PDA

View Full Version : Obama Care all but DONE!!!!



road kill
08-15-2011, 05:15 PM
A Devastating Blow to Obamacare

Obamacare has suffered a devastating blow. On Friday, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the individual mandate in President Barack Obama's signature health care legislation is unconstitutional. With its ruling, the court affirmed the principle that the Constitution means what it says—Congress does not have unfettered power to force the American people to comply with any and all dictates it creates.

The federal government's argument in favor of Obamacare's individual mandate, in contrast, is without limit—and it's a position that the court strongly rejected:

The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life. This theory affords no limiting principles in which to confine Congress’s enumerated power….

The federal government’s assertion of power, under the Commerce Clause, to issue an economic mandate for Americans to purchase insurance from a private company for the entire duration of their lives is unprecedented, lacks cognizable limits, and imperils our federalist structure.

The Obama Administration wasted no time in decrying the ruling, reasserting its argument that the individual mandate is constitutional—cleverly calling it an "individual responsibility" provision and hanging its hat on an earlier decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the law. But the significance of last week's opinion cannot be easily undone with clever wordsmithing, spin—or claims of partisanship, given that one of the authors of the ruling, Judge Frank Hull, was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

The Heritage Foundation's Todd Gaziano and Robert Alt explain what the decision means for the President and for Obamacare's future:

In short, the Obama administration has lost its battle to delay review of the individual mandate until after the 2012 election. Until today, there was at least a chance that the Supreme Court would pass on the case until after its forthcoming term, but now, with a split between the Eleventh Circuit and Sixth Circuit, the High Court will have little choice but to take the case and resolve the fate of the forced-purchase mandate. After over a year of delaying tactics, the Obama Administration has no more options to slow-walk the constitutional end-game for the mandate.

Our best estimate is that the case will be argued either in late March or in April 2012. The Court will issue its decision near the end of its term in June, during the presidential candidate nominating season.

Though the Eleventh Circuit only struck down the individual mandate and related must-carry provisions, it could be the thread that unravels the sweater. And the Supreme Court's decision can't come soon enough. The more America learns about Obamacare, the worse it becomes.

Obamacare has far-reaching consequences for all corners of American society, the economy chief among them. In addition to the unconstitutional individual mandate, Obamacare includes more than $500 billion in new taxes, burdensome new paperwork for business owners, and penalties for companies with more than 50 workers that do not provide employees with a mandated level of health coverage. And with the added costs Obamacare brings, the nation's publicly held debt will be $753 billion higher at the end of 2020.

Heritage's Kathryn Nix writes, "Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis simulated the overall effects of the new law on the economy and found that Obamacare would result in reduced investment in the U.S. economy and a loss of 670,000 job opportunities every year." With 9.1 percent unemployment and an average duration of unemployment hitting a record high of 40 weeks, the last thing the U.S. economy needs is another anchor weighing it down. As Heritage analyst Curtis Dubay explains, the law “will slow economic growth, reduce employment, and suppress wages. These economy-slowing policies could not come at a worse time. [Obamacare] tax increases will impede an already staggering recovery.”

To date, 28 states have challenged the constitutionality of Obamacare in court. A federal circuit court has struck down a central pillar of the law, holding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The judges have affirmed a truth that Americans already know: When Congress passed Obamacare and the President signed it into law, they crossed a constitutional line in the sand. Fortunately, the courts are holding that line, and now it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to make it final.

__________________________________________________

Isn't America wonderful?
Who was it said "you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time!!"



SEE YA!!!!




