Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NY Times News alert: " Federal Judge Invalidates Key Provision of Health Care Law"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Mira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 12:38 PM
Original message
NY Times News alert: " Federal Judge Invalidates Key Provision of Health Care Law"
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Mon, December 13, 2010 -- 12:24 PM ET
-----


A federal district judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the
keystone provision in the Obama health care law is
unconstitutional, becoming the first court in the country to
invalidate any part of the sprawling act and insuring that
appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from
below.

Judge Henry E. Hudson declined to freeze implementation of
the law pending appeal, meaning that there should be no
immediate effect of his decision. But the ruling is likely to
create confusion among the public and further destabilize
political support for the law.

Judge Hudson wrote that the law's central requirement that
most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory
authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of
the Constitution. The insurance mandate is central because
insurers say they cannot afford treatment for expensive
chronic conditions unless healthy people have policies as
well.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com?emc=na
Refresh | +15 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. It will be interesting to see where this leads.....
The repukes' goal is total dismemberment of whatever Health Care reforms were enacted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. HuffPo coverage says to SCOTUS where you can only guess what will happen
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I predict SCROTUS will uphold the Constitutionality of this abominable provision of the law
It's a MONEY RIVER into the pockets of major traditional Repuke corporate donors - enforced by Uncle Thug. How could they not love it? Democratic appointees will want to uphold because it is Obama's putrid "legacy". Repukes will uphold because more than any law ever passed in the history of the Republic, it makes corporate symbiosis with government -and corporate control over govt's coercive power over citizens' freedom, and especially their money- OFFICIAL and EVERLASTING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. No kidding.
The current Supreme Court is no friend to the people - or the Constitution, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
27. The "unsung villain" in all this..IMHO: Sandra Day O'Connor
She let Dimson into the White House..and then she resigned to allow him to make an appointment to SCOTUS.
THEN she had the unmitigated gall to express "regrets" at the way the SC turned to the right.

Hypocrite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. "It will be interesting to see where this leads....."
To the republican friendly US Supreme Court... :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. Fear not! They are just as venal & corporate owned as Baucus, Obama, Lieberman and Nelson
Edited on Mon Dec-13-10 01:29 PM by kenny blankenship
you have little to worry about - except being able to afford their deep friendships with the insurance mafia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. This could become
a big fucking deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. This is where we get from thinking a single judge can "repeal" a law
This is of course a highly conservative judge appointed by George W. Bush in 2002.

Let's take it to the Supremes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. Let's see where the appeal goes.
Hopefully this Bushie geezer will get overturned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
alc Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. only if we trust future congresses
It's short-sighted to only look at this with respect to the health care law. If the government wins, they win the power of "regulation of a persons decision not to purchase a product".

That's a precedent I DO NOT want set. Think of all the other places we'd be "better off" if the government made EVERYONE purchase the product: mass transit, milk, corn, drug X, etc. All of these are good and the cost would go down for everyone if we all purchased them. But that's not the way our government should be doing it - collect taxes and subsidize these things like they do now. That way it's on the gov't books and they are accountable. Otherwise we will be paying lots of "taxes" that don't pass through the gov't and are not transparent. Fix health care with government payments, not requiring us to pay directly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
6. Predictable
If the federal government has any limits on its power, surely forcing people to buy a product they don't want, at great expense, would be beyond that limit. That this provision targets the poorest the hardest makes it that much more odious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rgbecker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. I hate to mention this, but no one is being forced to buy insurance.
Simply, If you don't get coverage, you will have to pay a penalty tax to help cover the cost to the government for your probable care in the future. The poorest will be not the hardest hit, but rather, as presently is the case in Massachusetts, will be covered at government expense through subsidized rates.

That said, the SCOTUS, dominated by poor people hating, whacked out conservatives, may very well use this opportunity to extend their 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, and let this decision stand just to spite Obama, whose election they didn't get a chance to rule on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. And would you care to speculate on HOW MUCH THAT TAX WOULD BE?
Edited on Mon Dec-13-10 01:15 PM by WinkyDink
The legal effect is the same: The gov't is forcing, by threat of a tax collected by the IRS, citizens to purchase private-company insurance.

The judge would appear to agree with my argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rgbecker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. In Massachusetts the penalty is based on your income.
As an individual, no kids, it would be $17/mo. if your (adjusted gross) income is between 16,249 and 21,660. $35/ mo. if income is between 21,660 and 27,084. $52/mo. if income between 27,085 and 32,496, and if below 26 even if income is more. $89/mo. if income is above 32,496 and you're over 26. Obviously one's age will be the determining factor as to whether paying the penalty or buying the insurance makes the most sense. In my case, the "market exchange" doesn't offer anything less than what they deem to be affordable based on my income, so they do not impose a penalty on me for not buying insurance.

As the new federal health care has been modeled after the Massachusetts plan, we can see how it is going to go based on Massachusetts' outcome. I do believe that more insurance companies will be involved and policies will be available at lower rates for lower income types like me.

Still in the final analysis, I think it is seldom that the SCOTUS has barred taxes and this penalty is simply a tax leveled at those not getting insurance. Could it be shown that someone with several million dollars in the bank for medical emergencies shouldn't have carry insurance? Might be the point I'd argue if before the court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Supply Side Jesus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. So, if I pay the penalty to offset my costs
then when I do go to the hospital, then it should be free!! I guess that's our public option now.
i always wondered, what would happen if i did'nt pay the penalty... usually when you don't pay the government the money, a warrant usually gets issued.

usually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. And when you don't pay your taxes, what happens to you?
Then answer is not a 90 minute massage from the blow-job queen of Tulsa.

You go to prison, that is what happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. Actually...
Edited on Mon Dec-13-10 01:12 PM by dennis4868
the commerce clause gives congress broad powers....the congress used this clause to pass civil rights legislation....and the truth is, the fact that someone does not have health insurance has a substantial impact on people in other states....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. We've come a long way
from "get your laws off my body"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
8. I laugh when I hear about something the insurance companies can't afford! B.S.
Maybe, just maybe, their CEO's, stockholders, etc. would have to acclimate to less than stunning bonuses and dividends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. Only alternative to mandates is single payer.
If the government cannot force people to buy health insurance then it must provide that health insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
somone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. Medicare for all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
13. There was no other legal option: Mandating a purchase from a private company as a CITIZENSHIP
Edited on Mon Dec-13-10 01:08 PM by WinkyDink
requirement CANNOT stand.

Any attempted analogy---e.g., to car insurance (only for automobile owners) or life insurance (completely voluntary)---is specious at best and cynical at worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rgbecker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Once again, there is no requirement to buy insurance to retain citizenship.
Please see my response # 14 above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Please see my reply, also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Amazing how it took 220 yrs for them to discover a LEGAL DUTY 4 all citizens to purchase insurance.
It was there the whole time, we just didn't notice it! What other LEGALLY MANDATED PURCHASES will the NEXT 20 years discover are required of American citizens? And the next 200 years after that?

Private education, perhaps?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Why not?
People who think mandatory private insurance is a good idea should have no problem with a privatized school system with mandatory tuition. Hey, we'll give you a voucher to help pay for it!

We'll call it Universal K-12 Education!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
26. Here is another link - more than we want to know...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 18th 2018, 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC