• Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare mandate
    82 replies, posted
Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare mandate Ruters [release]President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law suffered a setback on Friday when an appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty. The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled 2 to 1 that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but it unanimously reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire law. The legality of the individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents have argued that without the mandate, which goes into effect in 2014, the entire law falls. The law, adopted by Congress in 2010 after a bruising battle, is expected to be a major political issue in the 2012 elections as Obama seeks another term. All the major Republican presidential candidates have opposed it. Obama has championed the individual mandate as a major accomplishment of his presidency and as a way to try to slow the soaring costs of healthcare while expanding coverage to the more than 30 million Americans without it. The White House voiced confidence the law would be upheld. "We strongly disagree with this decision and we are confident it will not stand," Obama aide Stephanie Cutter said in a statement. Because it conflicts with another appeals court ruling that upheld the law, the Supreme Court is expected to take it up during its term that begins in October with a ruling possible just months before the November 2012 presidential election. Legal experts said it was impossible to predict how the high court will rule but agreed that it may be a close vote by nine ideologically divided justices, with moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy as the possible swing vote. SPLIT DECISION Twenty-six states together had challenged the mandate, arguing that Congress had exceeded its authority by imposing such a requirement. But the Obama administration had argued it was legal under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge in Florida sided with the states and struck down the entire law, leading the administration to appeal. A divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit found that it did not pass muster under that clause or under the power of Congress to tax. The administration has said the penalty for not buying healthcare coverage is akin to a tax. "This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them repurchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," the majority said in its 207-page opinion. That opinion was jointly written by Judges Joel Dubina, who was appointed to the appeals court by Republican President George H.W. Bush, and by Frank Hull, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. REPUBLICANS AGAINST IT Republicans have sought to undercut or repeal the healthcare law at every level of government -- in federal court, in the state legislatures and in the U.S. Congress. The decision contrasts with one by the U.S. Appeals Court for the 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, which had upheld the individual mandate as constitutional. That case has already been appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, has yet to rule on a separate challenge by the state of Virginia. A federal judge in that state had ruled the mandate unconstitutional as well. Either side could ask the full 11th Circuit court to reconsider the decision or go straight to the Supreme Court. The Justice Department said it was weighing its options. "Today we have prevailed in preventing Congress from infringing on the individual liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution," Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said. The 11th Circuit did not agree that the entire Obama healthcare law should be tossed out. Many provisions are already being implemented, including allowing children to stay on their parents' health insurance plan until age 26 and banning lifetime coverage limits. Further, the Obama administration on Friday issued new incentives for states and people to participate in health insurance exchanges, including tax credits and funding grants for the states. The Obama administration did win some support from the appeals court for the individual mandate. One of the three judges, Stanley Marcus, dissented from the majority opinion in his own 84-page opinion. The majority "has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy," wrote Marcus, also a Clinton appointee to the appeals court. He also cited a past opinion about Congress' broad power by the possible Supreme Court swing vote, Justice Kennedy. Cutter from the White House said that without the individual mandate, healthcare premiums could go up as much as 20 percent. America's Health Insurance Plans, the trade group for the industry, said repealing the individual mandate would cause "significant disruption and skyrocketing costs." (Additional reporting by Jane Sutton in Miami and Lisa Lambert and Anna Yukhananov in Washington; Editing by Eric Beech and Howard Goller) (For a link to the court decision: [url]http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/ca11/201111021.pdf[/url])[/release] Source: [url]http://ca.news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-healthcare-law-171829777.html[/url] Releated Articles: FOX Businuess: [url=http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/08/12/health-reform-hangs-on-two-tiny-words/]Health Reform Hangs on Two Tiny Words[/url] FOX News: [url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/12/us-appeals-court-rules-against-obamas-health-care-law/]U.S. Appeals Court Rules Against Obama's Health Care Law[/url] CNN: [url=http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/12/health.care.ruling/index.html?hpt=hp_bn6]Appeals court says key parts of health-care reform unconstitutional[/url] Politico: [url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61218.html]11th Circuit says mandate unconstitutional[/url] sound like this is going to drag into the election.
