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.
They should. SCOTUS sent a very, very clear message that they will strike it down if it gets to them. It’s over other than the formalities. Frankly, I am still a bit stunned the 6th Circuit didn’t stay the mandate in the first place. Unless they are like Sotomeyer and unaware of the 10th Amendment, they knew that at best this was on shaky ground on that basis alone, even without the agency overreach. Too many were hoping to get people force vaccinated prior to SCOTUS getting the chance to strike it down. Shame on them.
By the way, the Biden Administration’s propensity to engage in blatant agency overreach ought to chill true liberals.
The 6th Circuit is a funny case. It definitely leans to the right as far as judicial conservatism goes, but it also has a few justices that, while technically appointed by Republican presidents, were recommended with by their home state Democrat senators, such as Judge Richard Griffin (Michigan) and Judge Helen White (Michigan). At the time, the Senate wouldn't move forward on nominations to the federal bench without the home state senators of the circuit seat or district court seat at issue returning the so-called "blue slip." I also note that, in White's case, while ultimately appointed to the circuit by GWB in a compromise move, she was initially nominated by Bill Clinton. Also, Judge Julia Gibbons (who voted to uphold the mandate), while appointed to the circuit by GWB with the blessing of two GOP home state Senators from Tennessee in 2002, was initially appointed to the federal district court by Ronald Reagan in a process that required the concurrence of a Democrat home state senator. Taking all of these nuances together, the things start to add up a little more.
On paper, the 6th Circuit looks as conservative as the 5th Circuit judging by number of GOP appointed judges vs. Dem appointed judges. But, digging a little deeper and considering the home-state senator buy-in practices that made it much more likely for circuit seats in the 6th vice 5th circuits being represented by Democrats, in practice it is not as conservative as some may think.
I doubt that will happen. Too much money to be had.
But I brought up the possibilitiy that due to the CMS mandate, that the federal government could theorectically require welfare recepients to be vaccinated to receive food stamps, section 8, etc. If it really was about health, the fed would - since POC are over represented in both welfare, vaccine hesitancy and severe and deadly outcomes of covid, forcing vaccination on that group would be right in line to what the administration says they want to do.
They won't though. It would be political suicide.
But at this point since the CMS ruling basically says, "you accept our money, you must follow our rules' - what is to stop CMS from requiring that Catholic hospitals/health care centers, perform abortions?
It's a very slippery slope at this point.
While it is a very slippery slope, due to contracts and agreements hospitals don't make much from the US Government. When I saw a civilian provider (outside of the military), I was surprised how much the max was for the Government to pay them. Which was not much at all.
While it is a very slippery slope, due to contracts and agreements hospitals don't make much from the US Government. When I saw a civilian provider (outside of the military), I was surprised how much the max was for the Government to pay them. Which was not much at all.
Somewhere between 20-40% of a hospital's budget comes from CMS reimbursement.
There is a nearly endless list of regulations prohibiting companies from actions with the potential to do harm. This "vaccine" has been thoroughly, exhaustively discredited. It protects no one from anything, but places all recipients at great risk for catastrophic health consequences - up to and including death.
This can be, should be, hopefully will be the next high court case....as it seems that today there's no stopping the evil perpetrated by powerful sociopathic morons any other way. We won't be done with this battle until ALL are prohibited from imposing this evil on any others in any arena, ever again.
Prior to this Biden nightmare, it went without saying that you simply could not do what he has attempted in America. Everyone knew it....everyone understood it....it went without saying for centuries in a country with individual freedom at its foundation.
Sadly, due to decades of degradation of our nation's moral fabric and educational level, it needs to be said. It needs to be shouted from every rooftop.......DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!!
I don't disagree with anything you said, but to answer your question....I do believe they can currently.
Belling pointed out that the job of a supreme court justice is to interpet the constitution, nothing more. The problem comes when judges overreach their authority and rule based on feelgood-ism, and both sides have been guilty of this from time to time.
In my opinion South Dakota's supreme court justices should not have struck down Amendment A, but hey republicans don't like marijuana.
Vaccine mandates would seem to be a constitutional overreach to me, though they have been done in the past dating back to the 1800's. They are not without precedent.
State, not Federal and reaching nationwide though.
Quote: "The Court has ruled that my administration cannot use the authority granted to it by Congress to require this measure, but that does not stop me from using my voice as President to advocate for employers to do the right thing to protect Americans' health and economy. I call on business leaders to immediately join those who have already stepped up – including one third of Fortune 100 companies – and institute vaccination requirements to protect their workers, customers, and communities,"
"just do it anyway. I know what's best for you"
No, they said there is no authority that you, Biden, and OSHA, have to do such.
Somewhere between 20-40% of a hospital's budget comes from CMS reimbursement.
They still don't reimbursed very much at all. When I went to a local ER for breaking my arm, the bill was about 4K. The hospital was paid just over 1K for services. While it was Tricare, tricare and medicare have similar payouts from the government. Tricare will pay even less when Medicare is involved.
They still don't reimbursed very much at all. When I went to a local ER for breaking my arm, the bill was about 4K. The hospital was paid just over 1K for services. While it was Tricare, tricare and medicare have similar payouts from the government. Tricare will pay even less when Medicare is involved.
I don't know why you're having trouble understanding that a huge chunk of a hospital's operating budget comes from CMS reimbursement. You seem to be arguing that since CMS doesn't reimburse much based on the total cost, that losing that money would be no big deal.
Take away that reimbursement and the hospital closes.
Absolutely....and some hospital staff will migrate to those providers to avoid the mandate. Much will depend on how much revenue loss those practices experience by dropping Medicare/Medicaid patients.
Some doctors have a private practice or a small joint practice, and were refusing to see any patients with federal health care insurance before all of this. These doctors are sometimes specialists, who work privately but offer services to hospitals and such.
Our veterans use TriCare, and they along with Medicare and Medicaid patients will now be SOL. This move by Biden will only cause more small practices to refuse to see these people.
Don't be surprised if you have a rare condition, your doctor calls their specialist. However, once the specialist finds out that you have a federal health care plan,he/she will tell you that they will only except cash, because he does not want to deal with the feds.
I don't know why you're having trouble understanding that a huge chunk of a hospital's operating budget comes from CMS reimbursement. You seem to be arguing that since CMS doesn't reimburse much based on the total cost, that losing that money would be no big deal.
Take away that reimbursement and the hospital closes.
Not arguing, just stating the fact that Medicare pays less than the cost to care for the patient. Some hospitals actually lose money.
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.
