  • 13 votes
#1.1 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:33 PM EST
Driftwood1

I didn't interpret it that way at all. I know that he held that certain portions, or a portion, of the law as unconstitutional, and the judge is correct in his ruling.

  • 13 votes
#1.2 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:46 PM EST
Driftwood1

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.

He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.

This says it all. There is no ambiguity.

  • 12 votes
#1.3 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:48 PM EST
Catch22

This judge held that section 1501 which mandates health insuarnce was unconsititinal. The plaintiff requested that he strike down the entire health care law - the judge did not and expressly limited his ruling to section 1501.

An accurate headline would read:

Federal judge in Va. strikes down part of health care law

Saying the judge struck down the health care law is not accurate, he could of, he did not. Newspapers accross the nation are using similar misleading headlines.

He is the third Federal judge to hear this case. He is the only one to find any portion unconstitional. Even if this ruling is upheld in the Supreme Court it still leaves the 99+% of the health care reform bill intact.

Here is a link to the actual opinion.

This says it all. There is no ambiguity.

You appear to leave out a key part of the sentence: He argues...

Two other federal judges have already held that he is wrong. The Supreme Court will decide. That you might agree with an opinion doesnt make it unambigous.

  • 7 votes
#1.4 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:50 PM EST
Driftwood1

I'm saying that the ARTICLE itself is not ambiguous. I also stated in my earlier post that yes, this wil now head to the supreme court.

I did not title the article, the AP did. I didn't even post this seed.

I am merely commenting on it and saying that I agree that a portion of HCR is definitely unconstitutional and I commend the judges ruling. You guys wake up on the wrong side of the bed or what?

  • 9 votes
#1.5 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:59 PM EST
Driftwood1

Even if this ruling is upheld in the Supreme Court it still leaves the 99+% of the health care reform bill intact.

For now... until the Republicans get a hold of it. Congress can't even get on board to take out the language regarding the 1099 filings by businesses that's going to cost businesses an arm and a leg to comply with. That is another portion that should have NEVER been in the bill in the first place.

  • 10 votes
#1.6 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:03 PM EST
Steve Watts

I also stated in my earlier post that yes, this wil now head to the supreme court.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Drifty, but HCR opponents are sort of screwed either way.

If the Supreme Court rules that the individual mandate is Constitutional, the argument is settled. If it rules it unconstitutional, the provision forbidding denial based on preexisting conditions will bankrupt the insurance industry in less than a decade. What exactly do you think will happen when people don't have to carry insurance, but the insurance companies can't say no? People will decide not to have insurance, get sick, get insurance, use it, get better, then drop it again. With insurance companies suffering heavy losses, the government will be forced to adopt a single-payer system.

Now sure, Congress could try to repeal it, but we all know that's a lost cause. Even if they pick up gains in 2012, they'd be arguing that we have to repeal one of the most popular bits of the bill. Pretty much everyone agrees that insurance companies shouldn't be able to deny people with preexisting conditions, but that only works if people have to have insurance anyway. Good luck arguing that message to voters.

By the way, the individual mandate? Republican idea from 1993. Just pointing that out. Again.

  • 6 votes
#1.7 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:07 PM EST
Driftwood1

The name is Driftwood, for the last time. I don't call you Stevie, or Steve-O.

If the Supreme Court rules that the individual mandate is Constitutional, the argument is settled

Why are you telling me things I already know? The supreme court will rule one way or the other. Regardless, the Republicans are going to work on trashing the whole thing. It's a monster and needs to be redone from start to finish.

222 waivers from Obamacare, and counting...

Republican idea from 1993. Just pointing that out. Again.

I don't care whose idea it is or was. It's unconstitutional.

  • 11 votes
#1.8 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:15 PM EST
Steve WattsRestored

The name is Driftwood, for the last time. I don't call you Stevie, or Steve-O.

Feel free to, Drifty.

Why are you telling me things I already know? The supreme court will rule one way or the other. Regardless, the Republicans are going to work on trashing the whole thing.

Why are you isolating the fairly obvious lead-in comment I made and ignoring the more nuanced problems that I brought up regarding striking down the law?

If the individual mandate is struck down, it will bankrupt the insurance industry unless the entire law is repealed. The GOP doesn't have the votes to repeal the law. Think about this logically. The GOP's battle cry is "unconstitutional." If the individual mandate is struck down, they won't be able to rally votes on the constitutionality of it anymore. At the same time, if they leave it alone, the preexisting conditions rule without an individual mandate will be disastrous for insurance companies. It's a catch-22.

I don't care whose idea it is or was. It's unconstitutional.

That's your opinion and you're free to have it. I just find it odd that no Republican Congressmen seemed to think that, oh, 17 years ago.

  • 6 votes
#1.9 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:23 PM EST
Driftwood1

unless the entire law is repealed.

I cannot be any more clear. That's what should happen and that's what needs to happen.

And since you insist on calling me "drifty" when I have asked you not to, I have nothing further to say to you. You can be disrespectful to others, but I don't play that game.

  • 11 votes
#1.10 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:25 PM EST
oneforall

If the Supreme Court rules that the individual mandate is Constitutional, the argument is settled.

If the Supreme Court supports the Obama administration's position, it would mean that at least two of the Justices on the Court have been replaced.

  • 3 votes
#1.11 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:27 PM EST
werinasadstate

Mark him as inflammatory driftwood - if you ask him not to call you something and he continues to do it, then it is inflammatory. Of course nothing will happen to him because he is a liberal, but it's another mark on the page of proof at the bias of the Newsvine moderators ;-)

  • 5 votes
#1.12 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:24 PM EST
Catch22

If the Supreme Court supports the Obama administration's position, it would mean that at least two of the Justices on the Court have been replaced.

Which 6 Justice to you imagine to already know how they will come out on this issue of first impression? Or is that just bluster? Scalia and Thomas are pretty predictable in their willingness to use the Constitution to push their own ideological agenda. Which others are you already so sure of? Alito? Roberts? Kennedy? Even if you assume for that Alito, Roberts and Kennedy would go with Scalia and Thomas, who else are you counting on exactly?

My guess is that this will be a close case most likely 5-4 and could go either way depending on where Kennedy falls.

  • 4 votes
#1.13 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:31 PM EST
ArizonaBill

Appears that King Obama has just been told he is only a President,,and that this is still a Free Country !

  • 6 votes
#1.14 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:20 PM EST
Steve Watts

I cannot be any more clear. That's what should happen and that's what needs to happen.