/enter thread Poster: Glaber 2 out of 4 relevant links is FOX /leave thread
Fucking let it fucking... Republicans!
[QUOTE=Glaber;31699565]sound like this is going to drag into the election.[/QUOTE] [quote]Because it conflicts with another appeals court ruling that upheld the law, the Supreme Court is expected to take it up during its term that begins in October with a ruling possible [b]just months before the November 2012 presidential election[/b].[/quote] OH WILL IT NOW GLABER
i wonder why my hands smell funny
Good. (Preparing for box barrage)
Doesn't make a difference because it's shit anyway.
I actually don't have a problem with this. Sure, we need to reform our healthcare system, badly. It's a terribly flawed system where hospitals lose money helping poor people in emergencies and insurance companies gain money from wealthy people who may never experience an accident in their lives. However, they're going about it all wrong. If the answer was as simple as "Make everyone buy insurance.", then it wouldn't be such an issue. But it's not that simple. Not everyone can afford that, and not everyone wants to put their health in the hands of a corporation that'll use any excuse or loophole it can find to get out of paying when the time comes. Honestly with that in mind, I think I agree with this ruling. It's unfair to force people to give money to a company that may or may not help them.
[QUOTE=mac338;31699601]Fucking let it fucking... Republicans![/QUOTE] [URL="http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=5164487"]OBJECTION![/URL] It was a Democrat that ruled against it this time. [Quote=Rush Limbaugh]By the way, folks, this is the first time that a Democrat judge has decided against Obamacare. This is from The Politico: "The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate. Judge Stanley Marcus, in a dissenting opinion, said the mandate is constitutional. He was also appointed by Clinton." So it's the first time, the first time a liberal Democrat judge has told Obama to pack it in. Well, I don't know what it means, but it is noteworthy that it's a first. [/quote] [url]http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081211/content/01125104.guest.html[/url] [quote=Politico]The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate.[/quote] [url]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61218.html#ixzz1UrexqJMx[/url]
[QUOTE=Glaber;31699852][URL="http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=5164487"]OBJECTION![/URL] It was a Democrat that ruled against it this time. [/QUOTE] Fucking let it fucking... Democrats!
I'm cool with getting rid of the mandate. And the court is going to let the rest of the law stand, which is even better. I'll be one of those people who will wait to buy insurance when I need it then drop it when I don't.
"Obamacare" as you care to put it Glaber is the result of a perfectly valid plan being gutted by your beloved republicans.
I don't know who's trolling who anymore.
Obama fucked a lot with the original healthcare bill to please the republicans because else it wouldn't pass, of course it's gonna have unconstitutional shit on it. Do another one, keep the reps out of it and it'll be perfect.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;31700087]Obama fucked a lot with the original healthcare bill to please the republicans because else it wouldn't pass, of course it's gonna have unconstitutional shit on it.[/QUOTE] Sad thing is, if I remember correctly, it [I]would[/I] have passed. He changed it in an attempt to please the Republicans, at the time he had hopes that he would be able to level with them and work together. Then came voting and every single Republican voted against it anyway. Of course, now that the Republicans have the majority, the Dems can't force anything through even if they wanted to.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;31700087]Obama fucked a lot with the original healthcare bill to please the republicans because else it wouldn't pass, of course it's gonna have unconstitutional shit on it. Do another one, keep the reps out of it and it'll be perfect.[/QUOTE] It should be up to the states, not the federal government. The 10th Amendment says that any power not specifically given to the federal government must be given to the states.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;31700364]It should be up to the states, not the federal government. The 10th Amendment says that any power not specifically given to the federal government must be given to the states.[/QUOTE] Article 1, Section 8 of the Constituation: [quote]The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and [I]provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; [/I]but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;[/quote] A general statement of provision of general welfare would seem to include medical care under the federal government's power.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;31700142]Sad thing is, if I remember correctly, it [I]would[/I] have passed. He changed it in an attempt to please the Republicans, at the time he had hopes that he would be able to level with them and work together. Then came voting and every single Republican voted against it anyway. Of course, now that the Republicans have the majority, the Dems can't force anything through even if they wanted to.