Missippi Challenge to Obamacare

Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/5/2011 6:52:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/obama-health-care-legal-victory_n_818428.html The Obama administration won a victory Thursday in the winding legal debate surrounding the president's signature health care law, as a federal judge in Mississippi threw out a suit challenging the constitutionality of the bill. He appears to win because individuals, including the LT Gov for the state of Mississippi, can't seem to be able to prove that the law applies to them, therefore they lack standing to sue. The fed isn't arguing the merits of the case except for when the States who could prove standing sued, and in 100% of those cases (that is all both) so far, Obamacare has lost. This is an interesting twist. It preempts individuals from having their 2 cents put in until after they have violated the law pretty much. The MS judge is allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to go back and figure out if they can prove the future.

joether -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/5/2011 7:55:34 PM)
Did you read the PDF of the court's conclusion, KenDckey? I'm not slamming you on this, but trying to provide some information from reading it myself. Plaintiffs allege the mininum essential coverage provision [in the PPACA]: 1) Goes against/above the Commerece Clause of Article I 2) Is unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment 3) Violates due process rights under the 5th & 14th Amendments 4) Violates the 10th Amendment They further, declare the issue is a direct tax. The document does go on and explains each of these issues from the point of view of previous court cases that relate to the subject. All 10 Plaintiffs according to the document work for a living. One of them works for the state of Mississippi and feels it'll force the state of Mississippi to offer insurance plans that conform to the PPACA's requirements rather then conforming to the desires of state employees. It would be rather surprising for state health insurance plans not to be incompliance with federal rules (from the point of view, of coverage given). The plaintfiff that works for the state of Mississippi actually has access to employer-provided health insurance (page 20). Plaintiff Bryant simply chooses not to have health insurance. Why, I don't know. The Plaintiffs argue this law will cause them to expend financial and personal resources in both preparation and once the requirements are enforced. They state they do not have health coverage at this time, nor wish it in the future. quote: "Thereforce, the proper consideration in a motion to dismiss for lack of standing based soley on the face of the complaint is what the plaintiff has alleged, rather than what might conceivably occur between the date of filing and the date of injury. (page 18 of PDF)". Basically, since they didn't have health coverage before the date of filing, nor during it, they couldn't show cause for why they would have financial hardships or forced to expend personal resources. Its not like the Court has the right to examine each person's personal financial situation and how they handle their money (that would be a violation of the 4th Amendment). I'll go out on a limb here, and guess the plaintiffs didn't want their personal finances and how they handle money to be a matter of public debate. Since if they had poor financial skills, it would allow the Defendants more ammo to attack them on. quote: "The allegations of Plaintiff's First Amended Petition are insufficient to show that they have standing to challenge the minimum essential coerage provision of the PPACA. Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter. However, it is generally appropriate to permit plaintiffs an opportunity to correct jurisdictional defects in their complaint. (page 22, Conclusion)" Here, the Court is allowing the plaintiffs the chance to rethink their arguement inlight of how the first one was handled. And they have 30 days to submit a Second Amended Petition to the first (from Feb 3, 2011). Failure on their part will conclude this matter with the court. Essentially, its a 'win' for the Obama Administration, if the Plaintiffs dont file a Second Amended Petition. If they do, it'll depend on the information provided how the court decides on the matter. That's my understanding of the provided PDF of the conclusion. It doesn't have anything to do with your predjucies that you presented in your lines of text, KenDckey. Don't ask me to explain it, just read the file from start to finish (all 23 pages).

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/5/2011 8:11:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/obama-health-care-legal-victory_n_818428.html The Obama administration won a victory Thursday in the winding legal debate surrounding the president's signature health care law, as a federal judge in Mississippi threw out a suit challenging the constitutionality of the bill. He appears to win because individuals, including the LT Gov for the state of Mississippi, can't seem to be able to prove that the law applies to them, therefore they lack standing to sue. The fed isn't arguing the merits of the case except for when the States who could prove standing sued, and in 100% of those cases (that is all both) so far, Obamacare has lost. This is an interesting twist. It preempts individuals from having their 2 cents put in until after they have violated the law pretty much. The MS judge is allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to go back and figure out if they can prove the future. So what would you put in place of the Health Care Act?