I understand that's your position, I'm just saying it's not a realistic goal. Or rather, it's not a realistic goal if you're also hoping that the courts will strike down the individual mandate. Both cannot exist, you're rooting for court action that would undermine the desired congressional action. You have to hope for one or the other.

Right now your best hope for getting rid of the law is that the courts won't strike down the individual mandate. If they don't (or if they stall too long), Congress can still hope for gains in 2012 to repeal it. At that point they have to hope Obama isn't reelected, because he'd veto any attempted repeal. Any date past that and the law will be fully in effect, and shoring up support for a law after people see that hasn't destroyed society is awfully hard.

No matter how you slice it, it's one hell of an uphill battle.

And since you insist on calling me "drifty" when I have asked you not to, I have nothing further to say to you. You can be disrespectful to others, but I don't play that game.

Mark him as inflammatory driftwood

Sheesh, no one has a sense of humor anymore.

You said "for the last time," but you had never told me not to call you that before. You said it to someone else on a thread I was participating in (regarding a different nickname), and apparently confused me for that person. Since you couldn't keep track of what you had told me, I ribbed you with it one more time. Lighten up, Driftwood1.

  • 3 votes
#1.15 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:37 PM EST
werinasadstate

Whether or not she directed it at you, you know she doesn't want to be called drifty, that is why you do it, and that is inflammatory.

  • 3 votes
#1.16 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:49 PM EST
joanne-1237813Deleted
Driftwood1

What's all DRIFTWOOD??

  • 3 votes
#1.18 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:16 PM EST
Steve Watts

you know she doesn't want to be called drifty, that is why you do it

That doesn't really make any sense. If my motivation were that she doesn't like it, then why did I start doing it? You run into an endless loop of logical contradictions pretty fast.

My motivation was that I call people here by nicknames all the time, and always have. I think it's kind of a stupid thing to get touchy about, especially from someone who doesn't really read and respond to what I say anyway, and when she can't keep track of whether or not she's told me it's not welcome. So I said it once more in jest, and you guys went all report-happy on me. Que sera.

Now, back on the subject: rooting for both court action and congressional action is untenable, because the former undermines the latter. Discuss.

What's all DRIFTWOOD??

Yeah, I don't really get that comment either, Driftwood1.

  • 3 votes
#1.19 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:17 PM EST
CaptainObviousSays

Roberts "supreme court" is even more conservative than Hudson "district court".

read....

Court Under Roberts Is Most Conservative in Decades

time to face the facts...
ObamaCare is a dead law walking

cheers
:)

  • 3 votes
#1.20 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:27 PM EST
Driftwood1

Steve:

To put the name thing to rest, once and for all, I specifically told you and one other person to stop calling me drifty because from the tone of all your comments to me, it was obvious that it was meant as disrespect. I told you specifically on the thread about Fox News "slanting" the news, in one of our first conversations. I had assumed you saw that, and yet you continued, which reinforced my belief that you were doing that on purpose, although knowing that I asked you not to. In my experience, those that call me "drifty" are not friends of mine, nor are they interested in what I have to say, except to insult.

Now, back to the topic at hand.

  • 4 votes
#1.21 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:32 PM EST
werinasadstate

That doesn't really make any sense. If my motivation were that she doesn't like it, then why did I start doing it? You run into an endless loop of logical contradictions pretty fast.

Steve, she told you not to call her drifty, then you ADMITTEDLY did it again in the very next post. Why else would you call her drifty again after she asked you not to? I think you are the one who are running into an endless loop of logical contradictions pretty fast...

  • 3 votes
#1.22 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:36 PM EST
Catch22

Interesting fact:

Henry E. Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who just ruled health care reform unconstitutional, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform.

  • 3 votes
#1.23 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:38 PM EST
Steve Watts

I had assumed you saw that, and yet you continued, which reinforced my belief that you were doing that on purpose, although knowing that I asked you not to.

Actually I hadn't seen it, so my mistake. I just went back to check that thread and you did indeed tell me to call you Driftwood. I still think it's a silly thing to get so uptight about, but to give proper credit where it's due you're right that you had asked before. I apologize, Driftwood1.

In my experience, those that call me "drifty" are not friends of mine

Which is weird because in your initial comment to me you had said:

And you can call me Driftwood, not Drifty. That's reserved for my friends only.

So you reserve the name for friends, but in your experience people who say it aren't friends. C'mon, you've got to admit that's pretty weird. And here I thought we were friends, albeit ones who never agree on anything ever. :-P

Steve, she told you not to call her drifty, then you ADMITTEDLY did it again in the very next post.

Yes, because it's a stupid thing to get touchy about and I'm a snarky person sometimes. It was said in jest, and you guys freaked out. You can keep trying to ascribe motivations to me, but I'm kind of the authoritative source on the subject. Sorry.

Now, back to the topic at hand.

By all means. I tried to get us back on course in my latest post, I keep waiting for you to respond to my point. To restate: a court victory on HCR undermines chances for a congressional victory, so rooting for both is short-sighted. What say you?

  • 1 vote
#1.24 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:43 PM EST
joanne-1237813Deleted
Steve Watts

hey Driftwood1, this whole discussion is getting loggy.

Such puns deserve some sort of medal or some sort of beating.

  • 1 vote
#1.26 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:54 PM EST
Driftwood1

To restate: a court victory on HCR undermines chances for a congressional victory, so rooting for both is short-sighted. What say you?

I say that the likelihood of Obamacare being repealed in Congress is highly unlikely. At best we are probably only going to get portions rewritten (but not trashed completely). I believe the main body of the bill is going to stay intact. So, if all we can get is a Supreme Court victory on the constitutionality portion, I'm all for it. In fact, I think to get rid of the mandate, it must go to the Supreme Court. Obama will never hear legislation in Congress on that issue. Hopefully Congress CAN repeal the portion regarding businesses and 1099 filings for purchases of $600 or more. I think everyone is pretty much in agreement with that.

  • 3 votes
#1.27 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:04 PM EST
Steve Watts

So, if all we can get is a Supreme Court victory on the constitutionality portion, I'm all for it. In fact, I think to get rid of the mandate, it must go to the Supreme Court.

Okay, then there's a follow-up point that I brought up earlier. If all you get is a SCOTUS victory on the individual mandate, the insurance industry will go bankrupt within a decade. Insurance companies will close. The business model will fail.

