PDA

View Full Version : the court says no! unconstitutional!



david gibson
12-13-2010, 12:02 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul_virginia

another set back for the half-muslim apologist.

Jason Glavich
12-13-2010, 12:18 PM
You beat me to it. Pretty gutsy for the judge after 2 others said it was ok.

dixidawg
12-13-2010, 12:22 PM
Hudson's opinion contradicts other court rulings finding the mandate constitutionally permissible.




"An individual's personal decision to purchase -- or decline purchase -- (of) health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach" of the U.S. Constitution," Hudson wrote. "No specifically constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance."




That premise is the basis of the Mass "Romney Care" system. Everyone is required to buy insurance. Time will tell how long that will last.

Eric Johnson
12-13-2010, 12:32 PM
There is a vast difference between the MA law and Federal law. Specifically, they are governed by two different bodies of law.

I don't think that the other two findings have been specifically on the point of issue of this case. However, basically the judge said, "Here's what I think but you'll get a final ruling from the Supreme Court."

Way to early to count chickens yet.

Eric

Buzz
12-13-2010, 01:21 PM
There is a vast difference between the MA law and Federal law. Specifically, they are governed by two different bodies of law.

I don't think that the other two findings have been specifically on the point of issue of this case. However, basically the judge said, "Here's what I think but you'll get a final ruling from the Supreme Court."

Way to early to count chickens yet.

Eric



But, the judge determined that the mandate was severable and could be severed without taking out other important provisions...



http://www.scribd.com/doc/45213239/Commonwealth-of-Virginia-v-Sibelius-et-al

I can't copy from the link, but start reading on page 38 ending on page 41. A key statement:


"Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, we try to limit the solution to the problem severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact".


"The court will sever Section 1501 from the balance of the ACA and deny Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief."


This is a loss for the right, since they hoped that Hudson would gut much of the rest of the law with the mandate. If this stands, expect the insurance industry to experience conniption fits.

BrianW
12-13-2010, 02:18 PM
I would hope that this gets to SCOTUS promptly and that the "Constitutional scholar" himself or surrogate would try to use his 2001 arguement;
"that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

I also disagree that this ruling is "a loss for the right" as Buzz states. Without the "mandate" to hold it all together, I see the plan unraveling like the judge has taken a sword to the Gordin Knot.

BonMallari
12-13-2010, 02:35 PM
I just think its amusing that the judges ruling brings out all the internet constitutional law scholars to argue what will be ultimately decided by the SCOTUS when all is said and done....all the VA ruling did was give the opponents of the health care bill some legal precedent to stand on while they prepare a case for the highest court

Buzz
12-13-2010, 02:45 PM
....all the VA ruling did was give the opponents of the health care bill some legal precedent to stand on while they prepare a case for the highest court

I'm no legal scholar, don't play one on the internet, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. So, I'm not too sure about that...

BonMallari
12-13-2010, 02:59 PM
I'm no legal scholar, don't play one on the internet, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. So, I'm not too sure about that...


Good response...:D:D

dnf777
12-13-2010, 03:08 PM
I'm with Buzz. I don't know......furthermore, I DON'T CARE.
There are bigger fish to fry right now. Since the implementation of the HC bill did very little, I suspect any potential repeal would do even "little-er".

david gibson
12-13-2010, 03:42 PM
This is a loss for the right, since they hoped that Hudson would gut much of the rest of the law with the mandate. If this stands, expect the insurance industry to experience conniption fits.

nice spin, read this over and over enough and you might believe it, althouigh apparently you alread do for some reason.

just like gibbs today, touting that so far 2 out of 3 courts have seen it their way. huh? who cares?? the only one that counts is the last one, whichever one it is.

Ken Bora
12-13-2010, 04:49 PM
...... Since the implementation of the HC bill did very little, I suspect any potential repeal would do even "little-er".


Apparently your health care provider did not eliminate your plan
because of the President of the Untied States, as mine did.
“If you are happy with your health care you will be able to keep it!”

HA! What a crock of hamsters!!!!:confused::confused:





.

dnf777
12-13-2010, 04:55 PM
Apparently your health care provider did not eliminate your plan
because of the President of the Untied States, as mine did.
“If you are happy with your health care you will be able to keep it!”

HA! What a crock of hamsters!!!!:confused::confused:

.

No, ours increases slightly, but the employer covered most of it. I think I'm $6 out of pocket increase. But then they gave us a great short term disability which more than makes up the 6 bucks. Yet another expenditure I hope never to get my money's worth out of.

zeus3925
12-18-2010, 11:39 AM
Simple solution. Dumb enough to not get health insurance? Then don't pile your bill on mine. Pay for it out of your own pocket or go without. Tough love sucks!

Jason Glavich
12-21-2010, 01:59 PM
I was reading something that was interesting today, in the past there have been several cases brought to the Supreme court about regulating insurance. Now I understand the HC bill does not regulate insurance prices but it does regulate how the business is done and who "has" to have it. Wouldn't that violate the rights of the states to take care of insurance on their own? The McCarran–Ferguson Act exempts insurance from federal regulation, as far as I know this is regulation in at least a few ways. If this act has not been overturned which I couldn't find anywhere it had said it was, how could the fed of even passed this in the first place?