• States Objecting to Health Care Law to Get Day in Appeals Court
    34 replies, posted
:foxnews: States Objecting to Health Care Law to Get Day in Appeals Court June 07, 2011 [release]For the third time in five weeks, the Obama administration's legal point man for defending the president’s health care overhaul will walk into a federal appellate courtroom Wednesday to defend the controversial measure as an appropriate and proper exercise of the government's power. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal has steadfastly argued the law, passed in March 2010, is a necessary and reasonable response to halt the increasing costs of medical care despite claims by 26 state governments and the largest small-business group in the nation that the law's requirements are unconstitutional. Katyal is expected to tell three judges of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta that the law is a valid exercise of congressional power to regulate commerce and tax. He'll try to convince the court that U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson's thorough repudiation of the law was incorrect. That January ruling striking down the entire law energized its detractors, who agree with Vinson's conclusion that the provision requiring all Americans to obtain health insurance, known as the individual mandate, is an impermissible attempt by lawmakers to regulate people's lives. "In enacting this provision, Congress made detailed findings establishing a foundation for the exercise of its commerce power," Katyal wrote in his brief to the court. He went on to write that Vinson's ruling "impermissibly substituted (his) own judgment for that of the elected branches in declaring that an insurance requirement cannot be imposed until people actually seek medical care." Wednesday's case originated in Florida and was brought by 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and two individuals. The plaintiffs argue the powers granted to the government under the Commerce Clause are limited to the regulation of interstate activity. Former Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement, representing the states, says the law pushes the government's constitutional powers too far by trying to regulate inactivity. "The act imposes a direct mandate upon individuals to obtain health insurance, marking by all accounts the first time in our nation's history that Congress has required individuals to enter into commerce as a condition of living in the United States," Clement wrote. "Congress could mandate the 'economic decision' to purchase all manner of healthy products, from broccoli to gym-memberships," lawyer Gregory Katsas warned the court in his brief for the NFIB. Katyal dismisses the charges and says the individual mandate is a "quintessential exercise" of commerce power. "As Congress found, the minimum coverage provision regulates economic activity -- how participants in the national health care market pay for their services -- that substantially affects interstate commerce," he wrote. The legal back-and-forth over the individual mandate has already taken place in appellate courtrooms in Richmond and Cincinnati with cases involving different challengers. No decision has been reached in either case but there are indications that the judges in each matter could issue a ruling without addressing the merits of the law. Judges from the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati heard arguments last week in a case brought by the Thomas More Law Center. But the suit could be tossed because one of the plaintiffs now has employer-provided health insurance and presumably can't demonstrate how she'd be directly harmed by the law. In early May, the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond heard a pair of cases from Virginia but a few days after the arguments, the judges asked the lawyers to address whether the cases could even be decided. In their post-argument briefs, lawyers from all sides said the judges shouldn't let a 19th century law -- prohibiting lawsuits aimed at stopping tax collections - -keep them from issuing a ruling on the merits of the health care law. Even if both of these courts get beyond the procedural concerns and pass judgment on the Obama law, the case before the 11th Circuit remains one of the most closely watched of the several dozen health care lawsuits filed across the country. It could also be the primary case that ultimately reaches the Supreme Court. The dispute over the law's tax language will also be an issue before the 11th Circuit. The law's opponents point to the word "penalty" that's written into the law as proof that the collection provision isn't a tax. Katyal contends that the exact language Congress used isn't fatal to the law. Another part of Vinson's ruling in favor of the government will also be under examination Wednesday. The states strongly object to the law's provisions for Medicaid, which they claim is a major change to federal-state partnership that's the hallmark of the longstanding entitlement program. Clement says states will be forced to picked up more of the tab. "The added burdens, costs and liabilities from this new requirement -- particularly in the face of federal projections of severe provider shortages -- are incalculable, but sure to be substantial, underscoring that the ACA transforms Medicaid well beyond anything the states volunteered to implement," he wrote. This case and the suit filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli are the only two in which federal judges have struck down the individual mandate. The biggest difference between the two is that Vinson said the mandate is so integral to the rest of the law that he invalidated the entire measure. The administration argues Vinson overstepped his authority with that ruling. Arguments are set to start at 9:30 a.m. inside the 11th Circuit's courthouse in downtown Atlanta before Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Judges Frank Hull and Stanley Marcus. Hull and Marcus were appointed by President Bill Clinton. Dubina was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.[/release] Source: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/07/states-objecting-to-health-care-law-to-get-day-in-appeals-court[/url] Like it or not, you can't justify regulating inaction.
