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.
It sounds like not only do you potentially have the Judge overreaching beyond where the Supreme Court in past cases has been willing to go - but in that overreaching creating these "reliance interest" issues.
To be sorted out at the next Judicial level ... But one of the reasons why this is so important is not because of the kid on the parent policy thing (although that was well received and impacts many families) but it sounds like the preexisting condition clauses remain alive unless the entire ACA can be killed. Or (to be accurate) stay dead.
I agree SCOTUS will likely sever the mandate from the rest of ACA but I'm just delighted to see Democrats ranting and railing about judicial activism for once. Just imagine how they would feel if they had judges doing this against them ten times a year.
I agree SCOTUS will likely sever the mandate from the rest of ACA but I'm just delighted to see Democrats ranting and railing about judicial activism for once. Just imagine how they would feel if they had judges doing this against them ten times a year.
Many have noticed the irony, yes. (And more, I think ??? the Democrats argued severability the other way around during the 2012 SCOTUS case.)
Me, I'm less concerned about the intersection of the judiciary and the legislative branches than I am about the role of the executive branch when there's reason to wonder whether Trump ever got "preexisting conditions" straight. That NYT quote is fascinating - it's simply not him misspeaking ... rather you can see how he's gotten two arguably related concepts confused.
All you really care about is having someone else pay your bills.
What an absurd statement. It sound like something straight out of Right Wing Spin.
Why is it we see so many who identify as Right Wingers think if they have a few dollars, they become with the mentality of savagery toward others as if they think their money makes them better than others ?
We as "America and Americans" have a "tax system", everyone pays into it, and everyone can benefit from what those taxes provide. Thank goodness we've had Presidents that understand this in previous times, and the sooner America people continue to diminish the Right Winger that make up the Republican Madness, then American can move forward and be all that Democracy was designed to promote, provide, be and build of and for the Future of the Nation and its people.
The hateful ideology of what is daily played out of Republican (Confederacy Styled Mentality), is like a cancer that eats at America, and has caused damages for 100's of yrs.
The hoarding mentality is at the core of the devastation this nation suffer, along with the ignorance of ethnic, race and gender bias madness. None of which is Representative of Democracy and certainly has no concept of respect for the Equality of Person as Individual. These types, think "money is everything", and build their mentality around every form of worshiping money and material obsessiveness they can conjure up.
They still have the pre-1964 mentality of wanting to use anything they can that tax monies created and then they want to selective choose who can and who can't benefit from the same. It's straight out of "Jim Crow Groomed Mindsets"....
Thank goodness for men like LBJ and many others along our history... who crashed right thought that madness with the Civil Rights Act, and his many great works.
Quote:
President Lyndon B. Johnson, (LBJ) ..... He ended Racial Segregation!!!! Johnson designed the "Great Society" legislation to expand civil rights, public broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, aid to education, the arts, urban and rural development, public services and his "War on Poverty".
The Civil-rights bills that he signed into law banned racial discrimination in public facilities, interstate commerce, the workplace and housing; the Voting Rights Act prohibited certain requirements in southern states used to disenfranchise African Americans. With the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the country's immigration system was reformed, encouraging greater emigration from regions other than Europe.
The only semi-coherent argument in support of reversing this judge's opinion on appeal is that, while the Supreme Court did uphold up Obamacare as a part of Congress' taxing power (the Court had 5 justices that held that Obamacare wasn't an appropriate use of Congress' commerce powers), it is nonsensical to strike down the entire law now that the tax is gone given that Congress could have done so themselves but chose not to. Thus, the argument goes, it was not the intent of Congress (last year) to do away with the entire law when they stripped the law of the tax. And lord knows that Congress wouldn't agree to a full repeal last year.
The only problem with this argument is that (in fact, I'd argue that its the more reasonable reading) Congress was well aware of the Court's rationale when it upheld Obamacare the first time and, thus, knew the consequence of their action to strip the law of the tax, which was the basis for the law's constitutionality. The fact that they didn't take the more politically painful route of gutting the entire law doesn't change this.
The only question remains whether the spineless John Roberts will, once again, go against principle to save this monstrosity.
The only semi-coherent argument in support of reversing this judge's opinion on appeal is that, while the Supreme Court did uphold up Obamacare as a part of Congress' taxing power (the Court had 5 justices that held that Obamacare wasn't an appropriate use of Congress' commerce powers), it is nonsensical to strike down the entire law now that the tax is gone given that Congress could have done so themselves but chose not to. Thus, the argument goes, it was not the intent of Congress (last year) to do away with the entire law when they stripped the law of the tax. And lord knows that Congress wouldn't agree to a full repeal last year.
The only problem with this argument is that (in fact, I'd argue that its the more reasonable reading) Congress was well aware of the Court's rationale when it upheld Obamacare the first time and, thus, knew the consequence of their action to strip the law of the tax, which was the basis for the law's constitutionality. The fact that they didn't take the more politically painful route of gutting the entire law doesn't change this.
