U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-08-2010, 12:59 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
5,076 posts, read 7,047,642 times
Reputation: 3382

Advertisements

A federal judge in Michigan ruled today that the new law is constitutional and rejected an argument that Congress lacked the power to create the legislation's "individual mandate," which requires virtually all Americans to purchase health insurance. The decision is a notable victory for the Obama administration.The plaintiffs objected to being compelled to choose between buying health coverage or being taxed. The plaintiffs claimed premiums could be used to fund abortions, and because the decision not to buy insurance is a form of inactivity rather than an economic activity, it is not covered by the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The judged denied that claim and stated by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health-care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars onto to other participants in health care plans. Based on this, the judge ruled regulating this decision falls well within the scope of Congress' authority to regulate the health-insurance market. In the past, some lawsuits have been rejected due to lack of standing.
washingtonpost.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-08-2010, 01:09 AM
 
15,924 posts, read 16,887,754 times
Reputation: 7626
This is so wrong, the government forcing it's citizens to "buy" something. I thought this country was based on an individuals freedom of choice. Land of the free, free to pay taxes I guess.

Talk about a socialized nanny country the US has turned into one, and it's judiciary has become the modern version of the Gestapo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2010, 05:54 AM
 
17,039 posts, read 11,411,470 times
Reputation: 9007
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerlily View Post
A federal judge in Michigan ruled today that the new law is constitutional and rejected an argument that Congress lacked the power to create the legislation's "individual mandate," which requires virtually all Americans to purchase health insurance. The decision is a notable victory for the Obama administration.The plaintiffs objected to being compelled to choose between buying health coverage or being taxed. The plaintiffs claimed premiums could be used to fund abortions, and because the decision not to buy insurance is a form of inactivity rather than an economic activity, it is not covered by the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The judged denied that claim and stated by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health-care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars onto to other participants in health care plans. Based on this, the judge ruled regulating this decision falls well within the scope of Congress' authority to regulate the health-insurance market. In the past, some lawsuits have been rejected due to lack of standing.
washingtonpost.com

1. There are multiple state suits which will go to the US Supreme Court

2. When the republicans gain control of the House in November, they will defund it until it can be formally repealed.

3. We do not have the money for our current entitlements, let alone an exta $3.2 trillion entitlement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2010, 07:09 AM
 
3,568 posts, read 3,185,105 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
This is so wrong, the government forcing it's citizens to "buy" something. I thought this country was based on an individuals freedom of choice. Land of the free, free to pay taxes I guess.

Talk about a socialized nanny country the US has turned into one, and it's judiciary has become the modern version of the Gestapo.
"Liberty" has become a dirty word for liberals and progressives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2010, 07:52 AM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,644 posts, read 5,351,010 times
Reputation: 4793
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerlily View Post
A federal judge in Michigan ruled today that the new law is constitutional and rejected an argument that Congress lacked the power to create the legislation's "individual mandate," which requires virtually all Americans to purchase health insurance.
Good decision.

The article also states:
The case is one of 15 to 20 lawsuits challenging some aspect of the health-care law, according to a Justice Department estimate.
I seem to recall a lot of whining from the right about trial lawyers and "frivolous" lawsuits, but there's been none of that when it comes to health care reform. I suspect that when the Supreme Court rules against them, the whining on the right will turn to complaining about activist judges.

Here's a link to the Michigan decision: http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/News/Docs/09714485866.pdf

And here are a few highlights from the decision:
"The Supreme Court has consistently rejected claims that individuals who choose not to engage in commerce thereby place themselves beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause... plaintiffs in this case are participants in the health care services market. They are not outside the market. While plaintiffs describe the Commerce Clause power as reaching economic activity, the government's characterization of the Commerce Clause reaching economic decisions is more accurate."

"The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. Indeed, the opposite is nearly always true. The question is how participants in the health care market pay for medical expenses - through insurance, or through an attempt to pay out of pocket with a backstop of uncompensated care funded by third parties. This phenomenon of costshifting is what makes the health care market unique. Far from "inactivity," by choosing to forgo insurance plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars, $43 billion in 2008, onto other market participants. As this cost-shifting is exactly what the Health Care Reform Act was enacted to address, there is no need for metaphysical gymnastics of the sort proscribed by Lopez."

"The minimum coverage provision, which addresses economic decisions regarding health care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congress's goal."