KenDckey -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/5/2011 8:18:20 PM)
Oh yeah I understand what the plantiffs were alleging. Loved it. And I totally agree. What I found strange was the lack of standing that the judges in the various cases determined as outlined in this case. It basically says that unless you have a monitary impact now or in the immediate future (which i couldn't find a definition for) then you can't sue. 3 years apparently isn't immenent. But it did make interesting reading and yes I read the entire thing before making the post. And the supporters of this law are claiming victory that the law is constitutional because it passed the various court. Not on constitutional ground, but on the lack of status principle. And the two that did prove status, won their cases. So, to me it looks very bad for Obamacare.

KenDckey -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/5/2011 8:28:36 PM)
I don't know what I would put in place of it Hippie. I do not see a constitutional mandate for healthcare. I do believe that the current laws are so jumbled up and convoluded that they need to be reworked totally. And to be realistic, what pisses me off isn't healthcare reform, It is the mandate on me and anyone else to spend our money as the govt says - no options. I personally hate it when the Govt dictates how my money is spent. The various governmental entities get so much of my paycheck now, and they are wanting to dictate how to spend the rest. And this sets the presidence for that. It is bad law. If they want to have universal healthcare, and I am not sure I would agree, then run the healthcare industry out of business, nationalize all the healthcare professionals, and just do it. Not sure that is constitutional either, but it would be better than this. Realistically tho, I think that no mandate is the way to go. I don't believe in govt dictating how I spend my money. If I choose to have no healthcare, then fine. If I choose it, then use the free enterpise system and get it. If I belong to a union, put it in the contract (My son said he pays $9.95 in healthcare for every hr he works thru IBEW). I know this post is convoluded, but I am being distracted right now. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. If not, I appologize in advance.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/5/2011 9:33:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I don't know what I would put in place of it Hippie. I do not see a constitutional mandate for healthcare. I do believe that the current laws are so jumbled up and convoluded that they need to be reworked totally. And to be realistic, what pisses me off isn't healthcare reform, It is the mandate on me and anyone else to spend our money as the govt says - no options. I personally hate it when the Govt dictates how my money is spent. The various governmental entities get so much of my paycheck now, and they are wanting to dictate how to spend the rest. And this sets the presidence for that. It is bad law. If they want to have universal healthcare, and I am not sure I would agree, then run the healthcare industry out of business, nationalize all the healthcare professionals, and just do it. Not sure that is constitutional either, but it would be better than this. Realistically tho, I think that no mandate is the way to go. I don't believe in govt dictating how I spend my money. If I choose to have no healthcare, then fine. If I choose it, then use the free enterpise system and get it. If I belong to a union, put it in the contract (My son said he pays $9.95 in healthcare for every hr he works thru IBEW). I know this post is convoluded, but I am being distracted right now. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. If not, I appologize in advance. So it's OK for me to be forced to pay for your exceedingly cheap VA insurance, but when it comes to me getting a similar deal, it's "Fuck you, HK; I don't want to pay a dime for you." That about right? Or if you don't have insurance, and go to the ER with a coronary, and it costs $200,000 bucks to take care of you, and you can't pay, it's OK for the "free enterprise" insurance companies to jack up my premiuums $17% (like they just did) to pay for your care? AND to pay for their 30-40% exec pay/marketing overhead?

MrRodgers -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/5/2011 10:22:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I don't know what I would put in place of it Hippie. I do not see a constitutional mandate for healthcare. I do believe that the current laws are so jumbled up and convoluded that they need to be reworked totally. And to be realistic, what pisses me off isn't healthcare reform, It is the mandate on me and anyone else to spend our money as the govt says - no options. I personally hate it when the Govt dictates how my money is spent. The various governmental entities get so much of my paycheck now, and they are wanting to dictate how to spend the rest. And this sets the presidence for that. It is bad law. If they want to have universal healthcare, and I am not sure I would agree, then run the healthcare industry out of business, nationalize all the healthcare professionals, and just do it. Not sure that is constitutional either, but it would be better than this. Realistically tho, I think that no mandate is the way to go. I don't believe in govt dictating how I spend my money. If I choose to have no healthcare, then fine. If I choose it, then use the free enterpise system and get it. If I belong to a union, put it in the contract (My son said he pays $9.95 in healthcare for every hr he works thru IBEW). I know this post is convoluded, but I am being distracted right now. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. If not, I appologize in advance. So it's OK for me to be forced to pay for your exceedingly cheap VA insurance, but when it comes to me getting a similar deal, it's "Fuck you, HK; I don't want to pay a dime for you." That about right? Or if you don't have insurance, and go to the ER with a coronary, and it costs $200,000 bucks to take care of you, and you can't pay, it's OK for the "free enterprise" insurance companies to jack up my premiuums $17% (like they just did) to pay for your care? AND to pay for their 30-40% exec pay/marketing overhead? I may be wrong but it was my understanding that the two cases where the decision was favorable to the AHA were on the merits. I any case, one argued and I agree...empirically, we are ALL using health care to some degree. With every person IN the health care market, some are not paying at all and thus, shifting costs. The AFA is a mandate that will almost eliminate that transfer of wealth. By law, people are guaranteed ER 'health care' as a last resort. This law make almost everyone...pay for it. This mandate also reduces emergencies and costs. The court agreed. Plus as I wrote, there is precedent on this being constitutional. Examples of govt. services and benefits paid for and run substantially by govt. We need water, 80% of the population is on highly regulated govt. run water...same with sewer. We need food, it is almost universally affordable and for the poor there is temporary...govt. run assistance. We need heat, supplied by what are called permanent, regional or 'natural monopolies.' They are thus very highly govt. regulated and are generally allowed and an above average return on capital. Clothing is affordable and one of the very few commodities that we can make durable. We ALL need or are in the health care market. Well you are on your own kinkroid until you are about to die or break something or have a very good job.

