Foes Of Health Care Law Lose Key Court Ruling

[LuckyTheDog]

Source: WWJ.com

It’s a setback for those who oppose health care reform. A federal judge in Detroit has rejected an attempt to stop some provisions of the new national health care law.

Judge George Caram Steeh tuled that Congress did not exceed its authority by requiring people to have insurance by 2014. He also turned down a challenge Thursday to the financial penalty that comes with having no insurance.

A Michigan-based Christian legal group and four people filed a lawsuit in March, claiming the law is unconstitutional.




Read more: http://wwj.cbslocal.com/2010/10/07/judge-in-detroit-upholds-health-care-reform-act/

---

Round 1 goes to the good guys!

[Bozita]

1. The Thomas More Law Center is a creation of crazy Tom Monaghan

[Riktor]

2. Christians looking to deny health care to the needy...

... I love irony.

[ejpoeta]

3. just like jesus. did you know that he asked lazarus to see his HMO card

before he could bring him back from the dead? and before he turned the water into wine and multiplied the fish and bread he asked if they were gong to pay with cash or check.

[Hoyt]

4. So true. How do they look at themselves in the mirror?

[old mark]

5. They believe the government will extend the health care to abortion,

contraception, sex counselling for adolesents and all that sinful stuff they abhor...Of course, they
can just choose not to do things they don't believe in, but they want to control everyone elses life choices as well.

I hope they spent a lot of money losing this and even more on the next dozen or so attempts.


mark

[South End Liberal]

6. You are confusing health INSURANCE with health CARE.

They are NOT THE SAME THING!!! The bill passed was about health insurance - and protecting the profits of the insurance corporations. If it was about health CARE, there would have been an affordable public option as an alternative to corporate profit driven health insurance, drug companies would have rate regulations such as they have in Europe and we wouldn't still be arguing about DEDUCTIBLES ie how insurance corporations keep from paying for your medical care.

[Riktor]

8. You're preaching to the choir here...

... so there's no need to berate people for off-cuff comments. This is especially true considering the very group in question stands in opposition to Obama's health "care" program because they believe it to be precisely that: a public option so nefariously socialist as to be analogous to the superior European models. Ergo, they are opposed to health CARE.

Simple.

[No Elephants]

16. Berate? Geez.

[No Elephants]

15. Separate issues.

They were claiming forcing citizens to purchase something from private vendors is unconstitutional. That is a very different issue from opposing health care for the needy.

How does requiring people to buy expensive health insurance from private companies--the issue in this case--deliver health care to the needy? I thought doctors, nurses, etc. did that, either on a volunteer basis, or paid for by govt. programs like Medicaid. They weren't claiming volunteering or programs like Mediaid are unconstitutional.

Btw, standard neo theo Rethug response to your post would be: "I am very much for helping the needy--and I do. I just oppose being forced, especially for a bill like this one."

[OneAngryDemocrat]

7. Kicked & Recommended

K & R...

[ProSense]

9. Mich. judge rejects challenge to health-care law

Source: Associated Press

DETROIT – A federal judge in Detroit has rejected an attempt to stop some provisions of the new national health-care law.

Judge George Caram Steeh says Congress didn't exceed its authority by requiring people to have insurance by 2014. He also turned down a challenge Thursday to the financial penalty for not having insurance.

The Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor and four people filed a lawsuit in March, calling the law unconstitutional.

The judge says lawmakers intended to lower the overall cost of health insurance by requiring participation. Steeh says Congress didn't run afoul of the Constitution's commerce clause.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101007/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_lawsuit_mich_1

[SoapBox]

10. Ha-Ha! Choke on THAT ConservaTurds!

[Tx4obama]

11. Judge Steeh's BIO

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Steeh

George Caram Steeh III (born 1947) is a United States federal judge.

Steeh was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He received a B.A. from the University of Michigan in 1969. He received a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1973. He was a Genesee County Prosecutor's Office from 1973 to 1980. He was an Assistant prosecuting attorney from 1973 to 1978. He was a First assistant prosecuting attorney from 1978 to 1980. He was in private practice in Michigan from 1980 to 1988. He was a Public administrator, Macomb County from 1986 to 1989. He was a judge on the 41-B District Court, State of Michigan from 1989 to 1990. He was a judge on the 16th Circuit Court of Michigan from 1990 to 1998.

Steeh was a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Steeh was nominated by President Bill Clinton on September 24, 1997, to a seat vacated by Barbara K. Hackett. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on May 13, 1998, and received his commission on May 22, 1998.

[No Elephants]

18. We love those damned hippies when they support an Obama bill and hate them when they don't.

[TomCADem]

12. Michigan Federal Judge Rejects Challenge To Health Care Overhaul

Source: Huffington Post

A federal judge on Thursday upheld the authority of the federal government to require everyone to have health insurance, dealing a setback to groups seeking to block the new national health care plan.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in Michigan by a Christian legal group and four people who claimed lawmakers exceeded their power under the Constitution's commerce clause, which authorizes Congress to regulate trade.

But Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit said the mandate to get insurance by 2014 and the financial penalty for skipping coverage are legal. He said Congress was trying to lower the overall cost of insurance by requiring participation.

"Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times," the judge said.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/healthcare-challenge-michigan_n_754882.html

[FarLeftFist]

13. And there you have it folks.....

[Bozita]

14. Christian legal group = The Thomas More Law Center, a creation of crazy Tom Monaghan

[white cloud]

21. Judge: Health-care law is constitutional

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100707223.html

[No Elephants]

17. The due process clause and ninth and tenth amendments seem more relevant than the commerce clause.

"The judge says lawmakers intended to lower the overall cost of health insurance by requiring participation."

And how does the bill tie required purchasing to lowered cost? Competition from a public option? Limits on what insurers can charge?

[No Elephants]

19. Legal precedents are a two-edged sword. Maybe many edged. What happens when another Congress--or

your state government--decides citizens are required to purchase a certain amount of something you don't want to pay for from private vendors for what that Congress claims is the greater good? Just like healthy 20 year olds don't want to pay for health insurance, esp. at whatever price insurers wish to charge?

Maybe home heating fuel but you live in Florida or SoCal. Or milk, but all you use is a tiny bit in your morning java, if any. (Dairy farmers in my area recently slaughtered many dairy cows to sell as beef bc selling milk wasn't making them enough $$, even with all the uses milk has besides drinking.) Or any industry Congress decides should be on the receiving end of forced purchasing by American citizens.

Will you still love the precedent this case sets then?

[Vinca]

20. That was my first thought, but my biggest gripe is that forcing

people to do business with big insurance is like paying protection money to the mob. It's a vile, criminal industry that has allowed people to die in favor of profits for decades and now they're being rewarded with millions of captive victims. At the very least, there must be an affordable public option as an alternative to them.