Companies can't deny coverage for preexisting conditions anymore. That piece is in there for good, it's way too popular to ever rally support to get rid of it. However, the preexisting conditions provision only works if people are also required to have insurance.

Think about it for a moment. If you have a chronic illness that flares up about once every year, what would you do? Under the current system, you would have coverage and be assured you can't be denied due to chronic illness. Under the system without the individual mandate, you'd probably decide those 11 months out of the year that you aren't sick, you don't need to pay. When you have a flare-up, you call up the insurance company, get your cushy package, walk to the doctor and get all patched up, and then immediately drop the insurance again. You'll be paying $50 for thousands of dollars worth of treatment.

I'm sure you can see the problem of business sustainability here. Either premiums will skyrocket due to instability, or (more likely) insurance companies will shutter altogether. The government will be forced to adopt a single-payer model because there will be no other choice, and the GOP's own actions will have resulted in an even more liberal health care standard than the current one.

  • 1 vote
#1.28 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:11 PM EST
Driftwood1

joanne-1237813

let's just get back on the topic.

That's funny coming from you, considering that you haven't been on topic once and have only posted two comments on this seed - both having to do with my name.

Would you like to make a contribution regarding the topic of this seed? I'm breathless with anticipation.

  • 2 votes
#1.29 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:12 PM EST
Driftwood1

I'm sure you can see the problem of business sustainability here.

I do see the problem that you've brought up. There has to be a way to navigate around the mess that Obama, Reid and Pelosi got us into with this. Frankly, it appears that we are going to be stuck with what Obama wanted us to have. Instead of taking time and putting thought into this, this was rushed through without reading. That should be a crime in and of itself. I will do some more research - there must be a way.

  • 4 votes
#1.30 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:18 PM EST
Steve Watts

There has to be a way to navigate around the mess that Obama, Reid and Pelosi got us into with this.

That's just the thing, the preexisting condition provision can't be blamed on Obama, Reid, or Pelosi. People have been asking for that for years. It's extremely popular, even among Republicans. But functionally, without a mandate, it's totally unsustainable.

Instead of taking time and putting thought into this, this was rushed through without reading.

People read most of it 17 years ago.

  • 2 votes
#1.31 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:24 PM EST
Fred G. from N.C.

While I support true health care reform, I never supported Pelosi/Obama care and I welcome this ruling. One of the reasons the President is having a hard time pushing his tax compromise is he used too many favors on Pelosi-care. a Rookie (and Sophomore) mistake!! I hope that this paves the way for an eventual overhaul or repeal of Pelosi/Obama care and we get true health care reform, something that is long overdue!!

  • 3 votes
#1.32 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:25 PM EST
joanne-1237813Deleted
Steve Watts

One of the reasons the President is having a hard time pushing his tax compromise is he used too many favors on Pelosi-care.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. The tax compromise is favored by Republicans and opposed by Democrats. The various compromises on the health care bill were concessions made to the Republicans, made by Democrats but unpopular with the Democrat base. Are you saying that he kowtowed to the GOP too much and the Dems are sick of it?

  • 1 vote
#1.34 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:28 PM EST
American Dreams

There is a bight light shining through the fog of the Obama administration!!!!

  • 3 votes
#1.35 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:47 AM EST
Catch22

Will this ruling stand up to scrutiny?

Legal experts are attacking Judge Henry Hudson's decision on the merits, citing an elementary logical flaw at the heart of his opinion. And that has conservative scholars -- even ones sympathetic to the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional -- prepared to see Hudson's decision thrown out.

"I've had a chance to read Judge Hudson's opinion, and it seems to me it has a fairly obvious and quite significant error," writes Orin Kerr, a professor of law at George Washington University, on the generally conservative law blog The Volokh Conspiracy.

Kerr and others note that Hudson's argument against Congress' power to require people to purchase health insurance rests on a tautology.

Perhaps the linchpin of this holding will collapse under review?

  • 1 vote
#1.36 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:13 PM EST
joanne-1237813Deleted
Reply
RV in GB#1

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/___Politics_Today_Stories_Teases/PPM187_vahlthrlg.pdf

Above is the full ruling. It was in the full original article.

I fully agree with the judge's ruling.

  • 9 votes
Reply#2 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:51 PM EST
werinasadstate

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love to say I told you so! :-)

  • 8 votes
Reply#3 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:58 PM EST
Driftwood1

It's only common sense, right? That's how I look at it. The government does not have the right to require it's citizens to purchase it's health care or any other health care and fine us if we don't.

  • 12 votes
#3.1 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:01 PM EST
Catch22

I love to say I told you so! :-)

So far there have been 3 federal judges that have rulled on this provision. Two upheld it, one struck down a single section.

So what exactly did you say?

We do have an activist court seeking to impose their own policy prefrences so there is a significant chance that the Supreme Court will also strike down this provision. That would still leave the vast majority of the law intact - is that also what you have been talling all along as well?

  • 3 votes
#3.2 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:12 PM EST
Driftwood1

So what exactly did you say?

That it's not over til it's over. The Supreme Court still must rule on all of these lawsuits. They haven't just ended or gone away.

  • 8 votes
#3.3 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:17 PM EST
Catch22

That it's not over til it's over.

I agree. Perhaps I should have been clearer but the question was directed werinasadstate whose celebratory comment suggests they believe its over already.

  • 3 votes
#3.4 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:24 PM EST
werinasadstate

What I'm saying catch22, is that it is unconstitutional to FORCE someone to purchase a product and FINE them if they don't. I'm saying that after giving the insurance companies ALL OF WHICH ARE CROOKS thousands and thousands of my hard earned money, I decided to pay for my health care out of pocket and I come out WAY ahead. I'm saying that if something catastrophic happened to me and I was unable to work, I wouldn't be able to pay my insurance premium anyway so what good would having the insurance do me in the long run? NONE! It only does the insurance companies good. Do you know that I had major surgery on my neck, performed by a neurosurgeon, and the insurance company ended up paying LESS than what I had paid in premiums? Did you also know that it isn't only insurance companies who can negotiate with hospitals and doctors regarding fees, etc.? In 2009 I paid out almost $5K in insurance premiums and I went to the doctor ONE TIME, and had a $40 copay. That is when I realized I could pay for my medical care out of pocket (Dec 13 - so far have not been to the doctor a single time, what a waste of thousands of dollars if I had been paying my insurance premium!!). It is a false assumption that everyone else pays for your health care when you don't have insurance - not even sure where people get that idea. The only reason medical costs are so high is BECAUSE of insurance companies and medicare/medicaid not paying enough $$! So tell me again, why are we catering to the greedy crooked insurance companies? Why are we not enacting legislation allowing people to go across state lines to purchase insurance and making it competitive so rates go down and people can actually afford insurance? Instead, we are attempting to take away people's constitutional rights by forcing them to purchase health insurance!

