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.
If, in the unlikely case, the courts rule that the gov't can't mandate purchase of health insurance then the act will just be tweaked to remove or modify that provision.
And the whole house of cards will collapse.
Socialist schemes like this cannot work unless everyone is forced to participate.
Take away the unconstitutional individual-mandate, and no one will join except those who want to get something for nothing, without paying for it.
"Commerce Clause: “For 70 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has read the Commerce Clause broadly to authorize Congress to address our most pressing national economic concerns. In fact, during George Washington’s first term as President, under the Second Militia Act of 1792, Congress explicitly required many Americans to make an economic purchase: of a gun, ammunition, gunpowder and a knapsack to be properly prepared for military service. In the health care law, the individual mandate is inextricably intertwined with the comprehensive economic approach that Congress adopted to fix the deep flaws in our current health insurance system, which affects one-sixth of the American economy.”"
If this is the case, these lawsuits are nothing more then a waste of money.
Take away the unconstitutional individual-mandate, and no one will join except those who want to get something for nothing, without paying for it.
I can't make heads or tails of that statement. If people 'join' (buy private insurance through an exchange) then they are paying for it. The only people who get something for nothing are those who don't join, don't buy insurance, and use taxpayer funded emergancy rooms without paying - like they do now.
"Commerce Clause: “For 70 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has read the Commerce Clause broadly to authorize Congress to address our most pressing national economic concerns. In fact, during George Washington’s first term as President, under the Second Militia Act of 1792, Congress explicitly required many Americans to make an economic purchase: of a gun, ammunition, gunpowder and a knapsack to be properly prepared for military service. In the health care law, the individual mandate is inextricably intertwined with the comprehensive economic approach that Congress adopted to fix the deep flaws in our current health insurance system, which affects one-sixth of the American economy.”"
If this is the case, these lawsuits are nothing more then a waste of money.
What 'public option'? The exchange only has plans at group rates run by insurance companies.
If there is no mandate, therefore a large part of the reason that premiums could be contained or lowered, would go away. How hard do you think it would be for Congress to insert a Public Option into the Exchange? I suspect, not very hard. You must keep in mind, the United States is a collection of small to massive businesses. All large businesses plan for 5, 10, 20 or more years ahead. They set plans and policies to meet their future goals. The largest of those businesses, is the Federal Govt. and that entity does the same thing. The Govt knows full well, that the a significant majority of Americans want a UHC system and we have just taken the first step to obtain that.
Very interesting article. Good for Ohio. An editorial in the NYT today made it quite clear why both lawsuits have no standing. Congress made sure the health care bill was carefully drafted to withstand any of these ridiculous challenges. As the article points out, most of the attorneys general challenging the suits are seeking re-election. These suits are nothing but pure political gamesmanship. Sonny Perdue, governor of Georgia, goes a step further, and has appointed a "Special Attorney General" because Georgia's attorney general (obviously aware the lawsuit has no merit) has refused to pursue the case against the federal government. It's a no-brainer why Ohio elected a democrat after the corrupt republican governor, Bob Taft, became the first guv in the state's history to be convicted of a crime. Ever hear of the "coingate" scandal? As President Obama so eloquently stated the other day, "go for it"
Clip:
There are two separate suits by the attorneys general. The main one, led by Bill McCollum, a Florida Republican, has been joined by 12 other attorneys general, all but one Republicans. Many if not most are either running for higher office or seeking re-election. A separate suit by Virginia’s Republican attorney general is based on that state’s attempt (sure to be ineffective) to nullify the federal law by enacting a state law declaring that Virginians need not obey it.
A central contention of both suits is that Congress has no power under the Constitution to compel individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Congress has never before compelled people to buy anything from a private company, so there is no precisely apt Supreme Court precedent. Still, two provisions in the Constitution give Congress broad powers to regulate economic activity — the power to impose taxes for the general welfare and the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The new law has been framed to fall within both of those provisions. The penalties for not buying insurance have been structured as a tax, to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service. And the law’s text includes a series of Congressional findings: that health insurance and health care comprise a significant part of the economy, that most policies are sold and claims paid through interstate commerce, and that the mandate is essential to achieving the goals of creating effective health insurance markets and achieving near-universal coverage. Editorial - The Legal Assault on Health Reforms - NYTimes.com
Very interesting article. Good for Ohio. An editorial in the NYT today made it quite clear why both lawsuits have no standing. Congress made sure the health care bill was carefully drafted to withstand any of these ridiculous challenges. As the article points out, most of the attorneys general challenging the suits are seeking re-election. These suits are nothing but pure political gamesmanship. Sonny Perdue, governor of Georgia, goes a step further, and has appointed a "Special Attorney General" because Georgia's attorney general (obviously aware the lawsuit has no merit) has refused to pursue the case against the federal government. It's a no-brainer why Ohio elected a democrat after the corrupt republican governor, Bob Taft, became the first guv in the state's history to be convicted of a crime. Ever hear of the "coingate" scandal? As President Obama so eloquently stated the other day, "go for it"
Clip:
There are two separate suits by the attorneys general. The main one, led by Bill McCollum, a Florida Republican, has been joined by 12 other attorneys general, all but one Republicans. Many if not most are either running for higher office or seeking re-election. A separate suit by Virginia’s Republican attorney general is based on that state’s attempt (sure to be ineffective) to nullify the federal law by enacting a state law declaring that Virginians need not obey it.
A central contention of both suits is that Congress has no power under the Constitution to compel individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Congress has never before compelled people to buy anything from a private company, so there is no precisely apt Supreme Court precedent. Still, two provisions in the Constitution give Congress broad powers to regulate economic activity — the power to impose taxes for the general welfare and the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The new law has been framed to fall within both of those provisions. The penalties for not buying insurance have been structured as a tax, to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service. And the law’s text includes a series of Congressional findings: that health insurance and health care comprise a significant part of the economy, that most policies are sold and claims paid through interstate commerce, and that the mandate is essential to achieving the goals of creating effective health insurance markets and achieving near-universal coverage. Editorial - The Legal Assault on Health Reforms - NYTimes.com
Good Stuff. Its a shame the party the screams about fiscal responsibility is willing to waste so much tax dollars on a sure failure.
I can't make heads or tails of that statement. If people 'join' (buy private insurance through an exchange) then they are paying for it. The only people who get something for nothing are those who don't join, don't buy insurance, and use taxpayer funded emergancy rooms without paying - like they do now.
No wonder you can't make head nor tail of it. Both of your last two sentences are completely false.
You really need to read up. Then you won't be so confused.
Well I can say a Democrat AG has issued his opinion... He is not a judge that will rule on this case and his opinion is not worth any more or less than an AG that is filing suit.
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.