Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional, really

[Disclaimer]

Rut row, you make a ruling that gets you in the news and all your skeletons get pushed to the front of the closet.

I.O.K.T.B.A.A.J.I.Y.A.R.

Anti-HCR Judge Should Have Recused Himself

[Uncle Punk]

Rut row, you make a ruling that gets you in the news and all your skeletons get pushed to the front of the closet.

I.O.K.T.B.A.A.J.I.Y.A.R.

Anti-HCR Judge Should Have Recused Himself

All of this was well known before he got this case, old news. This information was available in the post I made before the decision.

This is all just road noise on the way to the Supreme Court where if the court remains seated as it is currently our constitution will save us from the government over reaching into our lives.

[redkow97]

Obama is such a fuckin' douche.

I disagree with 90% of President Obama's policies, but I bet he'd be cool enough to hang out with. Given the chance, I bet he'd laugh at some intern jokes and knock back a few beers.

Regular guy with an irregular job.

If I don't like the way you lay carpet, or fix motorcycles, or program computers, that doesn't mean I think you're a douche.

[Carwhore]

when can i haz free health care already?

[Cheech]

when can i haz free health care already?

Get elected to Congress.

[John]

This is all just road noise on the way to the Supreme Court where if the court remains seated as it is currently our constitution will save us from the government over reaching into our lives.

yeah just like they saved us from letting corporations spend unlimited amounts of money to drown out the will of the people...

er... wait a second...

[Uncle Punk]

yeah just like they saved us from letting corporations spend unlimited amounts of money to drown out the will of the people...

er... wait a second...

It's been a good run lately with the Supreme Court getting things right, I can't wait until they get to fix this health care mess. I sure hope none of the justices die while Obama is in office or we will see all kinds of stupid fucked up court decisions.

[Cheech]

It's been a good run lately with the Supreme Court getting things right, I can't wait until they get to fix this health care mess. I sure hope none of the justices die while Obama is in office or we will see all kinds of stupid fucked up court decisions.

Like Kelo, Citizens United, and Bush v Gore.

Yep, good run. Heller was one of the only bright points.

[Tpoppa]

Forcing citizens to purchase a commercial product is not OK. If anything, that would eventually drive UP the cost of healt care. Insurance providers would no longer need offer low price options to attract people without insurance to purchace it.

[Cheech]

Forcing citizens to purchase a commercial product is not OK. If anything, that would eventually drive UP the cost of healt care. Insurance providers would no longer need offer low price options to attract people without insurance to purchace it.

Incorrect. See auto insurance companies.

There's enough individual competition in the arena to keep prices sort-of down. Where the rub comes in is the health insurance companies have anti-trust exemptions. The only thing the government mandate is doing is administering the "wink & nod" to the private companies that not only will there not be a public option, but we'll send the uninsured straight to you so you can increase your revenue stream.

[Casper]

Incorrect. See auto insurance companies.

There's enough individual competition in the arena to keep prices sort-of down. Where the rub comes in is the health insurance companies have anti-trust exemptions. The only thing the government mandate is doing is administering the "wink & nod" to the private companies that not only will there not be a public option, but we'll send the uninsured straight to you so you can increase your revenue stream.

Incorrect. You are NOT forced to buy auto insurance. Two arguments against ya here. First of all, driving is not a right but a privilege. You can choose not to drive, therefore not need insurance. Second, you don't HAVE to buy insurance. You can buy a bond instead. Most wealthy people go this route. Essentially, when you buy an insurance policy all you're doing is paying monthly for a bond which they hold. If you have the cash up front, you can buy a bond outright and use this as your car insurance. For instance, SR22 is not insurance. It's a bond.

[kawi kid]

Incorrect. You are NOT forced to buy auto insurance. Two arguments against ya here. First of all, driving is not a right but a privilege. You can choose not to drive, therefore not need insurance. Second, you don't HAVE to buy insurance. You can buy a bond instead. Most wealthy people go this route. Essentially, when you buy an insurance policy all you're doing is paying monthly for a bond which they hold. If you have the cash up front, you can buy a bond outright and use this as your car insurance. For instance, SR22 is not insurance. It's a bond.

Bingo bango!!

[Uncle Punk]

Like Kelo, Citizens United, and Bush v Gore.