No, I don't think it is over, but this IS a GREAT BIG GIANT STEP toward doing what is right!!

  • 6 votes
#3.5 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:32 PM EST
Catch22

What provision of the Constituion does this tax provision violate? Is it also unconstitutional to make someone pay more income taxes based upon whether or not they are married? Is it also unconstitution to make someone pay more income taxes based upon whether or not they have children? It is also unconstititutional to make someone pay more income taxes based upon whether they pay a mortgage on a house or rent?

The only reason medical costs are so high is BECAUSE of insurance companies and medicare/medicaid not paying enough $$! So tell me again, why are we catering to the greedy crooked insurance companies?

The law should have gone farther in cutting costs but it hardly caters to greedy crooked insurance companies. Its hardly the only reason that medical care is so expensive and the law goes a long way to leseening the profiteering of insurance companies. The law prevents such companies from pulling the rug out from under people.

No one is forceing anyone to buy health insurance anymore than it forces you to get married or have children or buy a house, just making you pay more taxes. The law does this for marriage, mortgages, children etc.

  • 2 votes
#3.6 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:44 PM EST
werinasadstate

It is a FINE that is paid because of not PURCHASING A PRODUCT. I have no problem with tax credits being given for those who do purchase insurance, which by the way already exist. It violates the most basic freedom by requiring people to purchase a product.

And the law absolutely DOES cater to the greedy crooked insurance companies by FORCING people to purchase the insurance companies' products. Let me give you an example: John Smith gets cancer, he has no savings whatsoever, paying ridiculous insurance premiums for his family upwards of $10K/year for the last ten years hasn't helped that situation. After 1 month of chemo, John Smith can no longer work, and therefore can no longer pay his insurance premium. The insurance drops him because obviously they will no longer cover you if you aren't paying your premium. So John Smith and his family have to go on state medicaid. So, for 10 years John Smith paid a huge sum of money to his health insurance provider, they drop him because he gets really sick and can no longer work, so he then has to go on medicaid, which tax payers pay for. So how has the HCB bill helped John Smith or the tax payers? NOT AT ALL! How has the HCB helped the insurance companies? Well, it FORCED John Smith to pay them over $100K of his hard earned money, very little of which was used to actually pay any medical costs.

The HCB DOES force people to purchase health insurance, every way you look at it. And the only one benefitting from that particular part of the HCB is the insurance industry and NO ONE ELSE!

  • 1 vote
#3.7 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:22 PM EST
XNihil0Zer0

Do you know that I had major surgery on my neck, performed by a neurosurgeon, and the insurance company ended up paying LESS than what I had paid in premiums?

When I was a minor I had major surgery on my neck after a dog attack. The hospital bill was $128,000. My health insurer denied the claim because they said the dog owner was liable for my injury, the dog owner declared bankruptcy. We were able to prove negligence, but malicious intent is required to forgo the protections afforded to the homestead under bankruptcy law. Because there was no protection against subrogation, my mom was responsible for the medical bills.

From The HCB:

With respect to any qualified health benefits plan requiring an enrollee to reimburse the
QHBP offering entity (health plan) for any amount recovered from any source relating to a personal injury or similar type of claim, subrogation or reimbursement is permitted only if the enrollee has been fully compensated for all damages arising out of such claim. Any plan provision to the contrary is not enforceable. Insofar as subrogation or reimbursement of benefits is permitted, the subrogation or reimbursement amount shall not exceed the amount allocated to the categories of damages for those benefits in the settlement or judgment, less a pro rata share of any fees and expenses incurred in securing the settlement or judgment.

Because of this HCB, what happened to my family will not happen anymore.

  • 3 votes
#3.8 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:24 PM EST
werinasadstate

I don't have a problem with ALL of the HCB, other than they passed it without reading it. My biggest problem is with being forced to purchase health insurance and being fined if I don't.

For the record, hospitals don't only negotiate with insurance companies. I worked in hospitals for over 10 years and because of that I know that they will negotiate with you. Also, there is paperwork that can be filled out and they can base your charges on your income. We were instructed to NEVER volunteer that information, but that if someone asked, we had to provide them with it! Hopefully your mom found that out and didn't have to pay the entire $128K. Just think, if insurance companies paid medical providers a fairer amount, the medical providers wouldn't have hike up their prices to make the difference!

I would also like to offer that this kind of remedy should not be addressed in a health care bill, it should be addressed in bankruptcy laws!

  • 3 votes
#3.9 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:27 PM EST
Reply
Division by Zero

I find it amusing that the GOP was the one to propose the insurance mandate as a way of paying for healthcare reform but then they ran away from that idea and started actively opposing it. That's like ordering anchovies on the pizza then complaining that the pizza has anchovies.

  • 10 votes
Reply#4 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:18 PM EST
Driftwood1

They probably realized that there was no way they could get around the "constitutionality" of it. As Obama and Pelosi and Reid should have.

  • 11 votes
#4.1 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:27 PM EST
KyleN

Well two people looking to move a sheet of glass using only hammers, one says lets whack it but hesitates thinking maybe there is something wrong here but the other carries through.

That's the nutshell version. Government only owns hammers, if it doesn't need to be broken then government isn't likely the best solution. Virtually all their answers will be bad ones because they only have one tool.

The sneaky bastard view though is Republicans know what a poison pill is and Democrats are learning.

  • 1 vote
#4.2 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:01 PM EST
CaptainObviousSays

So far there have been 3 federal judges that have rulled on this provision. Two upheld it, one struck down a single section.

this is not a football game where highest score wins

it only takes one judge to put an end to the mandate to buy goods and services.

SCOTUS will back Hudson on this

then - game over.

cheers
:)

  • 2 votes
#4.3 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:08 PM EST
Catch22

this is not a football game where highest score wins

Its not and no one said it is. It is an issue that reasonable people can disagree on. Its also worth noting that some legal scholars including conservatives believe the decision is fundamentally flawed.