And it's a Glaber thread.
I find it strange that the people who don't want this health care shit are the same people who grasp onto medicare.
[QUOTE=Nikota;30323358]I find it strange that the people who don't want this health care shit are the same people who grasp onto medicare.[/QUOTE] i think they think that if this passes they are forced off medicare or something :v:
"alright, could the plaintiff please state their case..." "obama-care death panels next they'll mandate broccoli" "thank you, please be seated"
Ummmm, anyone see how badly Bill O'Reily got owned for trying to say this? By Rep.Weiner no less.
Glaber we've moved onto other things [editline]7th June 2011[/editline] we don't care any more
Cool story Nothing will change
Posting in a Glaber Thread...
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30328360]Cool story Nothing will change[/QUOTE] so why pretend that obamacare can get implemented?
Obamacare is the most bullshit buzzword I've ever heard.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30323322] Like it or not, you can't justify regulating inaction.[/QUOTE] That's what we're going to find out!
[QUOTE=Glaber;30332645]so why pretend that obamnacare can get implemented?[/QUOTE] it can and it will
I'm all for universal healthcare but obamacare isn't the way to go.
Conservatives need to get their head out of the ground.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;30333978]it can and it will[/QUOTE] Watch it. while you already have it, the means for implementing it here leave open a door for the government to force us to buy food. If you can argue that you can regulate inaction of participation in the the health care system because of having to use it sooner or later, the same argument can be used to force people to by whatever food the government declares you must buy. To my limited understanding of your health care system though, no such argument was ever made and as such, no door like that ever opened. [QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;30332763]Obamacare is the most bullshit buzzword I've ever heard.[/QUOTE] And yet, you got to admit, it's easier to remember than ppaaca.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30332645]so why pretend that obamnacare can get implemented?[/QUOTE] Every time someone uses the word Obamacare, a puppy gets euthanized. Even if you had a good argument, the use of the word Obamacare just makes you look ignorant. If you really want us to take you seriously, Glaber, please stop using it. [editline]8th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;30335748]Watch it. while you already have it, the means for implementing it here leave open a door for the government to force us to buy food. If you can argue that you can regulate inaction of participation in the the health care system because of having to use it sooner or later, the same argument can be used to force people to by whatever food the government declares you must buy. To my limited understanding of your health care system though, no such argument was ever made and as such, no door like that ever opened. And yet, you got to admit, it's easier to remember than ppaaca.[/QUOTE] How about Healthcare Law? Or Healthcare Reform?
And Glaber once again starts another high-quality shitstorm. :munch: About the only thing he can do around here...
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;30336419]And Glaber once again starts another high-quality shitstorm. :munch: About the only thing he can do around here...[/QUOTE] you need to get off your high horse, the man has an opinion
[QUOTE=Mon;30336568]you need to get off your high horse, the man has an opinion[/QUOTE] You're new here, I see. You missed some of the great threads explaining why nobody respects Glaber.
[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;30332763]Obamacare is the most bullshit buzzword I've ever heard.[/QUOTE] Yeah in Canada we still call it Tommycare!!
[QUOTE=Dalndox;30335774]Every time someone uses the word Obamacare, a puppy gets euthanized. Even if you had a good argument, the use of the word Obamacare just makes you look ignorant. If you really want us to take you seriously, Glaber, please stop using it. [editline]8th June 2011[/editline] How about Healthcare Law? Or Healthcare Reform?[/QUOTE] Even with those neutral terms, this thing has more easy to remember negative terms then it does easy to remember positive ones. and as such, when someone says Healthcare Law or Healthcare Reform, they think of the "stupid buzz word" Obamacare. And like it or not, that word has spread like wildfire, carrying with it a negative connotation, unlike the more positive, and more wordy, Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act. Also, even if I did stop using the word, that's not going to stop others from using it. Heck, the main reason I can think of for why the word even exists is because (of the wrongful assumption) Obama proposed the law in the first place and it got into circulation first. Edit: correction in these things that I can't spell the name of-> ()
obama didn't propose the law either the reason why everyone rides you for using words like obamacare is because it demonstrates how much you actually know about the subject you appear to be so passionate about
Hmm? You know the whole attacking me because of the word doesn't really deter me. All it tells me is you don't want to debate it. After all, even those on Capitol Hill, in the media, and on talk radio use the term. you want the term to stop being used, stop all of those groups from using it first.