Yep, good run. Heller was one of the only bright points.

Don't forget to add McDonald to the recent stream of victories. I would feel better if we could get a few more good judges seated so instead of winning by 5-4 votes they would be unanimous. I guess we'll have to wait until the current president leaves office for that to happen though.

[cg2112]

Incorrect. You are NOT forced to buy auto insurance. Two arguments against ya here. First of all, driving is not a right but a privilege. You can choose not to drive, therefore not need insurance. Second, you don't HAVE to buy insurance. You can buy a bond instead. Most wealthy people go this route. Essentially, when you buy an insurance policy all you're doing is paying monthly for a bond which they hold. If you have the cash up front, you can buy a bond outright and use this as your car insurance. For instance, SR22 is not insurance. It's a bond.

If you want to drive, in Ohio, you are forced to buy auto insurance, or pay a bond. Since the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in Ohio are not wealthy, and considering paying a bond requires to to have the state hold on to thirty grand for you, I have doubts that most wealthy people go that route.

The comparison is completely valid, in the context it's made. The fact that auto insurance is required of most people has not caused the price of insurance to go up. Insurance companies need to compete for your business. There's no reason to think that this wouldn't be the case if people start to purchase individual health care plans.

[cg2112]

Federal law does not require an individual to carry auto insurance. Let's not confuse State vs. Federal' date=' guys. It is unprecedented for the Federal Government to mandate the purchase of a private good, with the exception of Militia Powers.[/quote']

No one is confusing the two. The argument that it's okay to require health insurance because drivers are required to have auto insurance is not being made. The auto/health insurance analogy is being used merely to show that requiring the people to purchase a certain product does not mean that the cost of that product will increase.

Don't forget to add McDonald to the recent stream of victories. I would feel better if we could get a few more good judges seated so instead of winning by 5-4 votes they would be unanimous. I guess we'll have to wait until the current president leaves office for that to happen though.

That's not going to happen regardless of who nominates judges. Judges are bound to rule according to law. There may be disagreement about law, but that's really it. Republican Presidents have nominated judges who have ended up being part of the "liberal wing" of the Supreme Court, it happens frequently. Souter and Stevens, for instance, were nominated by George H W Bush and Ford respectively. Brennan, the judge Stevens replaced, possibly the most "liberal" Supreme Court justice to ever sit on the bench, was nominated by Eisenhower.

[Uncle Punk]

No one is confusing the two. The argument that it's okay to require health insurance because drivers are required to have auto insurance is not being made. The auto/health insurance analogy is being used merely to show that requiring the people to purchase a certain product does not mean that the cost of that product will increase.

That's not going to happen regardless of who nominates judges. Judges are bound to rule according to law. There may be disagreement about law, but that's really it. Republican Presidents have nominated judges who have ended up being part of the "liberal wing" of the Supreme Court, it happens frequently. Souter and Stevens, for instance, were nominated by George H W Bush and Ford respectively. Brennan, the judge Stevens replaced, possibly the most "liberal" Supreme Court justice to ever sit on the bench, was nominated by Eisenhower.

I'm well away of the traitorous bastards on the court but there is no chance the current president will seat a judge that will have the right opinions.

[cg2112]

I'm well away of the traitorous bastards on the court but there is no chance the current president will seat a judge that will have the right opinions.

A president can't seat a judge. It's not simply a formality, either. It's very rare that a truly partisan or idealistic judge is nominated to the court, since the President who nominates wants them confirmed. Bork comes immediately to mind. He was a firmly planted on the right, and wasn't confirmed because of it (he also didn't believe in natural law, which would not make him an ideal protector of the Constitution).

A judge isn't there to support his own beliefs or opinion, he is only there to support the law of the land. His own ideology is largely unimportant (except for in cases when it's clear that his support of his own ideology would hinder his ability to rule fairly).

[Uncle Punk]

A president is the only source for the nomination and the current president wouldn't be making any wise choices.

Bork was opposed so harshly because he would have been replacing a liberal judge with a conservative one and so the court would be shifting. While Kennedy wasn't the perfect replacement for Bork he has voted the way Bork would have 92% of the time so in matters not who the actual person is. Man, woman, white or black makes no difference in outcome it is liberal or conservative that makes the difference. A judge’s ideology is the only thing that is important in their decisions otherwise all court decisions would be unanimous.