  • 1 vote
#4.4 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:15 PM EST
Reply
Greg Johnson-900798

This judge would have ruled this way if obama had done a better job getting his message out. It's just lack of knowledge on the part of the judge. :)

  • 4 votes
Reply#5 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:26 PM EST
Driftwood1

You may be right Greg! The judge isn't informed... or maybe he's just confused.

  • 7 votes
#5.1 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:34 PM EST
danp1220

The judge might have ruled it unconstitutional, without actually reading the bill. Why not, Congress passed the bill without reading it.

  • 3 votes
#5.2 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:41 PM EST
Reply
oneforall

We told Obama, a constitutional scholar, from day one that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. He should have known better.

  • 5 votes
Reply#6 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:34 PM EST
Catch22

Thats your opinon. So far 3 Federal judges have heard the case and one agrees.

This is a case of first impression with reasonable arguments on both sides as to the Constitutionality of the provision.

  • 4 votes
#6.1 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:12 PM EST
Driftwood1

The point is, Obama should have known better. What good is Obamacare if it's going to be legislated to death? I think a sloppy ass job was done on this thing just so he could claim responsibility for enacting HCR. They didn't read it until it was signed, there's a bunch of crap that shouldn't even be in it, and you gotta know that someone is going to question the constitutionality of it. I just don't know if Obama can get all the judges in his pocket...

  • 6 votes
#6.2 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:15 PM EST
Catch22

I just don't know if Obama can get all the judges in his pocket...

Are you accusing the other Federal judges who ruled as corrupt or just more empty rhetoric?

Its sad when so many people take an issue where resonable people can dissagree and insist on vilanizing everyone who doesnt go lockstep with them.

How much do you know about the Commerce Clause and Federal power beyond what you personally want it to mean in the first place?

  • 5 votes
#6.3 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:23 PM EST
Steve Watts

The point is, Obama should have known better.

Two out of three judges think that he did.

  • 4 votes
#6.4 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:39 PM EST
oneforall

How much do you know about the Commerce Clause and Federal power beyond what you personally want it to mean in the first place?

It doesn't matter because we all know which way SCOTUS leans.

  • 1 vote
#6.5 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:39 PM EST
Catch22

It doesn't matter because we all know which way SCOTUS leans.

It does matter since which way the court leans is supposed to be irrelevant. You can only have a rational discussion about such an important issue if you know something more than political leanings and ideology.

The current Supreme Court leans to the right and has been relatively activist in its approach. Each Justice votes their own conscience and their are limits to how far they will go.

  • 1 vote
#6.6 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:56 PM EST
CaptainObviousSays

read...
Court Under Roberts Is Most Conservative in Decades

ObamaCare will never survive SCOTUS.

  • 3 votes
#6.7 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:43 PM EST
Reply
digger-1184658

Some other bloggers have put forth the argument that we have to buy auto insurance and home insurance > well, maybe so, but the government doesn't MAKE you buy a Car or a Home > that is your choice and will remain your choice.

Heck, the government can't even make the current Prez quit smoking, when smoking drives up medical costs by HOW MUCH???

  • 5 votes
Reply#7 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:49 PM EST
Driftwood1

Some other bloggers have put forth the argument that we have to buy auto insurance and home insurance > well, maybe so, but the government doesn't MAKE you buy a Car or a Home > that is your choice and will remain your choice.

Correct. They love to make that "argument," but there is no argument there.

  • 8 votes
Reply#8 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:54 PM EST
werinasadstate

Also, there is no law stating we have to have auto insurance on our own vehicles - only to cover damage to other vehicles if we are at fault for an accident!

  • 6 votes
#8.1 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:11 PM EST
RV in GB#1

The other flaw in that "argument" - I'm pretty sure that it is STATE laws that require auto insurance. I'm pretty sure that there is NO FEDERAL LAW saying that you must have auto insurance.

  • 6 votes
#8.2 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:47 PM EST
Catch22

There is no question that this issue is relatively novel. However there are similar issues. For example the Federal government effectively subsidizes mortgages but not renters through the mortgage deduction. Similarly under the health care reform bill the amount of taxes you pay will be impacted by whether or not you have health insurance. No one is forced to buy health insurance, they will just have adverse tax consequences.

And what happens if you don't buy insurance and you don't pay the penalty? Well, not much. The law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don't pay the fine. If this actually leads to a world in which large numbers of people don't buy insurance and tell the IRS to stuff it, you could see that change. But for now, the penalties are low and the enforcement is non-existent.

Right now under Federal tax law influences a lot of things. Including marriage, housing, etc.

  • 1 vote
#8.3 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:26 PM EST
Reply
liberalism is a lie

Here in Oklahoma we passed a state question in November that would prevent the federal government from mandating the purchase of any service or product. The Liberal federal judges have already been all over it. They also jumped on the state questions that passed making English the official language for state business and another one we passed to prevent any international or Sharia laws from being used in Oklahoma courts. Jacka$$ fruity, liberal judges.

  • 4 votes
Reply#9 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:23 PM EST
clarke ong

Give me an example of Sharia law being used in an American court.

  • 5 votes
#9.1 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:39 PM EST
Catch22

You seem to be upset that some judges are actually willing to enforce the law and Constution of the United States.

I get that you would prefer a different outcome but you fail to provide any evidence that any of these decisions were incorrectly decided. Perhaps you could like to them and offer a rational critique. Given your chosen polarizing and ridiclous sceen name, I wont hold my breath.

  • 3 votes
#9.2 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:46 PM EST
liberalism is a lie

Liberal judges decide on things like "it doesnt feel right" or "that doesnt seem fair"...they rarely use things like actual law to rule....come on now. And, I would assume my screen name is ridiculous if you are one of those liberal types that buy into that garbage...

  • 5 votes
#9.3 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:49 PM EST
clarke ong

Can you name an instance of any type of international law or sharia law used ever in an american court?

Simple question.

  • 5 votes
#9.4 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:53 PM EST
liberalism is a lie

Dont have the time or interest it would take to research that question, but I am sure it has been attempted at least a few times.

  • 2 votes
#9.5 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:57 PM EST
clarke ong

Well, as long as you're sure...............

  • 1 vote
#9.6 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:31 PM EST
Catch22

Liberal judges decide on things like "it doesnt feel right" or "that doesnt seem fair"...they rarely use things like actual law to rule....come on now

You are full of sweeping false generalizations and propaganda. Ironic you accuse others of acting on feelings without facts, and so far your comments are full of rhetoric and emption without facts or law.

  • 4 votes
#9.7 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:53 PM EST
liberalism is a lie

well liberals (particularly liberal judges) are pretty easy to generalize...

