Jump to content
Texsox

OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

Recommended Posts

I was hearing today that amid the giddyness of Republicans being able to overhaul the health care bill comes the sobering reality that plans are already underway to comply. The expense of complying, then changing to something new, could be a nasty little surprise to some folks.

 

Also

 

What does it say about an industry that is against a law that would dump millions of new paying customers in their laps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 19, 2010 -> 09:29 AM)
I was hearing today that amid the giddyness of Republicans being able to overhaul the health care bill comes the sobering reality that plans are already underway to comply. The expense of complying, then changing to something new, could be a nasty little surprise to some folks.

 

Also

 

What does it say about an industry that is against a law that would dump millions of new paying customers in their laps?

 

To be fair, most of the customers would only be "paying" in the sense that taxpayers would be paying for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal Judge In Va. Rules Part Of Health Care Law Unconstitutional

 

A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that the individual mandate contained in the health care law passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama this year is unconstitutional.

 

Judge Henry E. Hudson found in favor of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who brought this suit separately from the other state attorney generals suing the federal government over the law.

 

Cuccinelli argued that the Affordable Care Act conflicts with the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, which was passed by the state in anticipation of the passage of the federal law.

 

As TPM reported, because Democrats left out a "severability clause" when writing the Affordable Care Act, plaintiffs had requested the entire law be scrapped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 01:04 PM)
Ah, so its the individual mandate. That makes sense, and its one of the reasons this bill was poorly structured.

So far, the individual mandate has gone before 3 judges. 2 of them appointed by Democrats, 1 appointed by W. Care to guess which one was the one to rule against it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 12:09 PM)
So far, the individual mandate has gone before 3 judges. 2 of them appointed by Democrats, 1 appointed by W. Care to guess which one was the one to rule against it?

I really don't care, honestly. This by the way is why Judge's should not be an elected office, nor should they be elected as part of a political party (if they have to be elected at all).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 01:20 PM)
I really don't care, honestly. This by the way is why Judge's should not be an elected office, nor should they be elected as part of a political party (if they have to be elected at all).

Note...I said appointed. In this case, that's just how political the appointment process is. The anti-ACA forces had about 20 different states in which they could choose to file the case, and they filed it in the place with the most sympathetic judge they could find, where the state constitution gave them the best chance at success, which is why this challenge was found successful at this level while the challenges in other states were not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 12:28 PM)
Note...I said appointed. In this case, that's just how political the appointment process is. The anti-ACA forces had about 20 different states in which they could choose to file the case, and they filed it in the place with the most sympathetic judge they could find, where the state constitution gave them the best chance at success, which is why this challenge was found successful at this level while the challenges in other states were not.

 

Wasn't the case brought by the AG of Virginia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 01:30 PM)
Wasn't the case brought by the AG of Virginia?

This particular one, yes, and because he was bringing the case, he got to choose which federal judge in his state he wanted to have hear it.

 

It's still a setback, but it's worth noting that out of 20-some cases previously brought against the individual mandate at this level, 14 have already been dismissed, 2 have been heard and ruled against with reasoning that directly contradicts the reasoning of this judge. From what I'm reading, the largest, multi-state challenge is still the one in Florida.

 

This one will of course be appealed upwards to the 4th court of Appeals, and since the individual mandate doesn't take affect until 2014 there was no reason to issue a stay at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 12:34 PM)
This particular one, yes, and because he was bringing the case, he got to choose which federal judge in his state he wanted to have hear it.

 

It's still a setback, but it's worth noting that out of 20-some cases previously brought against the individual mandate at this level, 14 have already been dismissed, 2 have been heard and ruled against with reasoning that directly contradicts the reasoning of this judge. From what I'm reading, the largest, multi-state challenge is still the one in Florida.

 

This one will of course be appealed upwards to the 4th court of Appeals, and since the individual mandate doesn't take affect until 2014 there was no reason to issue a stay at this point.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, you don't get to pick which Judge you want. You get to pick one Judge you don't want.

 

And I'm guessing there were a whole lotta cases that ruled that blacks weren't citizens, abortions weren't legal, gays don't have special rights, etc. Numbers don't mean anything in the law. You should know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 01:45 PM)
Unless I'm mistaken, you don't get to pick which Judge you want. You get to pick one Judge you don't want.

 

And I'm guessing there were a whole lotta cases that ruled that blacks weren't citizens, abortions weren't legal, gays don't have special rights, etc. Numbers don't mean anything in the law. You should know that.

And which ones do we remember? The ones that reach the big Court. Do you remember how any of the lower-court decisions that preceded Roe v. Wade were decided?

 

Btw, it's probably worth pointing out who the biggest loser would be if this ruling stood...the health insurance industry. They'd be back in the insurance death spiral arena, where they might as well all just go out of business, because this ruling doesn't hit the parts of the law that ban recissions, ban rejections for pre-existing conditions, etc, just the part that protects/saves the insurance industry. In fact, the plaintiffs in this case had asked for the entire bill to be struck down, and the only thing the judge hit was the individual mandate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 12:51 PM)
And which ones do we remember? The ones that reach the big Court. Do you remember how any of the lower-court decisions that preceded Roe v. Wade were decided?

 

Btw, it's probably worth pointing out who the biggest loser would be if this ruling stood...the health insurance industry. They'd be back in the insurance death spiral arena, where they might as well all just go out of business, because this ruling doesn't hit the parts of the law that ban recissions, ban rejections for pre-existing conditions, etc, just the part that protects/saves the insurance industry. In fact, the plaintiffs in this case had asked for the entire bill to be struck down, and the only thing the judge hit was the individual mandate.