The only question remains whether the spineless John Roberts will, once again, go against principle to save this monstrosity.
If this gets overturned on appeal, as most legal experts expect, I doubt the SC would take this up again. They'll probably let the appeal stand. My guess is they won't want to touch this again.
People tried the same attacks on Medicare and Medicaid.... and Republicans are still to this day attacking it. They have not destroyed Medicare nor Medicaid, and they WILL NOT be successful in destroying ACA !! Its as simple as that.
ACA covers people in the Adult Range, who are beyond the youths age that can benefit for various care programs, and it covers people who are in the age range prior to qualifying to Medicare..
It's a shame any people in America would deny ACA to the people in the Adult Range of Life, who in many ways make up the age range of labor that keeps this county prospering... It's ludicrus for the Right Wing Attack on ACA...
Its about as stupid as Trump, trying to move the removal of companies to maintain safety records, to avoid injured people the means and background information to file claim against employer's habits that cause employees damaged.
Quote:
It all nothing but a Confederacy Agenda... which implies... "if one can't work for any reason to produce profit for the wealthy, THEN "they get nothing" and are left to die... as if one would just as well go out and shoot a lame horse just because they can't rid it the way they use to.
The savagely mentality of Right Wingers, still do all they can to look at people as being "less than", based on money, skin ethnicity and anything else they can conjure up to feed their fiction and delusions of superiority... as they address people as if they are nothing more than "a disposable object" they can use for profit until they can't use them anymore. During Slavery, these same types did all they could not to consider blacks as even being regarded and respected as human beings, they did not consider women as "person" regardless of her skin color, and poor whites.. were disposable service labor, immediately replaceable when they got sick and could not provide service to the well to do or the wealthy.
Right Wing Minded People need to get past that Jim Crow Groomed mentality of which lusted for a remake of the Confederacy.... Many of such types, hold those biased and bigoted, racist and generalized frames of ignorance and know so little about the history of it, until they live by folklore passed on ideas.... that confabulate their lives with such fictions, that feed the biases they try to pass on from generations to generation. They damage America and here in the 21st Century it is nothing more than willful ignorance and generalized stupidity.
Universal Health Care WILL become as established as Medicare is, and may take on the form with the protection that ACA incorporated to be the system of Universal Health Care across America.... AND it will find means to have its premium cost managed in the say principle ways that Medicare has its principle cost managed.
The model is already in place, and it will be Melded together with existing Medicare, and we will have a truly cost effective premium which all people can afford, and we will get a system that manage the cost of care with controls the same as Medicare does today. The Non Denial of Service will be improved, so no level of care is taken off the table for covered individuals. This will also move ahead and bring controls to prescriptions meds'... so we don't have anyone telling anyone it cost $1,000's of dollar a month for any drug that is needed. (when fact is, many of these drugs were developed utilizing 'Federal Grants Funds", yet by the greed of industry, made excessive in cost to the same people, who's tax monies made the grant possible in the first place).
We can thank technology, because it tracks, and records all such information, and it is being more and more exposed to the broader public, just how that works.... The public is becoming more and more aware of how they have been fleeced by industry, on the very same things their tax dollars helped to research and develop.
Can you give me an example in history where the courts have allowed something to stand, that on it's own didn't meet legal and constitutional requirements, on the basis that people have come to rely upon it?
No.
The only thing that would come even remotely close would be a quasi-contract, sometimes called an implied-in-law contract.
There's no actual contract, yet courts will create and impose one, but that's only to prevent one party from becoming unjustly enriched at the expense of another party.
The only other situation would be some form of fraud, where there's a material mistake of fact that one part relies upon, but that reliance has to be to their detriment.
Neither situation applies here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
But that's the point - the remainder of the ACA is not unconstitutional.
Actually, it is.
Congress only has authority under the Constitution to regulate or insert itself into Interstate Commerce.
The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled for over a century that medical care and health insurance are intra-State commerce, over which Congress has no power or authority.
That was the whole purpose of the tax.
Any competent unbiased judge would see that as an end-run around the Constitution and strike it down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
For example, the requirement that insurance companies continue to cover children up to age 26 is not inherently unconstitutional, or no one's found it to be so.
It is inherently unconstitutional.
Congress has no power or authority over insurance companies, because insurance companies are intra-State commerce, not interstate commerce, as the Supreme Court has continually ruled. Only the States have the power to regulate insurance companies.
Only the States have the power to set capitalization requirements (to prevent you from buying worthless insurance) and bar or compel insurance companies to engage in certain activities or provide coverage.
If you don't understand that, then you will never understand one of the reasons why your healthcare systems is screwed.
When hospitals started offering pre-paid hospitalization plans in the 1930s --because insurance companies wouldn't issue such plans -- the States wanted to regulate them.
Since there was no possible way a hospital, or even a group of hospitals could ever meet the capitalization requirements set by State laws, the American Hospital Association began lobbying the States for "enabling laws."
