• Judge Vinson maintains Healthcare law Unconstitutional. Gives Obama 7 days to appeal.
    333 replies, posted
CNN Federal judge stays ruling tossing out health care reform law [release]A federal judge in Florida issued a stay Thursday of his recent ruling that the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Obama is unconstitutional. Judge Roger Vinson also ordered the administration to expedite an appeal into whether current parts of the law can remain temporarily in effect. Vinson ruled January 31 that the "individual mandate" -- a key provision requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance or face financial penalties -- was unconstitutional. He then tossed out the entire law. The Obama administration sought specific guidance, claiming confusion over its mandate to enforce parts of the law now currently being implemented. Some states said they would refuse to recognize the law in the wake of that decision. "While I believe that my order was as clear and unambiguous as it could be," wrote Vinson, "it is possible that the defendants (the government) may have perhaps been confused or misunderstood its import." The Justice Department now has one week to file a notice of appeal with the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said the state did not welcome the stay of Vinson's decision, but noted the order will ensure "that there will be no more stalling from the federal government." "While we are disappointed that the stay was granted, we are satisfied that (the Department of Justice) now has only seven days to file their appeal and seek expedited review or they will lose the stay," Bondi said in a statement issued by her office. Vinson, a 1983 Reagan appointee, criticized the administration for moving less than swiftly to appeal, and noted the urgency of getting the issue settled with finality, a task he said only one court can accomplish. "The sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the nation will be," he wrote in his 20-page order. "And yet, it has been more than one month from the entry of my order and still the defendants have not filed their notice of appeal." The original court ruling was a victory for Florida and 25 states that had challenged the law. Officials from some of those states have since stated they believe they do not have to obey the law any more. The administration, meanwhile, has continued to enforce parts of it. While the individual mandate would not go into effect for three more years at least, other parts of the health reform law are currently being administered, including small business tax credits, federal grants, and consumer protection measures. The federal government wanted to know whether these provisions can continue while the issue is under appeal, particularly in the 26 states that filed this lawsuit. Oklahoma and Virginia have filed separate legal challenges. The sweeping law has about 450 individual components. In a separate move, the U.S. House of Representatives last month voted to bar any federal agency from spending money on implementing the new health care law for the remainder of the current fiscal year. The vote was part of a larger spending cut measure promoted by the Republican majority. Vinson, while dismissing the health care reform law -- known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- did not issue a formal injunction to block either parts of or the entire law from going into effect. But the government never sought an immediate "stay" of his ruling, seeking instead the "clarification," a process that took more than a month to be resolved. Asking for a stay might have limited the federal government's enforcement options. Vinson in his ruling offered some support for various parts of the health care law. But he concluded that since the minimum coverage provision is invalid, no part of the 2,700-page law could be enforced. Two federal judges have ruled the health care act to be constitutional, while two others have concluded the opposite. That sets up what is likely to be a Supreme Court showdown, perhaps as early as next year. The case is State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (3:10-cv-91).[/release] source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/03/court.health.care/index.html?iref=allsearch[/url] Other Sites and Sources covering this: [B]FOX: [url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/03/florida-judge-orders-obama-administration-expedite-health-care-appeal/#ixzz1Fb5cBAeC]Florida Judge Orders Obama Administration to Expedite Health Care Appeal[/url] Reuters: [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110303/hl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_states_1]Florida judge refuses to halt new healthcare law[/url] The Heritage Foundation: [url=http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/03/judge-vinson-to-obama-speed-up-the-appeal-or-stop-implementing-obamacare/]Judge Vinson to Obama: Speed up the Appeal or Stop Implementing Obamacare[/url] ABC: [url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/judge-vinson-clarifies-florida-ruling-maintains-that-entire-health-care-law-is-unconstitutional.html]Judge Vinson Clarifies Florida Ruling, Maintains That Entire Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional[/url] CBS: [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/ap/national/main20038889.shtml]Judge: States must continue with health overhaul[/url][/B] [quote=Judge Vinson][B]if the federal government does not appeal with seven days, the states can consider the law invalid[/B][/quote] (CBS Source) This Deform is going down in Flames!
Judge Vinson is nuts.
Quality Glaber thread. Fuck we missed you.
I'm now mixed about it, there are both benefits and downfalls for it. For one, you are required to HAVE have health insurance and pay for it, yet you will get better coverage and equal coverage for paying a similar amount. Stan you're a fag, deal with it...
It's funny since the Healthcare bill was originally from Newt Gingrich and other Republicans.
Is there a place we can find out the stances of individual states are on this? I'd like to know where New Jersey stands with all that.
The healthcare bill was destroyed by the reps anyway.
oh glaber you goober
Of course Obama will appeal it.
The "Individual Mandate" was the worst part of the law, i don't see how forcing consumers to buy products is good for personal freedom or the economy and i really don't know why Democrats defend it. Enlighten me.