"Congress intended to increase the number of insureds and decrease the cost of health insurance by requiring individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage or face a penalty for failing to do so. Because the "penalty" is incidental to these purposes, plaintiffs' challenge to the constitutionality of the penalty as an improperly apportioned direct tax is without merit."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2010, 08:05 AM
 
25,631 posts, read 29,194,850 times
Reputation: 23050
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerlily View Post
A federal judge in Michigan ruled today that the new law is constitutional and rejected an argument that Congress lacked the power to create the legislation's "individual mandate," which requires virtually all Americans to purchase health insurance. The decision is a notable victory for the Obama administration.The plaintiffs objected to being compelled to choose between buying health coverage or being taxed. The plaintiffs claimed premiums could be used to fund abortions, and because the decision not to buy insurance is a form of inactivity rather than an economic activity, it is not covered by the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The judged denied that claim and stated by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health-care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars onto to other participants in health care plans. Based on this, the judge ruled regulating this decision falls well within the scope of Congress' authority to regulate the health-insurance market. In the past, some lawsuits have been rejected due to lack of standing.
washingtonpost.com

What you fail to realize in that making this ruling the judge has stated that the lawsuit has merit. All this judge has succeeded in doing is clearing a path to the Supreme Court for this case. Save your victory party for a few more years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2010, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Land of debt and Corruption
7,526 posts, read 6,978,063 times
Reputation: 2841
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerlily View Post
The judged denied that claim and stated by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health-care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars onto to other participants in health care plans
The judge should be tossed out on his can for that. How presumptuous. How can you penalize someone for something they haven't done yet (pay for health services later, out of pocket)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2010, 08:12 AM
 
2,564 posts, read 1,229,606 times
Reputation: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerlily View Post
A federal judge in Michigan ruled today that the new law is constitutional and rejected an argument that Congress lacked the power to create the legislation's "individual mandate," which requires virtually all Americans to purchase health insurance. The decision is a notable victory for the Obama administration.The plaintiffs objected to being compelled to choose between buying health coverage or being taxed. The plaintiffs claimed premiums could be used to fund abortions, and because the decision not to buy insurance is a form of inactivity rather than an economic activity, it is not covered by the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The judged denied that claim and stated by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health-care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars onto to other participants in health care plans. Based on this, the judge ruled regulating this decision falls well within the scope of Congress' authority to regulate the health-insurance market. In the past, some lawsuits have been rejected due to lack of standing.
washingtonpost.com
The judge is on target with this decision. The false claim by anti-law naysayers is that they do not have to participate, but as the judge points out, they force all other Americans (against our will) to participate in their healthcare costs when they refuse to participate in the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2010, 08:16 AM
 
Location: Annandale, VA
9,475 posts, read 7,627,848 times
Reputation: 6064
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene View Post
Good decision.

The article also states:
The case is one of 15 to 20 lawsuits challenging some aspect of the health-care law, according to a Justice Department estimate.
I seem to recall a lot of whining from the right about trial lawyers and "frivolous" lawsuits, but there's been none of that when it comes to health care reform. I suspect that when the Supreme Court rules against them, the whining on the right will turn to complaining about activist judges.

Here's a link to the Michigan decision: http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/News/Docs/09714485866.pdf

And here are a few highlights from the decision:
"The Supreme Court has consistently rejected claims that individuals who choose not to engage in commerce thereby place themselves beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause... plaintiffs in this case are participants in the health care services market. They are not outside the market. While plaintiffs describe the Commerce Clause power as reaching economic activity, the government's characterization of the Commerce Clause reaching economic decisions is more accurate."

"The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. Indeed, the opposite is nearly always true. The question is how participants in the health care market pay for medical expenses - through insurance, or through an attempt to pay out of pocket with a backstop of uncompensated care funded by third parties. This phenomenon of costshifting is what makes the health care market unique. Far from "inactivity," by choosing to forgo insurance plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars, $43 billion in 2008, onto other market participants. As this cost-shifting is exactly what the Health Care Reform Act was enacted to address, there is no need for metaphysical gymnastics of the sort proscribed by Lopez."

"The minimum coverage provision, which addresses economic decisions regarding health care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congress's goal."

"Congress intended to increase the number of insureds and decrease the cost of health insurance by requiring individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage or face a penalty for failing to do so. Because the "penalty" is incidental to these purposes, plaintiffs' challenge to the constitutionality of the penalty as an improperly apportioned direct tax is without merit."

Hopefully this ruling will open the ENTIRE MEANING of the "commerce clause" and allow the Supreme Court to eliminate ALL programs and laws enacted using the congress's warped meaning of that section of the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2010, 08:21 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,458 posts, read 21,513,301 times
Reputation: 8417
Not everyone who refuses to buy insurance is poor and lacking healthcare. Quite the opposite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top