  • 3 votes
#9.8 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:00 PM EST
clarke ong

They are for people who generalize.

  • 1 vote
#9.9 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:15 PM EST
Reply
XNihil0Zer0

From the Militia Act of 1792:

I.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

Is it unconstitutional to require all free able-bodied white male citizens to purchase weaponry? This judge should try to be consistent.

  • 1 vote
Reply#10 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:40 PM EST
werinasadstate

Thinnest argument I have ever heard on the subject. There are so many arguments that invalidate that comparison, that I don't even know where to begin. So I will just state one:

This Act was repealed in 1903.

  • 4 votes
#10.1 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:56 PM EST
XNihil0Zer0

There are so many arguments that invalidate that comparison,

Then why not use one that invalidates the comparison, instead of a stupid one that doesn't?

This Act was repealed in 1903.

By legislation which replaced it, not for lack of constitutionality, which is the subject of this discussion. Or are you arguing that all repealed laws were unconstitutional? That's ridiculous. Try again.

  • 3 votes
#10.2 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:20 PM EST
werinasadstate

I don't agree, but will be interested to see how you attempt to refute this one:

The military operates under a code of conduct, much of which violates Constitutional rights. For example, a soldier can not tell his commanding officer to go to hell, even though Free Speech allows it per the Constitution. This includes during times of draft - meaning the soldiers are not volunteers who agree beforehand to such rules.

  • 2 votes
#10.3 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:26 PM EST
XNihil0Zer0

Those instances where the constitutional rights of soldiers have been limited were codified in the Articles of War before 1951 and have been codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice ever since. In order to be subject to the military code of conduct, you must be paid.

From the Articles of War

Article 97. The officers and soldiers, of any troops, whether militia or others, being mustered and in pay of the United States, shall, at all times and in all places, when joined, or acting in conjunction with the regular forces of the United States, be governed by these rules and articles of war, and shall be subject to be tried by courts martial, in like manner with the officers and soldiers in the regular forces, save only that such courts martial shall be composed entirely of militia officers.

Similarly from the UCMJ 1951

Article 2 (a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(3) Members of a reserve component while they are on inactive duty training authorized by written orders which are voluntarily accepted by them and which specify that they are subject to this chapter.

UCMJ 1986

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

Title 37, Chapter 3, § 206, Reserves; members of National Guard: inactive-duty training:

(a)Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, and to the extent provided for by appropriations, a member of the National Guard or a member of a reserve component of a uniformed service who is not entitled to basic pay under section 204 of this title, is entitled to compensation, at the rate of 1/30 of the basic pay authorized for a member of a uniformed service of a corresponding grade entitled to basic pay—

(1)for each regular period of instruction, or period of appropriate duty, at which the member is engaged for at least two hours, including that performed on a Sunday or holiday;

(2)for the performance of such other equivalent training, instruction, duty, or appropriate duties, as the Secretary may prescribe;

Because "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" were not being paid when procuring a weapon, or compensated for procuring it, they were not subject to any of the constitutional limitations which can apply to soldiers.

  • 1 vote
#10.4 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:41 PM EST
Reply
janetp

Good !!!!!!!!!!!! They need to throw the whole thing out it is a waste of paper.

  • 5 votes
Reply#11 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:52 PM EST
WBOB in Indiana

Finally some sanity is being applied....2000 + pages of gobbledy-gook that no one has read?

Throw the whole thing out and start over.

  • 4 votes
#11.1 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:15 PM EST
Jeff-Minneapolis

Nope. A Democratic is the one to pass this and we all knew parts would be thrown out but its not going away. And this will be a monument off success for democrats in the future when history looks back on it. It's not going away,

  • 2 votes
#11.2 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:17 PM EST
Reply
Jeff-Minneapolis

What is is republicans say all the time? ......ACTIVIST JUDGE!!!! That's it.

  • 1 vote
Reply#12 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:15 PM EST
ArizonaBill

How will King Obama react to being told that he is only a President ? And that this is still a Free Country.

  • 5 votes
Reply#13 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:22 PM EST
Think free1

Judge who ruled health care reform unconstitutional owns piece of GOP consulting firm. More hypocrisy, from the right. The health insurance reform bill is far from perfect but don't forget we spend more on medicine than any industrialized nation and we are the only industrialized nation without universal health coverage for it's citizens.
Why is health coverage so bad, please tell me fair minded citizens?

  • 1 vote
Reply#14 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:28 PM EST
DBE928

To me it is obvious that the government cannot require you to buy health insurance if you don't want to. And it cannot penalize you if you don't.

There is either liberty or tyranny.

The government could provide health coverage for you if it did the same for everyone, and that might be legal, but that is not the case with this bill.

  • 3 votes
Reply#15 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:55 PM EST
WBOB in Indiana

Yes Virginia,....there is a sanity clause.

    #15.1 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:58 PM EST
    Division by Zero

    To me it is obvious that the government cannot require you to buy health insurance if you don't want to. And it cannot penalize you if you don't.

    That could be applied to other things.

    • seatbelts
    • motorcycle helmets
    • auto liability insurance
      #15.2 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:09 PM EST
      WBOB in Indiana

      Bogus argument,...driving is a privlege not a right.

      • 3 votes
      #15.3 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:12 PM EST
      Driftwood1

      And you're talking state law vs. federal law. You aren't required to ride a motorcycle or drive a car.

      • 4 votes
      #15.4 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:17 PM EST
      CaptainObviousSays

      That could be applied to other things.

      seatbelts
      motorcycle helmets
      auto liability insurance

      why do people think federal powers are the same as state powers?
      do they not grasp that those laws are state laws and not federal laws?

      seatbelts <---state law - not a federal law
      motorcycle helmets <---state law - not a federal law
      auto liability insurance <---state law - not a federal law

      cheers
      :)

      • 4 votes
      #15.5 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:49 PM EST
      Division by Zero

      The operative phrase here is "the government" not whether that government is federal or state. My response was in regards to whether "the government" can require anything of you and impose penalties upon you for noncompliance. That "government" can be federal, state, or municipal, for that matter. You assumed I was talking about the federal government. I was talking about "the government."

      • 1 vote
      #15.6 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:55 PM EST
      CaptainObviousSays

      You assumed I was talking about the federal government. I was talking about "the government."

      federal state and local government are not the same...
      the health care law is a federal law - why would I assume you where not talking about federal powers?
      then when you listed state laws to counter a federal law you only showed ignorance of the subject at hand
      to not make acknowledge the distinction between state and federal powers proves your ignorance on the subject of "government" in the USA - again read the tenth amendment and maybe you will actually get smarter here

      cheers
      :)

      • 1 vote
      #15.7 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:24 PM EST
      Reply
      coalbear_1

      form a public source.

      He was the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia from 1986 to 1991. Hudson was Director of the United States Marshals Service, a division of the U.S. Department of Justice, from 1992 to 1993, under President George H.W. Bush. He was a circuit court judge on Virginia's Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court (Fairfax County, Virginia) from 1998 to 2002.

      Hudson ruled against an element of the Obama administration's health care reform law, saying that the individual mandate provision of the law exceeded Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.[1] According to the Associated Press, Hudson was "the first judge to rule against the law."[1] News outlets have noted that Hudson, as an owner of Campaign Solutions, Inc. (a Republican consulting firm that worked the 2010 election cycle for John Boehner, Michele Bachmann, John McCain, and other GOP candidates who've placed the purported unconstitutionality of health care reform at the center of their political platforms) had a conflict of interest inasmuch as he has received between $32,000 and $117,000 from Campaign Solutions as a result of its work on this issue.

      This says quite a bit.

      • 2 votes
      Reply#16 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:50 PM EST
      The Gunshark

      This is a big red flag that the Justice Department can use during the Appeals Process.

      Anyone that is accepting money from an organization that rails for or against the law you are arguing on has to have his abilities as a judge called into question.

        #16.1 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 PM EST
        werinasadstate

        Hmmm... so how many of you who think this is wrong, think that the gay judge who overturned Prop 8 in California had a conflict of interest?

        • 1 vote
        #16.2 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:35 PM EST
        XNihil0Zer0

        Thurgood Marshall ruled to to declare the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 unconstitutional in the Loving v. Virginia decision. Should he have recused himself because he was black?

        see also:

        Jones v. Mayer Co.

        Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

        Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp

        University of California Regents v. Bakke

        Batson v. Kentucky

          #16.3 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:01 PM EST
          werinasadstate

          No, I don't think he should have. But then I'm not the one throwing a fit because this particular judge was against the HCB either ;-) If you are one of those, then you just confirmed your hypocrisy without my help ;-)

          • 1 vote
          #16.4 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:29 PM EST
          Catch22

          werinsadstate,

          Do you really think that a judge recusing themselves when they have a direct financial connection is exactly the same as Thurgood Marshall being black? Or a gay man ruling on that provision. Part of the rules deal with the appearance of impropriety and whether or not the judge could choose to be different or have different investments.

          What exactly is the hypocrisy in treating different things differently? The ethics rules are different for financial interests with good reason. Thats not to say that Hudson necessarily should have recused himself or that they are not some similarities, but it is hardly hypocitical to see these arguments for recusal differently.

          • 1 vote
          #16.5 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:34 PM EST
          XNihil0Zer0

          If you think I'm being hypocritical then you missed my point.

          Conflict of interest does not arise by virtue of birth. A black judge can rule on a case that effects black people, a woman can rule on a case that effects women, a homosexual can rule on a case that effects homosexuals, etc.

          A judge collecting dividends from a company which is actively seeking to overturn the bill under consideration... that's a different matter.

          • 1 vote
          #16.6 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:52 PM EST
          werinasadstate

          I'm not going to get in the "birth" debate with you. The prop 8 thing and this are no different.

          • 1 vote
          #16.7 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:57 PM EST
          Steve Watts

          I'm not going to get in the "birth" debate with you. The prop 8 thing and this are no different.

          You don't have to get into the "birth" debate. Whether homosexuality is a choice or genetic, Catch22 and Zer0 are pointing out the difference between social benefit and financial benefit.

          • 2 votes
          #16.8 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:05 PM EST
          XNihil0Zer0

          I'm not going to get in the "birth" debate with you.

          Probably a good call, it would be difficult for you craft arguments for a baseless position.

            #16.9 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:28 PM EST
            Driftwood1

            financial benefit

            He owns some stock in the company. What financial benefit will he get by ruling the way he did? You think they'll be passing him money under the table ? Do you think he was bribed to rule that way? I do agree that it looks unethical based on the facts that we have, but to stretch it to say he's benefiting financially from his ruling isn't right.

            • 1 vote
            #16.10 - Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:10 PM EST
            Steve Watts

            What financial benefit will he get by ruling the way he did?

            I refer you to your own prior sentence:

            He owns some stock in the company.

            I'm not saying he will definitely get a financial boost from this. I'm not even claiming (necessarily) that he should've recused himself. But by owning stock, he stands to gain at least some financial benefit from the company's success, which sets his conflict of interest as different than someone ruling on a social issue that has no financial bearing on them. That means that comparing this to the gay judge is a logical dead-end.

            • 2 votes
            #16.11 - Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:17 PM EST
            Reply
            Carolyn Johansen

            GOOD ruling! The judge can read the US Constitution, which is more than I can say for the Senators, Congressmen and Obama.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#17 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:03 PM EST
            The Gunshark

            No it isn't.

            His association to Campaign Solutions, Inc. and the receipt of $32,000 to $117,000 to work AGAINST this issue severely calls into question his ability to be impartial.

            People would likely equate this to that one judge in California that struck down Prop 8, but that is not the same. As far as we know, Judge Walker was not accepting money from pro-gay organizations or anything like that, in spite of his sexual orientation.

            • 1 vote
            #17.1 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:27 PM EST
            CaptainObviousSays

            His association to Campaign Solutions, Inc. and the receipt of $32,000 to $117,000 to work AGAINST this issue severely calls into question his ability to be impartial.

            and that has exactly nothing to do with the fact that this is going to the supreme court...

            Roberts is even more conservative than Hudson

            READ_
            Court Under Roberts Is Most Conservative in Decades

            obamacare = dead law walking

            cheers
            :)

            • 2 votes
            #17.2 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:36 PM EST
            The Gunshark

            obamacare = dead law walking

            How can that be when the ruling was only on the mandate?

            Can you claim any of the other regulations of the law as unconstitutional?

            Outlawing the dropping of coverage for pre-existing conditions, for example, is a type of regulation that the government deals in all the time.

              #17.3 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:38 PM EST
              CaptainObviousSays

              How can that be when the ruling was only on the mandate?

              without the mandate the rest of the law is untenable.

              cheers
              :)

              • 3 votes
              #17.4 - Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:49 PM EST
              Catch22

              without the mandate the rest of the law is untenable.

