Federal judge throws out Obamacare!!!

[BrianW]

Fwiw, this ruling just furthers my opinion that this "reform act" while under cover of "giving" health care, was most simply about taking more control.
I don't think it was carelessness, stupidity or ignorance. It was "the audacity of arrogance" (to paraphrase) and the power of precedence.
Because once you have the force, you don't have to bother with persuasion anymore. US.gov knows what's best for you and you will buy insurance. Or any other "choice" they decide to make for your "benefit" in the future.

Look at "The government's bloated new dietary guidelines "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013105224.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The govt wants you to change your diet, reduce salt, increase fruits & veggies. That's fine and an admirable goal.

Vilsack said he can help fellow Americans to do the same - as long as they are willing to share with the government a few intimate details about themselves, such as how much they weigh, every morsel of food that passes their lips, and how they occupy themselves every minute of the day and night.
"At the USDA website, you have the ability to actually type in information about yourself, what kind of lifestyle you have, how much physical activity you are engaged in on a daily basis," he said. "So there are ways at which you can at usda.gov sort of determine for yourself a personal eating. That's what my wife and I are basically doing right now."

Well whoop to do and good for you Tom!


"Undoubtedly, Americans would be healthier if they would follow the recommendations, but this sounds like TMI at the USDA. Using the drop-down "activity" menu on the website, you are asked to enter how many minutes a day you do such things as "dressing/undressing," "sitting on toilet," "sleeping," "sitting quietly and watching television," "slow dancing," "singing in church," "casino gambling," "coal mining," "washing dishes," "wrestling" and "butchering animals."


But what if "I" or "you don't want to change my/our eating habits? What if you don't want to share 'a few intimate details" with Big Bro/Sis? What if we want to 'live large" (pun intended) and party like a rock star, like Michelle & Co, chowing on an ice ream cone while she tells us to eat a celery stick?
Well, when the power of persuasion doesn't work, they'll use the persuasion of power.

How long until instead of the above it's
"At the USDA website, you have the requirement to type in information about yourself, what kind of lifestyle you have, how much physical activity you are engaged in on a daily basis," he said. "So there are ways that usda.gov will determine a personal eating (plan) for yourself.

" and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal"

Laugh and call me the paranoid ID "ath-hole" if you want but if the SCOTUS doesn't uphold this judge's ruling and nullify this whole power play, this is where we'll be headed, slowly but surely. If SecHHS has the power over your your health care, it won't be long before SecAg has the power over your diet.

Just one little reeeeasonable step at a time.

[road kill]

Fwiw, this ruling just furthers my opinion that this "reform act" while under cover of "giving" health care, was most simply about taking more control.
I don't think it was carelessness, stupidity or ignorance. It was "the audacity of arrogance" (to paraphrase) and the power of precedence.
Because once you have the force, you don't have to bother with persuasion anymore. US.gov knows what's best for you and you will buy insurance. Or any other "choice" they decide to make for your "benefit" in the future.

Look at "The government's bloated new dietary guidelines "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013105224.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The govt wants you to change your diet, reduce salt, increase fruits & veggies. That's fine and an admirable goal.

Vilsack said he can help fellow Americans to do the same - as long as they are willing to share with the government a few intimate details about themselves, such as how much they weigh, every morsel of food that passes their lips, and how they occupy themselves every minute of the day and night.
"At the USDA website, you have the ability to actually type in information about yourself, what kind of lifestyle you have, how much physical activity you are engaged in on a daily basis," he said. "So there are ways at which you can at usda.gov sort of determine for yourself a personal eating. That's what my wife and I are basically doing right now."

Well whoop to do and good for you Tom!


"Undoubtedly, Americans would be healthier if they would follow the recommendations, but this sounds like TMI at the USDA. Using the drop-down "activity" menu on the website, you are asked to enter how many minutes a day you do such things as "dressing/undressing," "sitting on toilet," "sleeping," "sitting quietly and watching television," "slow dancing," "singing in church," "casino gambling," "coal mining," "washing dishes," "wrestling" and "butchering animals."


But what if "I" or "you don't want to change my/our eating habits? What if you don't want to share 'a few intimate details" with Big Bro/Sis? What if we want to 'live large" (pun intended) and party like a rock star, like Michelle & Co, chowing on an ice ream cone while she tells us to eat a celery stick?
Well, when the power of persuasion doesn't work, they'll use the persuasion of power.

How long until instead of the above it's
"At the USDA website, you have the requirement to type in information about yourself, what kind of lifestyle you have, how much physical activity you are engaged in on a daily basis," he said. "So there are ways that usda.gov will determine a personal eating (plan) for yourself.