 

I'm just saying, you appear to be implying that because other Courts have ruled one way, and this Court ruled the other, that it's wrong.

 

And they asked for the whole thing to be struck down because of a lack of a severability clause. Inartful drafting. The Judge wisely didn't make a big deal of it. But it's yet another reason why drafting a 2400 page bill in a day is f***ing retarded and why Congress sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally conservative/libertarian judicial commenter/scholar Eugene Volokh thinks that the judge's reasoning has a significant flaw.

 

Edit: The judge also owns a share of a Republican consulting firm that worked to oppose the Health Care bill, among other things. In the last reporting years (2006-2007) he took home something on the order of $10,000 a year from that consulting firm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 04:24 PM)
Generally conservative/libertarian judicial commenter/scholar Eugene Volokh thinks that the judge's reasoning has a significant flaw.

 

Edit: The judge also owns a share of a Republican consulting firm that worked to oppose the Health Care bill, among other things. In the last reporting years (2006-2007) he took home something on the order of $10,000 a year from that consulting firm.

 

LOL, that seems like a pretty good reason to recuse yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 05:41 PM)
LOL, that seems like a pretty good reason to recuse yourself.

It's a bit murky here because he's not actively part of the group bringing the lawsuit (i.e. it's not that consulting group that brought the suit), but a reasonable system might consider that a reason for recusal, since the group that did bring the suit had employed him in the past.

 

That said, he didn't vote to overturn it because of the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, there's always something evil (EEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLL) whenever someone who has any attachment what-so-ever to anything that might be against what you think is right.

 

/I gets no respect!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 10:18 PM)
I know, there's always something evil (EEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLL) whenever someone who has any attachment what-so-ever to anything that might be against what you think is right.

 

/I gets no respect!

Leave it to Kap to tell us how conflicts of interest are a good thing. The more judges on the take, the more they'll make the right decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 04:46 PM)
It's a bit murky here because he's not actively part of the group bringing the lawsuit (i.e. it's not that consulting group that brought the suit), but a reasonable system might consider that a reason for recusal, since the group that did bring the suit had employed him in the past.

 

That said, he didn't vote to overturn it because of the money.

 

The ATTORNEY GENERAL in Virginia brought the case, not some private conservative group hell bent on destroying the world. Why do you keep making this up?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 09:37 AM)
The ATTORNEY GENERAL in Virginia brought the case, not some private conservative group hell bent on destroying the world. Why do you keep making this up?

Ok, now you're the one putting words in my mouth. Do you think that the AG is the only lawyer who worked on the case, or do you think that the Virginia AG may employ other lawyers who helped argue the case? If the latter is the case, the word "Group" is entirely accurate, as is the fact that the AG had contracted with the PR Firm in the past.

 

Let's put it this way...the rest of you'd have a problem with it, although not a huge one, if the roles were reversed here, and it was a Democratic consultant ruling positively on this case after having contracted for PR duties with the Obama administration and made money advising him on Health Care policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 08:41 AM)
Ok, now you're the one putting words in my mouth. Do you think that the AG is the only lawyer who worked on the case, or do you think that the Virginia AG may employ other lawyers who helped argue the case? If the latter is the case, the word "Group" is entirely accurate, as is the fact that the AG had contracted with the PR Firm in the past.

 

Yeah, other assistant attorney generals in his office helped him, since that's their job. He didn't hire some group of lawyer consultants from some outside firm. This is just nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 08:41 AM)
Ok, now you're the one putting words in my mouth. Do you think that the AG is the only lawyer who worked on the case, or do you think that the Virginia AG may employ other lawyers who helped argue the case? If the latter is the case, the word "Group" is entirely accurate, as is the fact that the AG had contracted with the PR Firm in the past.

 

Let's put it this way...the rest of you'd have a problem with it, although not a huge one, if the roles were reversed here, and it was a Democratic consultant ruling positively on this case after having contracted for PR duties with the Obama administration and made money advising him on Health Care policy.

 

LOL. Judge = GOP consultant. I get it.

 

Love that you give Kap crap, but you consistently find a conspiracy lurking behind the shadows with every group that doesn't agree with your opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 09:45 AM)
Yeah, other assistant attorney generals in his office helped him, since that's their job. He didn't hire some group of lawyer consultants from some outside firm. This is just nonsense.

No, but he did in the past employ the same PR firm that is paying the judge a salary, and he has been advised on health care policy by that PR firm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 09:47 AM)
LOL. Judge = GOP consultant. I get it.

WTF else would you call a person who gets a $15,000-ish a year consulting fee from a PR Firm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 08:47 AM)
No, but he did in the past employ the same PR firm that is paying the judge a salary, and he has been advised on health care policy by that PR firm.

 

Link? and how does a PR firm help an AG make a constitutional argument? So he might have gotten some statistical information they've gathered. So what?

 

And 10k is not a "salary." He could have made that making 2-3 speeches a year. Gimme a break. These guys have government salaries well into the 6 figures.

 

Edit: This is all nonsense. According to the link provided by strangesox, he's an INVESTOR in the firm, not a consultant. And his decision didn't completely kill the bill. It killed one aspect of it. How does this make any sense that he's benefiting from the decision? If anything he just closed a door on what the firm is trying to accomplish.

Edited by Jenksismybitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 09:50 AM)
Link?

I already gave you the link above before y'all started telling me why it's ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×