Those "enabling laws" enabled hospitals to offer insurance without being subject to State insurance regulators, and it created the "Out-of-Network" system you hate, and it allowed hospitals to operate as monopolies and monopolistic cartels to illegally collude to illegally fix prices above market rates for medical services (under the guise that the free medical care hospitals would provide to low-income patients would offset the negative effects of monopolies).
You've been paying the price ever since.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
What was such a surprise about the ruling was that he pulled down the entire law, by not severing the remainder of the ACA from the mandate.
There's no legal requirement or obligation to sever.
Obviously, you're not familiar with Red Pencil States.
When you have a non-competition agreement, covenant not to compete, non-compete clause or whatever you want to call it, and the judge finds the time limitation or geographical limitation or other aspect of the agreement to be overburdening for the employee, the judge will throw out the entire contract, even though the contract specifically states that all provisions in the agreement are severable, blah, blah, blah.
There's no legal requirement or obligation to sever anything at any time ever, even if the law or contract says it's severable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chance and Change
What an absurd statement. It sound like something straight out of Right Wing Spin.
It's not absurd, it's reality.
For example, seniors and the elderly are forced to pay for pregnancy/maternity coverage and birth control coverage, even though they cannot have children and don't want children.
So, people are subsidizing other people's Life-Styles, whether you want to believe it or not.
Rescue Trump? What could that mean? If you mean that the Democrats will not work with Republicans to reform and develop a health care policy (not just a health insurance policy) that is actually affordable and flexible enough to accomodate the needs of Americans across our country, but instead are going to try to ram Obamacare or worse down our throats - again - in a take it leave it, our way or you are all racists temper-tantrum, then we are going back to the system we had before Obamacare.
Is that what you people really want? I reallly hope you are not going to be like that though. It appears that there likely is a compromise solution to be had here, if the Democrat left can gather themselves and muster up the collective maturity to be able support a more practicle, more flexible, more affordable, more market oriented solution.
We had a "market oriented system" complete with higher premiums for women, inadequate state run risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions and 48.6 million uninsured people (as opposed to 20 million uninsured now). No, I don't think democrats are in a mood to support a return to a "market based solution", and if they did they would never survive reelection.
You said: For example, seniors and the elderly are forced to pay for pregnancy/maternity coverage and birth control coverage, even though they cannot have children and don't want children.
So, people are subsidizing other people's Life-Styles, whether you want to believe it or not.
the tax system is designed to provide benefits to all.... based on what you say... Medicare is using young peoples tax money to pay for older people and young people and disabled people, when they themselves are not old or disabled.
Our system is designed - to provide by and through legislated programs... and those programs have benefit requirements, and categories for those benefit requirements. to fix it for "all" is to develop "universal health care across the board", even if its labeled.... Medicare for All.
When tax money builds a freeway, its built for "all users" to utilize. whether one uses it to make money or for leisure or other person use, it does not come in and say... it can only be used by those who use it to generate income, or those who use it only for leisure or whatever.
Some still would whine and cry about "tax dollars being used to build roadways", simply because they can't dictate who can and can't use the roadway.
There will "never" within the next 50 yrs be a society where every living being works, some will be due to illness of many sorts, and some for situation of hard times and despair... because "there is no perfect society".... and there is no "utopia".
What we have is a Democracy trying to build and maintain systems that help serve the people.
This country has given and gives more to nationwide industries of every type more money yearly, that it would ever cost for Health Care to be Covered.
We likely spend more on "off the books" military ops' and programs, than anyone will know, and it goes to "private contractors" that continue to make "billions" every year in profits. There are programs funded that will never meet with the 'everyday citizens gaining a claimed direct benefit", it is a national benefit, that people often can't see, feel or touch.
Yet, people complain about anything that helps people.
We spent more money of "private goon squads" in Iraq and Afghanistan, while we had a sanctioned Military in place that we spend $100's of billions to equip and prepare them to do anything that needs to be done, to the point we don't need private goon squads. Yet, we have them.
We go to foreign countries and build all sorts of things, for the sake of gaining political influence, when we have diplomats who should be dealing with political interactive influential things. Yet, we continue to spend taxpayer money to build up things in other countries.
We spend all that money, and then turn around and play policy shift games, and walk away from it, if we think we can get a better deal by building something else the next regime in power says they want, in exchange for political influence. We not only create situations or warring factions by such things, some we instigate, at great cost, after we'd played both sides against the middle, and a new player enters the scene.
Most of these plays as such, benefit "big corporate global companies", the same companies who get resources, do production and manufacture products on foreign soil, with foreign labor, and then want to push it off on American people for an overly inflated cost. Then stand back and boast that they are an American company, when everything they do is done on foreign soil, except selling this stuff back to American people. The same American people who have no part of role in natural resource processing, general manufacturing or production for marketing, all American's get is a clerk job to sell this stuff.
Yet, massive volumes of "American Tax Payer Money" is spend every year to keep the game going.
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.
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.