RK

43x
09-01-2011, 02:13 PM
http://i832.photobucket.com/albums/zz244/Lightning_Steel/obamacare.jpg

LokiMeister
09-01-2011, 02:18 PM
RK, finally something we agree on. Of course, the Dems will say stop legislating from the bench!! As if that is ever done.

road kill
09-01-2011, 02:27 PM
RK, finally something we agree on. Of course, the Dems will say stop legislating from the bench!! As if that is ever done.
I am not a legal scholar by any means.
But what I have read about this concerns inter-state commerce and regulations.
Ironically these are rules and regulations set by Democrats.
( I don't know that to be true, just talk I heard on the radio, did not prove or disprove it)

RK

Buzz
09-01-2011, 02:36 PM
It should go down in flames. It's a terrible plan hatched by the right wing and now characterized as socialism. Don't believe me? See for yourself, read the documents out of Heritage and Cato.

The frustrating thing is, Obama is too much of a sad sack to make people understand this.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182#.TjASjHovZnw.f acebook


I'm betting that I'll get raked over the coals by a bunch of people who would rather hammer the librul than go read the documents and see for themselves. You know, the ones who take their marching orders from that fat sack of crap, Rush.

Socks
09-01-2011, 04:33 PM
Here's one major flaw in the logic here. I remember when MO mandated everyone should have car insurance. The insurance companies said rates would go down, better coverage, etc. I was a new driver with no tickets or violations and as soon as the law was passed my next premium went up and it seemed to always go up here and there.

Now why would a company that knows you have to buy their product ever lower their prices or not raise them? Just something to ponder whether you're left or right.

LokiMeister
09-01-2011, 04:45 PM
Here's one major flaw in the logic here. I remember when MO mandated everyone should have car insurance. The insurance companies said rates would go down, better coverage, etc. I was a new driver with no tickets or violations and as soon as the law was passed my next premium went up and it seemed to always go up here and there.

Now why would a company that knows you have to buy their product ever lower their prices or not raise them? Just something to ponder whether you're left or right.

It's basic law of supply and demand.

Buzz
09-01-2011, 05:01 PM
Here's one major flaw in the logic here. I remember when MO mandated everyone should have car insurance. The insurance companies said rates would go down, better coverage, etc. I was a new driver with no tickets or violations and as soon as the law was passed my next premium went up and it seemed to always go up here and there.

Now why would a company that knows you have to buy their product ever lower their prices or not raise them? Just something to ponder whether you're left or right.

I have pondered that before.

If you wreck your car, no one will fix it for you, you're out of luck if you can't pay.

If you kill someone and are shown to be negligent, you will be sued and everything taken away from you if you're not insured.

If you are dying and hauled into the emergency room, someone will save your life whether you have insurance or not. If you don't have insurance and can't pay it gets written off and everyone who is responsible enough to carry insurance pays...

M&K's Retrievers
09-01-2011, 06:58 PM
I have pondered that before.

If you wreck your car, no one will fix it for you, you're out of luck if you can't pay.

If you kill someone and are shown to be negligent, you will be sued and everything taken away from you if you're not insured.

If you are dying and hauled into the emergency room, someone will save your life whether you have insurance or not. If you don't have insurance and can't pay it gets written off and everyone who is responsible enough to carry insurance pays...
Well put....

Gerry Clinchy
09-01-2011, 08:43 PM
I have pondered that before.

If you wreck your car, no one will fix it for you, you're out of luck if you can't pay.

If you kill someone and are shown to be negligent, you will be sued and everything taken away from you if you're not insured.

If you are dying and hauled into the emergency room, someone will save your life whether you have insurance or not. If you don't have insurance and can't pay it gets written off and everyone who is responsible enough to carry insurance pays...

Perhaps universal coverage could work if the penalty for not having insurance were at least equal to the cost of coverage. The way it's structured now, the penalty is much less, so young/healthy people would rather pay the penalty than pay for the insurance ... and these are the very people who are most important in balancing out the older or more infirm.

The next issue becomes that those who cannot afford to pay, will also be paid for by those who are already paying for their own insurance. Presently, those who cannot afford (or do not choose to have) insurance, can only get "emergency" care; but when they get insured, they will get all types of care.