[/QUOTE] Welcome to American politics.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;31700505]Article 1, Section 8 of the Constituation: A general statement of provision of general welfare would seem to include medical care under the federal government's power.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=5164609"]OBJECTION![/URL] [quote]The Administration and Democrats in Congress had said the mandate was a "penalty" and not a tax when they passed the law last year. The Administration and Congress had specifically chosen not to call the fine a tax in the law at that time. Nor did the Congress say it was exercising its constitutional power to tax in enacting the individual mandate. Calling the mandate a tax would have been a violation of President Barack Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class, meaning, any individual making under $200,000 per year, notes FOX News analyst James Farrell. With the mandate, the White House and Democrats, even though they heatedly denied it, were creating a new tax. When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked the President in an interview if the mandate penalty fit the dictionary definition of a tax, the President replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.” [/quote] [url]http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/08/12/health-reform-hangs-on-two-tiny-words/#ixzz1UrqsBCvq[/url] Also looking at what was italicized, I can say that this mandate does not provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States as part of our wellfare is having the funds needed to get food and fuel. The mandate forces citizens, Rich and poor to buy a product they may not want, and Last I checked, we were a Democratic Republic, not a Dictatorship.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;31700687]This is what happens when you try appeasement. You can't please everyone all of the time, and Obama learned that the very hard way.[/QUOTE] I'd say that he didn't even learn it after the fuckup with the debt ceiling.
[QUOTE=Glaber;31700827][URL="http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=5164609"]OBJECTION![/URL] [url]http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/08/12/health-reform-hangs-on-two-tiny-words/#ixzz1UrqsBCvq[/url] Also looking at what was italicized, I can say that this mandate does not provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States as part of our wellfare is having the funds needed to get food and fuel. The mandate forces citizens, Rich and poor to buy a product they may not want, and Last I checked, we were a Democratic Republic, not a Dictatorship.[/QUOTE] You're kind of missing the fact that the mandate was the fault of the republicans. [editline]12th August 2011[/editline] Also what is it like being a human cartoon character?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;31699598]/enter thread Poster: Glaber 2 out of 4 relevant links is FOX /leave thread[/QUOTE] Yep, sounds like a Glaber thread, all air and no substance... :v: On topic, Republicants can't let this go. [I][B]SOCIALISM [/B][/I]on our soil? NOT ON OUR WATCH.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;31701127] [I][B]SOCIALISM [/B][/I]on our soil? NOT ON OUR WATCH.[/QUOTE] After what happened to the healthcare plan, it's less socialism and more interventionist capitalism. [editline]13th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Eudoxia;31700017]I don't know who's trolling who anymore.[/QUOTE] American politics works on a system of mutually assured trolling.
Most of the bill is going to be repealed or scrapped because the plan isn't viable without a mandate.
Honestly, it makes sense. Why should you buy insurance if you don't want it? This is kind of the Republican side sticking out but I'm usually a democrat. :\
[QUOTE=RoflKawpter;31702460]Honestly, it makes sense. Why should you buy insurance if you don't want it? This is kind of the Republican side sticking out but I'm usually a democrat. :\[/QUOTE] Don't worry, the mandate was John McCain's idea back in the 90s.
No wonder it stunk worse than a skunk.
[QUOTE=Glaber;31700827] Rich and poor to buy a product they may not want, and Last I checked, we were a Democratic Republic, not a Dictatorship.[/QUOTE] Are you serious? How about roads, are you not forced to pay for roads?
[QUOTE=Glaber;31699852][URL="http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=5164487"]OBJECTION![/URL] It was a Democrat that ruled against it this time. [url]http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081211/content/01125104.guest.html[/url] [url]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61218.html#ixzz1UrexqJMx[/url][/QUOTE] liberal =/= democrat You can have liberal republicans and conservative democrats, they're more common than you think
The health care bill is shit anyway, if we're going to have universal healthcare, we should at least do it right.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.