[cg2112]

A president is the only source for the nomination and the current president wouldn't be making any wise choices.

Bork was opposed so harshly because he would have been replacing a liberal judge with a conservative one and so the court would be shifting. While Kennedy wasn't the perfect replacement for Bork he has voted the way Bork would have 92% of the time so in matters not who the actual person is. Man, woman, white or black makes no difference in outcome it is liberal or conservative that makes the difference. A judge’s ideology is the only thing that is important in their decisions otherwise all court decisions would be unanimous.

A judges ideology should never be important. Judges are not appointed to support their own ideology, they are appointed to rule according to law, regardless of whether or not the law reflects their own personal viewpoints. A judge who rules or finds according to their own partisanship has no business being in a court room, unless they are fighting a speeding ticket.

Powell was not a liberal judge, he a moderate.

Bork didn't believe in natural rights, which is one of the viewpoints that caused such opposition to his nomination. He also did not believe that people had a right to privacy that wasn't explicitly and solidly supported by legislation. For instance, Bork believes that if there is no law which explicitly protects the privacy of your video store rentals, then you have no such privacy. He additionally does not believe in medical privacy, evidenced by his statements supporting the overturn of Roe v Wade.

Obama's choices thus far have been sound. Sotomayor may very well lean to the left, but we don't really know how she will rule or find at this point. Kagan, on the other hand, is moderate to right, but again, we don't really know how she will judiciate at this point.

[jporter12]

You're missing something. It's not cut and dry, rule according to the law, it's all about the interperatation of the law. Amirite?

[Casper]

If you want to drive, in Ohio, you are forced to buy auto insurance, or pay a bond. Since the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in Ohio are not wealthy, and considering paying a bond requires to to have the state hold on to thirty grand for you, I have doubts that most wealthy people go that route.

The comparison is completely valid, in the context it's made. The fact that auto insurance is required of most people has not caused the price of insurance to go up. Insurance companies need to compete for your business. There's no reason to think that this wouldn't be the case if people start to purchase individual health care plans.

A) You don't have to drive. You have to life. Big difference. Government is NOT forcing you to buy auto insurance.

B) Average auto insurance premiums have increased 5-11% each year since 2000.

[siggywiggy]

when can i haz free health care already?

when the government takes all your money in the form of taxes and chooses the doctor that you will go see and take care of you.

yeehaw!!!

I love paying 16k in taxes and because im not married with 5 kids i cannot pay for, i get about 1,200 back.

yeehaw!!

I wonder why the economy is rough. Because 1200 a month could be going to meself and i could buy 2 more houses and rent them out. Therefore spiking house sales..hmm.

off my soapbox

[cg2112]

A) You don't have to drive. You have to life. Big difference. Government is NOT forcing you to buy auto insurance.

B) Average auto insurance premiums have increased 5-11% each year since 2000.

Your first statement is irrelevant. No one is arguing that requiring health insurance and requiring auto insurance is the same thing. The only comparison is to costs.

Your second statement is interesting. I'd be interested in seeing where those numbers come from. I know that my car insurance is far less expensive now than it was in 2000, whether adjusted or real dollars. I'm sure my driving record is partly responsible for that, but as I'm with my insurance company for longer, and go longer without an incident, my premiums go down. According to one source I've found, the cost of auto premiums are going down, not up.

http://www.carinsurance.com/Average-Premiums.aspx

Are those costs high because people are required to purchase insurance?

And consider that health insurance, which is not required, has had costs skyrocket in that amount of time. We're not talking 5-10%, we're talking 150-300%.

[Disclaimer]

Well, here's some exciting news for the anti-Obama anti-healthcare reform persons on here:

House Votes to Repeal Affordable Care Act 245-189

Now you just gotta make it through the senate and past Obama.

[Casper]

Well, here's some exciting news for the anti-Obama anti-healthcare reform persons on here:

House Votes to Repeal Affordable Care Act 245-189

Now you just gotta make it through the senate and past Obama.

Actually, probably not. 27 states are suing the federal government challenging the constitutionality of the health care law. The number keeps rising.

Oh, and Ohio is one of them.

Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska, Ohio, Wisconsin, Maine, Iowa, Wyoming, Kansas and Virginia.