IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )


194 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> OBAMACARE MEGATHREAD OBAMA OBAMA CARE CARE
Tex
post Nov 19, 2010 -> 09:29 AM
Post #1


Achieving Multiple Sarcasms
**************

Group: Admin
Posts: 47,944
Joined: May 13, 2003
From: Lost between two shores . . .
Member No.: 438



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southsider2k5
post Nov 19, 2010 -> 10:45 AM
Post #2


Soxtalk Group Thinker
******************

Group: Admin
Posts: 117,586
Joined: March 26, 2003
From: Michigan City, IN
Member No.: 298



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Athomeboy_2000
post Dec 13, 2010 -> 11:26 AM
Post #3


Minor League Instructor
***********

Group: Members
Posts: 14,414
Joined: January 27, 2004
From: Iowa City, IA area
Member No.: 1,336



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

QUOTE
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NorthSideSox72
post Dec 13, 2010 -> 12:04 PM
Post #4


I drank what?
*************

Group: Admin
Posts: 35,460
Joined: September 14, 2005
From: North Suburbia
Member No.: 2,880



QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 11:26 AM) *

Ah, so its the individual mandate. That makes sense, and its one of the reasons this bill was poorly structured.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Balta1701
post Dec 13, 2010 -> 12:09 PM
Post #5


There are no strings on me
*****************

Group: Admin
Posts: 99,942
Joined: April 25, 2005
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 2,262



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NorthSideSox72
post Dec 13, 2010 -> 12:20 PM
Post #6


I drank what?
*************

Group: Admin
Posts: 35,460
Joined: September 14, 2005
From: North Suburbia
Member No.: 2,880



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).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Balta1701
post Dec 13, 2010 -> 12:28 PM
Post #7


There are no strings on me
*****************

Group: Admin
Posts: 99,942
Joined: April 25, 2005
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 2,262



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jenksismybitch
post Dec 13, 2010 -> 12:30 PM
Post #8


Minor League Instructor
***********

Group: Members
Posts: 12,978
Joined: July 14, 2006
From: Western Burbs
Member No.: 4,024



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Balta1701
post Dec 13, 2010 -> 12:34 PM
Post #9


There are no strings on me
*****************

Group: Admin
Posts: 99,942
Joined: April 25, 2005
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 2,262



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jenksismybitch
post Dec 13, 2010 -> 12:45 PM
Post #10


Minor League Instructor
***********

Group: Members
Posts: 12,978
Joined: July 14, 2006
From: Western Burbs
Member No.: 4,024



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Balta1701
post Dec 13, 2010 -> 12:51 PM
Post #11


There are no strings on me
*****************

Group: Admin
Posts: 99,942
Joined: April 25, 2005
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 2,262



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jenksismybitch
post Dec 13, 2010 -> 01:49 PM
Post #12


Minor League Instructor
***********

Group: Members
Posts: 12,978
Joined: July 14, 2006
From: Western Burbs
Member No.: 4,024



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Balta1701
post Dec 13, 2010 -> 04:24 PM
Post #13


There are no strings on me
*****************

Group: Admin
Posts: 99,942
Joined: April 25, 2005
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 2,262



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StrangeSox
post Dec 13, 2010 -> 04:41 PM
Post #14


First Base Coach
*************

Group: Members
Posts: 24,394
Joined: June 10, 2006
From: Woodridge, IL
Member No.: 3,878



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Balta1701
post Dec 13, 2010 -> 04:46 PM
Post #15


There are no strings on me
*****************

Group: Admin
Posts: 99,942
Joined: April 25, 2005
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 2,262



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

194 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th October 2014 - 11:05 PM