[QUOTE=thisispain;30341045]obama didn't propose the law either the reason why everyone rides you for using words like obamacare is because it demonstrates how much you actually know about the subject you appear to be so passionate about[/QUOTE] I remember it being something Ted Kennedy was riding on.
I can understand the frustration behind the idea that Americans are legally obligated to get health insurance, but not having insurance is such a terrible idea anyway that I can't find myself being so deterred by a law enforcing it that I overlook the obvious benefits of the bill: namely setting in place the proper foundations for making health care affordable and available to everybody. I've got a preexisting medical condition that requires surgical correction, lest it lead to much more serious health problems down the road, but even under the current laws I can't get health care. Insurance companies aren't allowed to turn me away completely, but they can still raise their rates so high that it becomes impossible to afford them. I'm looking at over seven hundred dollars a month just to get coverage with my condition, which is impossibly expensive. That's not right. I don't have health insurance because I can't afford health insurance. There need to be laws in place to protect people from this sort of thing, and to ensure that anybody who needs medical help can actually get it.
I'm gonna start calling it McConnellcare anyway because he and his fellow republicans fucked it to hell.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;30341988]I can understand the frustration behind the idea that Americans are legally obligated to get health insurance, but not having insurance is such a terrible idea anyway that I can't find myself being so deterred by a law enforcing it that I overlook the obvious benefits of the bill: namely setting in place the proper foundations for making health care affordable and available to everybody. I've got a preexisting medical condition that requires surgical correction, lest it lead to much more serious health problems down the road, but even under the current laws I can't get health care. Insurance companies aren't allowed to turn me away completely, but they can still raise their rates so high that it becomes impossible to afford them. I'm looking at over seven hundred dollars a month just to get coverage with my condition, which is impossibly expensive. That's not right. I don't have health insurance because I can't afford health insurance. There need to be laws in place to protect people from this sort of thing, and to ensure that anybody who needs medical help can actually get it.[/QUOTE] Although I'd much prefer universal health care with a single-payer system. Maybe now that they're implementing it in Vermont it'll spread to some other Liberal states.
I'm not at all for universal health care. What I am for is welfare for those who would not be eligible for regular healthcare due to risk or cost. Nobody is going to cover a person with cancer. Another thing is that any program needs to be sustainable. I agree with the premise of medicare (besides the mandate) because old people are high risk and aren't likely to be insured, but I think the program needs a lot of reform and needs to be taken down more to a local level. I'm actually very happy that Obamacare got passed because it allowed me to stay on my Dad's insurance. I found out it was $40 a pill for without insurance when my Dad's insurance expired, and I take five pills a day. Thankfully I found a non profit service that hooked me up with a lot of pills for free.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;30341988]I can understand the frustration behind the idea that Americans are legally obligated to get health insurance, but not having insurance is such a terrible idea anyway that I can't find myself being so deterred by a law enforcing it that I overlook the obvious benefits of the bill: namely setting in place the proper foundations for making health care affordable and available to everybody. I've got a preexisting medical condition that requires surgical correction, lest it lead to much more serious health problems down the road, but even under the current laws I can't get health care. Insurance companies aren't allowed to turn me away completely, but they can still raise their rates so high that it becomes impossible to afford them. I'm looking at over seven hundred dollars a month just to get coverage with my condition, which is impossibly expensive. That's not right. I don't have health insurance because I can't afford health insurance. There need to be laws in place to protect people from this sort of thing, and to ensure that anybody who needs medical help can actually get it.[/QUOTE] You have essentially got 55 million people (taken from Wikipedia) and a considerable number of politicians, thinking you don't deserve the same quality of life as they've got, simply because you can't afford it. How does that make you feel? I'd be on my damn knees begging someone to end it all if I had to live in a country where such a huge part of the population felt no social responsibility.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.