tazzygirl -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/5/2011 10:42:49 PM)
quote: I don't know what I would put in place of it Hippie. I do not see a constitutional mandate for healthcare. I do believe that the current laws are so jumbled up and convoluded that they need to be reworked totally. And to be realistic, what pisses me off isn't healthcare reform, It is the mandate on me and anyone else to spend our money as the govt says - no options. I personally hate it when the Govt dictates how my money is spent. The various governmental entities get so much of my paycheck now, and they are wanting to dictate how to spend the rest. And this sets the presidence for that. It is bad law. Excuse me... didnt you say you are on a government provided health insurance now for around $100? How do you see any mandate to buy insurance as pertaining to you when you have insurance? As far as being mandated, as you pointed out in another thread, how is it a mandate when you have a choice?

rulemylife -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/6/2011 6:07:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey And the supporters of this law are claiming victory that the law is constitutional because it passed the various court. Not on constitutional ground, but on the lack of status principle. And the two that did prove status, won their cases. So, to me it looks very bad for Obamacare. There have been five cases. The first was in Michigan where the law was ruled constitutional. The next two were in Virginia. The first of those held the law constitutional. The second did not declare the legislation unconstitutional, only the purchase mandate. The only court that has declared the entire PPACA unconstitutional has been the Florida case.