Because they are using one piece of it to try and remove the entire thing. Because they are CUNTS
[QUOTE=s0beit;28413719]The "Individual Mandate" was the worst part of the law, i don't see how forcing consumers to buy products is good for personal freedom or the economy and i really don't know why Democrats defend it. Enlighten me.[/QUOTE] Because insurance is pretty much a zero-sum game, the amount of liquidity in the system determines how effective the system can potentially become. This is why there should not have simply been this individual mandate, but a single-payer socialized system.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28413753]Because they are using one piece of it to try and remove the entire thing. Because they are CUNTS[/QUOTE] Well they should have had more foresight in this while writing it then. It's funny how you don't defend that part of the law at all, just get offensive about how the judge reacted to it. Also, Kagrenak, i don't agree with that but even still it might have been a better approach than forcing people to get insurance. Forcing people to buy products seems like something Democrats would be up in arms about.
[QUOTE=s0beit;28413812]Well they should have had more foresight in this while writing it then.[/QUOTE] No politician in like the past ~30 years refuse to touch Healthcare because of it's retarded complexity. I'm already giving the Democrats props for trying to tackle this issue.
this is sad for the poor people of usa
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28413830]I'm already giving the Democrats props for trying to tackle this issue.[/QUOTE] Hence the problem. Sure healthcare reform is good but not on it's own, the reform needs to be good as well. This seems like a pretty large negative. People need to take off the blinders for a second and imagine how harmful a law forcing people to buy products can actually be, say, in the hands of the [b][i]evil republicans[/i][/b]
And it begins with healthcare, what do you suppose is next? The government grows exponentially while we sit idly with some of us even defending and nurturing its growth.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28414122]And it begins with healthcare, what do you suppose is next? The government grows exponentially while we sit idly with some of us even defending and nurturing its growth.[/QUOTE] Yeaaah, right after corporations go belly-up and plunged America into a recession. We should totally instill more trust into the hands of the private corporations.
If worst comes to worst and some how Obama turns america into a socialist democracy I wouldnt much mind. I mean denmark and sweden seem like pretty cool places.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28414122]And it begins with healthcare, what do you suppose is next? The government grows exponentially while we sit idly with some of us even defending and nurturing its growth.[/QUOTE] Well hopefully we'll have better/heavier regulation on financial companies to prevent the kind of thing that happened in 2008, maybe we can make an actually efficient healthcare system, etc etc
[QUOTE=Strider*;28414122]And it begins with healthcare, what do you suppose is next? The government grows exponentially while we sit idly with some of us even defending and nurturing its growth.[/QUOTE] Shut up. You want a corporatist nightmare. One can say the same of your vision of our world, except, there are actual social democracies doing quite well.
You know what else came from Florida? Where's my Quran?
We need universal health care already.
lets just cut out the middleman and kill everyone
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;28413782]Because insurance is pretty much a zero-sum game, the amount of liquidity in the system determines how effective the system can potentially become. This is why there should not have simply been this individual mandate, but a single-payer socialized system.[/QUOTE] It doesn't work when you are forcing private citizens into basically paying a Tax directly to big business, in a area where a they have major monopolies due to being banned from selling over state lines, with no ability to stop them from price gauging even without this law to basically guaranteeing them thousands of new customers
The current healthcare bill is not what the country needs. But it does need one. If a social democracy is a terrible society, then I guess I'll weep for all those poor Canadians, and Scandinavians and British people all living a destitute poor, pathetic life in those countries with healthcare.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28414414]The current healthcare bill is not what the country needs. But it does need one. If a social democracy is a terrible society, then I guess I'll weep for all those poor Canadians, and Scandinavians and British people all living a destitute poor, pathetic life in those countries with healthcare.[/QUOTE] Britain has the population of 1/6th of the United States Canada has a smaller population than California The CITY I live in has a larger population than Denmark, Norway, and Finland, with Sweden barely matching the population of New York City Not only that but these nations with the exception of Canada, have massive taxes to pay for their systems due to having popular Monarchies to pacify the peasants from rebelling
[QUOTE=Broseph_;28414552]Britain has the population of 1/6th of the United States Canada has a smaller population than California The CITY I live in has a larger population than Denmark, Norway, and Finland, with Sweden barely matching the population of New York City Not only that but these nations with the exception of Canada, have massive taxes to pay for their systems due to having popular Monarchies to pacify the peasants from rebelling[/QUOTE] And when did size become an issue? If you want a progressive government that wants to get shit improved either way the taxes and spending are being hiked.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;28414552]Britain has the population of 1/6th of the United States Canada has a smaller population than California The CITY I live in has a larger population than Denmark, Norway, and Finland, with Sweden barely matching the population of New York City Not only that but these nations with the exception of Canada, have massive taxes to pay for their systems due to having popular Monarchies to pacify the peasants from rebelling[/QUOTE] Myth 1: Taxes are bad Myth 2: Population is the issue. How does a larger population make it worse? How does that break a national healthcare service and how does that justify having a worse system?
Meanwhile when does the absolute need to insure 36 million Americans (many of which I suspect didn't have it out of choice rather than unaffordability), suddenly give the government the right to walk in and force me to buy insurance or pay a fine that's about a thousand times less than any insurance premium for simply being a citizen?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.