              False. Sorry to point out the obvious, but the media coverage is sensationalistic and the provision would help keep down health care costs but is not essential to the entire statute.

              See, e.g. Howard Dean who predicted the mandate would be dropped.

              The issue is open to reasonable debate, but no one has made a fact based argument on why the mandate is essential.

              Furthermore, I wouldnt count on the Supreme Court knocking the law down just yet I would put the vote at 4-4 with 1 undecided.

              • 1 vote
              #17.5 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:23 AM EST
              Steve Watts

              The issue is open to reasonable debate, but no one has made a fact based argument on why the mandate is essential.

              The mandate goes hand-in-hand with the new provision that forbids insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. For the purposes of simplicity, I'll call it the PEC provision. It's one of the most popular pieces of the law, and it's not going anywhere. Almost everyone agrees that it should be in there, Republican and Democrat included. Those opposed to the individual mandate simply don't realize that it's necessary for the PEC provision to function.

              If people aren't required to get insurance, but insurers can't deny PECs, the industry will go bankrupt. Think about it. You have a chronic condition that costs $50 per month of coverage, and it flares up once or twice per year. If you're required to get insurance, you'll pay $600 per year and be comfortably covered. If the mandate is struck down, you simply wait till you get a flare-up, call up the insurance agency comfortable in the knowledge that they can't say no, get your insurance, go for treatment, and then immediately drop it. You'll have just paid $50 instead of $600, for what could be thousands of dollars worth of treatment. Which do you think most people will do?

              At that point, the insurers would have to jack up rates astronomically just to make ends meet. Oh wait, they can't do that, because the bill also puts limitations on how much of a percentage rates can be raised at a time. So they're stuck. They're hemorrhaging money, and because people don't have to buy insurance, they can't do anything about it.

              It would be the death knell for the insurance industry. That's why it's necessary. In this case CaptainObvious is correct. My conclusions are different from his, though.

              Say the mandate gets struck down. The GOP would notice that now it's going to bankrupt the industry, so they'd have to gather the votes. That's incredibly hard to do, though, since the mandate was the "unconstitutional" part and now it's gone. They've lost their battle cry. Now all they have left is arguing that they need to repeal the law because of a PEC/mandate loophole that they inadvertently created by their own court action. Best of luck with that, guys.

              Basically, if you want to get rid of the health care law, you need to root for a Congressional victory, not a Court victory. A victory in court undermines a congressional victory and would force us to a single-payer system within a decade.

              • 3 votes
              #17.6 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:42 AM EST
              Catch22

              If people aren't required to get insurance, but insurers can't deny PECs, the industry will go bankrupt.

              That conclusion does not stand up to scrutiny. Your conclusion includes an unstated assumptions:
              1. That current profit margins are less than the reduced level of profit that may be associated with the requirement to extend insurance.
              2. That insureres will not be able to raise rates or take other profit raising measures to offset the effect of this provision.
              3. That insurers will not be able to effectively delay coverage for those people that go to extremes to time their coverage, or condition coverage on signing a long term contract.

              Do you have facts to address those?

              You'll have just paid $50 instead of $600, for what could be thousands of dollars worth of treatment. Which do you think most people will do?

              Fortunately, its not that simple but one possibility is that insurers will raise rates or get some delays in coverage allowed under regulatory interpretation.

              The fact of the matter is that relatively few people go to the theoretical and hypothetical extremes that are possible. In real life, people do not act like they do in hypothetical puzzle games to take all measures to minimize cost to the fullest extent possible. In real life, many people lack a key element (1) knowledge (2) motivation (3) fortitude (4) desire to get the hypothetical maximum benefit. Many businesses would not exist if people constantly minimized thier expenditures for services consistently accross the board.

              • 1 vote
              #17.7 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:22 PM EST
              werinasadstate

              I want to know where he found insurance for $50/mo. lol Mine was over $400/mo for me alone and terrible coverage.

              • 1 vote
              #17.8 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:33 PM EST
              Steve Watts

              1. That current profit margins are less than the reduced level of profit that may be associated with the requirement to extend insurance.

              It's possible that the margins are thick enough that some slimming won't hurt the insurance companies, but they are businesses after all. Their first responsibility is to their shareholders, not the patients, and that means they're required to protect their thick margins. They're unlikely to take a hit lying down.

              2. That insureres will not be able to raise rates or take other profit raising measures to offset the effect of this provision.

              The health care law sets limitations on how much rates can raise in a given year. They're between a rock and a hard place on this one.

              3. That insurers will not be able to effectively delay coverage for those people that go to extremes to time their coverage, or condition coverage on signing a long term contract.

              That's a legal loophole that may just work, but if it saw widespread adoption it would basically just be the PEC provision with a different name. In the end it would put us back in the mess that made us need reform to start with.

              You're presenting a well-reasoned argument for why the mandate isn't necessary, and I can concede that. But in order to make it unnecessary, you're forced to present a set of backdoors and loopholes that open the industry to all sorts of shenanigans that would require more regulation later. So I'll retract that it's strictly necessary, and change my argument to it being the simplest way to avoid the multitude of problems that would come with the PEC provision if it were removed.

              • 2 votes
              #17.9 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:12 PM EST
              Catch22

              So I'll retract that it's strictly necessary, and change my argument to it being the simplest way to avoid the multitude of problems that would come with the PEC provision if it were removed.

              I tend to agree with that, although it isnt at all surprising that the mandate is highly controversial. In my opinion, one of the reasons that it will not be the death knell for insurance is due to the fact that most of the provisions designed to cut costs didnt make it in the final bill.

              The health care reform bill is pretty much a giant mess, but one thing that is even worse is the system before the health care reform bill. Democracy is messy, health care is extremely complicated. As Churchill said: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

              • 1 vote
              #17.10 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:22 PM EST
              Reply
              Leave a Comment:
              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
              You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
              (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
              Newsvine Privacy Statement
              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
              FUN STUFF:
              • Leaderboard |
              • E-Mail Alerts |
              • Top of the Vine |
              • Newsvine Live |
              • Newsvine Archives |
              • The Greenhouse
              COMPANY STUFF:
              • Code of Honor |
              • Company Info |
              • Contact Us |
              • Jobs |
              • User Agreement |
              • Privacy Policy |
              • About our ads
              LEGAL STUFF:
              • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
              • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
              • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com