" and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal"

Laugh and call me the paranoid ID "ath-hole" if you want but if the SCOTUS doesn't uphold this judge's ruling and nullify this whole power play, this is where we'll be headed, slowly but surely. If SecHHS has the power over your your health care, it won't be long before SecAg has the power over your diet.

Just one little reeeeasonable step at a time.

Of course we all know that this will NOT apply to women.
Hasn't the SCOTUS already ruled that they have the right to do what they want with their bodys????


Just askin'.........

RK

[ducknwork]

The last two posts are pure genius.

[Uncle Bill]

This Florida judge has the MSP and the rest of the Obama sycophants fit to be tied. Yuk, yuk,yuk.

Here's a telling column:

UB

Health Judge Uses Obama's Words Against Him


Tuesday, 01 Feb 2011 09:19 AM




In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.

The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but rather whether it has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance.

Judge Vinson cited Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could pass constitutional muster including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.

During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance and Mr. Obama‘s did not.

Congress eventually included the individual mandate in the bill it passed, and Mr. Obama signed that into law in March. Since then, he and his administration have defended its constitutionality, arguing the mandate is the linchpin that brings in more customers to insurance companies, which in turn allows those companies to expand the availability and lower the cost of coverage.

Much of Judge Vinson‘s ruling was a discussion of how the Founding Fathers, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, saw the limits on congressional power. Judge Vinson hypothesized that, under the Obama administration‘s legal theory, the government could mandate that all citizens eat broccoli.

White House officials said that sort of “surpassingly curious reading” called into question Judge Vinson‘s entire ruling.

“There’s something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis,” said a White House official who briefed reporters late Monday afternoon, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

[M&K's Retrievers]

Diane Sawyer did not even mention the decision on ABC's news program yesterday. CBS and NBC had brief one or two sentence statements.

[BonMallari]

the Dems bullied through healthcare, and then the elections showed them the American public didnt like the way they did business, now a Federal judge has stopped the process (for now)...so we either wait for SCOTUS to hold up the ruling and /or we vote for a change in leadership in 2012 at both the Executive level and the Senate and put an end to it altogether...may end up being a Roe vs Wade type of ruling, which may shape the way laws are written for our kids and even their kids

[Gerry Clinchy]

What if we want to 'live large" (pun intended) and party like a rock star, like Michelle & Co, chowing on an ice ream cone while she tells us to eat a celery stick?

Sounds a little like Al Gore running a $12,000/month electric bill, while telling the rest of us we should conserve energy. Then the govt gives us no choice because its energy policies sends the cost of energy through the roof. Mission accomplished.

[Roger Perry]

Governor Romney signed a similar law in effect in Massachusetts yet he opposes a federal bill go figure

Romney signed legislation while governor that required all citizens of the state to obtain insurance, and while he points to differences between that law and the one Obama won from Congress, it looms as a potential handicap as he seeks support from primary voters in 2012.

I guess the difference between the health care plans is that Obamacare does not include tax payer abortions. And you righties want him for President???????????????

Gov. Romney's universal health care program for Massachusetts includes taxpayer-funded abortions

Legislation names Planned Parenthood as member of advisory board

The cornerstone of Gov. Mitt Romney's new universal health care law for Massachusetts is a program titled "Commonwealth Care", a plan for thousands of low-income people who could not afford regular health insurance, funded by the taxpayers.
One of the stated benefits covered in Commonwealth Care is "abortions." And Planned Parenthood is written into the law, as part of the "payment policy advisory board."




April 12, 2006. Gov. Mitt Romney signs Massachusetts Universal Health Care law, as Sen. Ted Kennedy, standing behind him, gives his approval and support.

http://massresistance.org/docs/marri...ey/health_ins/

[BrianW]

I'm NOT speaking for Romney's view(s) and have not supported him for prez.
But =
The Federal government does not have the "charter" to mandate that all American citizens buy health insurance

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the State of Mass chose to do that to themselves, fine.
But not Uncle Sam.

[road kill]

I'm NOT speaking for Romney's view(s) and have not supported him for prez.
But =
The Federal government does not have the "charter" to mandate that all American citizens buy health insurance

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the State of Mass chose to do that to themselves, fine.
But not Uncle Sam.

Don't let the FACTS get in the way of Roger SOILING a thread.
(you know, like he does his depends)
And it's a waste fo time to point it out to him, he only listens to the nurses.


Besides, if anyone would know how POORLY this kind of thing functions, it would be a guy that has actually tried it........


RK