Unless there are sensible co-pays, there are some people who would run to the doctor for things they would not if they were not insured. And, for those whom the benefits are totally free, one could expect that to significantly add to the volume of doctor visits; perhaps even other things like various tests (since no tort reform is included in the legislation).

Without debating whether universal insurance coverage is good or bad, I can't imagine that it will cost less than our present system. And, it certainly appears that the overall cost to taxpayers will be more due to the numbers that will receive benefits under this legislation who cannot afford the coverage.

We already know that the UK system that is so often lauded, is beginning to stagger. People are actually being encouraged to seek private care on their own. I also recall reading somewhere that one of the Scandanavian countries is having trouble with its generous pension system; as are other European countries.

I'm wondering why we don't hear much about the health care systems in places like China and Russia? What about places like Cuba and Venezuela? Mexico has a system, but even though it is cheap by US standards, the people are still too poor to afford it. There were articles about seniors going to Mexico for health care procedures. (Though the drug cartel wars may have put a damper on that.)

JDogger
09-01-2011, 09:35 PM
I am not a legal scholar by any means.

( I don't know that to be true, just talk I heard on the radio, did not prove or disprove it)

RK

I would argue that you are not a legal scholar. Anyone familiar enough with international law to quote in a reply, on a dog thread, "jes soli", to an innocent yes or no question, must obviously be a scholar of some note.

Sorry, I'm now interupted by cooking. I'll continue later. JD

JDogger
09-01-2011, 09:40 PM
I would argue that you are not a legal scholar. Anyone familiar enough with international law to quote in a reply, on a dog thread, "jes soli", to an innocent yes or no question, must obviously be a scholar of some note.

Sorry, I'm now interupted by cooking. I'll continue later. JD


Aahh! the green chile-cheeseburgers are done. Catcha on the flipside regards, JD

limiman12
09-02-2011, 04:43 PM
regarding healthcare in Russia, I had a patient one time tell me that "in Russia, a carpenter makes more then doctors do" like that was a great thing. My response to him was that if we lived in russia then I would likely be a carpenter rather then a Doctor. He couldn't understand why. I explained that a carpenters school is less expensive, and less time consuming then chiropractic school. And Carpenters would not be as likely to have to deal with as much headache and stress as a doctor, so if the option was lass school and less stress for more money I would likely be a carpenter.......

Health care has to be profitable for the people that provide it. Otherwise no one in their right mind would go 150K in debt over 8 + years while their classmates are making money to have lower paying jobs when they get out...... Just sayin.

twall
09-05-2011, 09:19 AM
It should go down in flames. It's a terrible plan hatched by the right wing and now characterized as socialism. Don't believe me? See for yourself, read the documents out of Heritage and Cato.

The frustrating thing is, Obama is too much of a sad sack to make people understand this.


The link was nice. The point is it is a bad law and it is socialist. I don't really care that Obama flip-flopped, he signed. I don't really care that some republicans flip-flopped, they didn't vote for it. I don't care if some democrats did or didn't flip-flop, they made it law.

It has become political suicide to change your mind now days. I'd much rather someone realize they have made a mistake, fess up and move on.

Tom

Gerry Clinchy
09-08-2011, 07:52 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/08/another-fatal-flaw-in-obamacare-could-it-sink-law/

Interesting point on O-care ... the law was just a "discussion draft" that was rushed to voting due to Scott Brown's election in MA. So, there is a reason for some of the parts of the law that are not consistent.

One important inconsistency: Individuals who enroll in state exchanges get a tax credit, but makes no mention of a tax credit if the individuals are in an exchange set up by the Federal govt (if a state should fail to set up an exchange).

I'm guessing that there will be many more inconsistencies unearthed, as soon as someone has the time to actually read the law.

Gerry Clinchy
09-15-2011, 07:11 PM
Everything You Wanted to Know about "ObamaCare" (but didn't know who to ask).

Saturday, September 17, 20111 to 5 p.m.

watch it LIVE on
http://www.ustream.tv/chanNell/health-care-reform---desales.