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.
Oh please.... Since were talking about insurance in the United States can you show me the link to see the illegal alien kids dying in the streets because of no insurance. I'm sorry but that is one pathetic statement.
Well maybe kids aren't dying on the streets in your neighborhood. You probably live in one of those fancy gated communities that has a plush golf course where the kids can go to die. But in my neighborhood it's different - one died right in front of my house yesterday and I had to call the city twice before they sent a truck to scrape him up - said there were just too many that day and they only had 3 crews, so I would just have to wait my turn. At least a cop did eventially stop by and place a flare so the traffic stopped running over him. That constant thump thump...thump thump was getting on my nerves.
Edit- "Kid" here of course refers to a young goat. Somebody pointed out to me that that wasn't entirely clear in the original post, and some might go out of their way to misconstrue my meaning...
Last edited by C.C; 02-03-2011 at 02:11 PM..
Reason: Clarification
True, however there is no inunction at present so they can go ahead collecting taxes that come from the bill getting the money stored up for 2014 when it is to go into effect. The judge did not void the act and, in fact, all he did was to send the case on its way up the ladder to the Supreme Court with nothing but his declaration of unconstitutionality attached to it. This is not as great and good as many of us on the right want to believe it is.
The judge did void the Act. And stated " ...
[LEFT]there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the
Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the[/LEFT]
declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction."
This is why he said it was not necessary to issue an injunction.
I haven't read through all 51 pages and maybe this been asked before. The big reason I hear about the current law is that it is unconstitutional due to the requirement to purchase health care. Aren't we already required to purchase health care in the form of a payroll tax for Medicare?
You are paying a tax for Medicare Insurance that you will only be able to start using after 45 -50 years of work
What a deal
The federal government has no authority to force one to buy private health insurance. The federal government has the power to pass regulations under the commerce clause for your protections e.g. bank regulations, but they can not force you to put your money in a private bank.
The federal government has never regulated "inactivity" nor does it have the power to regulate a person who has not done anything to engage in an economic activity. Or force one into a private contract against their will.
Add in the IRS fine, tax, penalty (what ever you want to call it - it doesn't mater) if you do not have health insurance coverage. It would be like the IRS fining you because you refused to go out and get a job because the federal government thinks some day you will have a job and might owe a tax on a later return The mandate is
just way overstepping federal power which they can
not cross. If you own a car, but never take it on a public road - you don't need to buy car insurance. Even a state can not fine you or force you to buy car insurance for "inactivity".
Sure, the federal government can regulate insurance companies all they want. But will Insurance Companies agree to those regulations without a public mandate to buy their private product - No. It wouldn't be good for
their business profits
If Congress thinks it's of utmost economic importance to the nation, that everyone in America must have health care insurance, then the only power they have, is to enact Medicare for ALL - which is what they should
have done in 1965 or not enacted Medicare at all. The
general welfare clause is not meant for a "select group"
of US citizens - it's meant for "ALL of it's citizens".
The new improved Medicare for ALL for all of us paying
our Medicare payroll tax, and just dying to use it Medicare for All: Home
The judge did void the Act. And stated " ...
[LEFT]there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the
Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the[/LEFT]
declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction."
This is why he said it was not necessary to issue an injunction.
The reason an injunction was not necessary, because the law to purchase insurance has not taken effect yet. An injunction is used to stop something that is already going on.
So can I take it that you are against adding any help whatsoever for illegal alien kids dying in the streets for lack of insurance?
Nice try, but I did not say that, did I? I don't think they should be part of the health plan. That does not mean, however, that I favor letting them die in the streets for lack of insurance. We pay for health care for lots of uninsured now; that would remain unchanged.
The reason an injunction was not necessary, because the law to purchase insurance has not taken effect yet. An injunction is used to stop something that is already going on.
Not true.
Parts of the insurance is almost ready to go into effect and if they do not try to obtain the injuction, it will certainly put a strain on the entire bill.
The dems know this!
In order to get an injuction, however, there has to be sufficient proof from them that they would most likely win the case in the Supreme Court. They do not have this proof as it is very uncertain if they will win or not - and probably not.
They wish they had an injunction! They NEED an injunction ASAP. They know they are treading in deep water here.
Parts of the insurance is almost ready to go into effect and if they do not try to obtain the injuction, it will certainly put a strain on the entire bill.
The dems know this!
In order to get an injuction, however, there has to be sufficient proof from them that they would most likely win the case in the Supreme Court. They do not have this proof as it is very uncertain if they will win or not - and probably not.
They wish they had an injunction! They NEED an injunction ASAP. They know they are treading in deep water here.
Polly is right. An injunction right now is likely not needed because the purchase requirement has yet to take effect.
Parts of the insurance is almost ready to go into effect and if they do not try to obtain the injuction, it will certainly put a strain on the entire bill.
The dems know this!
In order to get an injuction, however, there has to be sufficient proof from them that they would most likely win the case in the Supreme Court. They do not have this proof as it is very uncertain if they will win or not - and probably not.
They wish they had an injunction! They NEED an injunction ASAP. They know they are treading in deep water here.
That would be a stay order, wouldn't it??? I thought the difference is an Injunction stops someone from doing what they are presently doing, where as a Stay order is presented to the Court and once a stay order is granted, the present ruling can't be set in stone until the higher court hears the case???
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.