KenDckey -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/6/2011 9:01:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I don't know what I would put in place of it Hippie. I do not see a constitutional mandate for healthcare. I do believe that the current laws are so jumbled up and convoluded that they need to be reworked totally. And to be realistic, what pisses me off isn't healthcare reform, It is the mandate on me and anyone else to spend our money as the govt says - no options. I personally hate it when the Govt dictates how my money is spent. The various governmental entities get so much of my paycheck now, and they are wanting to dictate how to spend the rest. And this sets the presidence for that. It is bad law. If they want to have universal healthcare, and I am not sure I would agree, then run the healthcare industry out of business, nationalize all the healthcare professionals, and just do it. Not sure that is constitutional either, but it would be better than this. Realistically tho, I think that no mandate is the way to go. I don't believe in govt dictating how I spend my money. If I choose to have no healthcare, then fine. If I choose it, then use the free enterpise system and get it. If I belong to a union, put it in the contract (My son said he pays $9.95 in healthcare for every hr he works thru IBEW). I know this post is convoluded, but I am being distracted right now. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. If not, I appologize in advance. So it's OK for me to be forced to pay for your exceedingly cheap VA insurance, but when it comes to me getting a similar deal, it's "Fuck you, HK; I don't want to pay a dime for you." That about right? Or if you don't have insurance, and go to the ER with a coronary, and it costs $200,000 bucks to take care of you, and you can't pay, it's OK for the "free enterprise" insurance companies to jack up my premiuums $17% (like they just did) to pay for your care? AND to pay for their 30-40% exec pay/marketing overhead? Shoot me Don't take me to the VA Death Factory (my opinion). I have Tricare and I pay every month just like most people. It is also a benefit of 20 years service. Now if you don't want us to have it, may I suggest you tell congress that the military doesn't deserve medical care. They have the authority to stop it. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers I may be wrong but it was my understanding that the two cases where the decision was favorable to the AHA were on the merits. I any case, one argued and I agree...empirically, we are ALL using health care to some degree. With every person IN the health care market, some are not paying at all and thus, shifting costs. The AFA is a mandate that will almost eliminate that transfer of wealth. By law, people are guaranteed ER 'health care' as a last resort. This law make almost everyone...pay for it. This mandate also reduces emergencies and costs. The court agreed. Plus as I wrote, there is precedent on this being constitutional. Examples of govt. services and benefits paid for and run substantially by govt. We need water, 80% of the population is on highly regulated govt. run water...same with sewer. We need food, it is almost universally affordable and for the poor there is temporary...govt. run assistance. We need heat, supplied by what are called permanent, regional or 'natural monopolies.' They are thus very highly govt. regulated and are generally allowed and an above average return on capital. Clothing is affordable and one of the very few commodities that we can make durable. We ALL need or are in the health care market. Well you are on your own kinkroid until you are about to die or break something or have a very good job. Water workers require one or both licenses (Production and Distribution). But, there is no requirement that anyone be on a system. the requirements are on quality. Wastewater workers require either a Operator, Mechanic, Lab, Waste Inspector, and a few other licenses according to what you do and where you are. The regulations establish standards (that aren't necessarily standard) for treatment and effluient and sludge standards. Sometimes they use sludge in the making of potting soil, sometimes they use it as fertilizer, sometimes they landfill it. They also set up digesters to purify the system. They flare off the gasses or use them in the creation of electricity for the facility thus saving the rate payer costs. If you spill wastewater, there are also reporting thresholds. This usually happens to sludge/septage haulers and blockage backups although there can be other reasons. The gas/electric industries are also highly regulated as you said. But I don't know of anyone that does not have it being cited for violating the law. It is the industry that is regulated not the consumer. Do we all have some form of healthcare? yeah I would agree to some degree we do. Do we pay for it, yes, thru our taxes. But that distribution isn't set by a heathcare law, it is set up within the budget process by congress and has no individual mandate. Remember, my problem all along is the individual mandate. Do I agree that healthcare reform is needed? Yes Do I agree that tax reform is needed? yes Do I agree that tort reform is needed? yes. Do I agree with mandates on how I spend MY money? No I think it sets a terrible prescidence on what they can mandate us to spend OUR money on. Today it is insurance, tommorrow what? Oh and yes, I know that a lot of people use arguements like you have to have insurance to drive. But there is no mandate to have a drivers license much less drive, so I don't believe that those type of arguments hold water.

tazzygirl -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/6/2011 9:10:47 AM)
quote: Do we all have some form of healthcare? yeah I would agree to some degree we do. NO, we dont. My "form" of health care is waiting till im sick as a dog, going to the hospital, then paying off the bill over time, because I cant afford the 160 dollars a visit just to talk to a Dr here. quote: Shoot me Don't take me to the VA Death Factory (my opinion). I have Tricare and I pay every month just like most people. It is also a benefit of 20 years service. Now if you don't want us to have it, may I suggest you tell congress that the military doesn't deserve medical care. They have the authority to stop it. And Tricare isnt affected by this Law. You dont pay full price like most do. Nor does anyone suggest you dont deserve it. But, until you have to face heath issues without that fall back, dont even try to place youself into the same category as myself. quote: It is the industry that is regulated not the consumer Health care is highly regulated... from legal to standards of care, by various Boards and, states and federal entities. Everyone accesses health care in some form or fashion. but, guess what... not everyone is paying for it. Allow that to sink in... not everyone is paying for it. Everyone is getting it... not everyone is paying for it. What happens if you dont pay your eletric bill? They turn it off. Same with water. Dont pay your rent, its out the door. Have a medical emergency... and they cannot deny you care. So, here is your chance... How would YOU fix this?

KenDckey -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/6/2011 9:30:28 AM)
Tazzy Like I said, Reform is needed in Healthcare, Taxes, Budgeting, Political and on and on. How would I fix this, I have admitted I don't know. Except I would get rid of the individual mandate. How many times do I have to say it. I am a believer that the Constitution wasn't written to cover inactivity. The commerce clause that judge Stheeh said covers inactivity can then be used under that guidance to force us to expend our personal funds in a manner that they (the government entities) say we have to. This mandate on the purchase of individual care opens the door for future potentially dangerously devistating mandates. it is the individual mandate that I have a problem with. It is also unequal taxation but I haven't really gotten into that since it falls under a tax law and you pay some civilian that tax in the form of premiums mandated by law or pay a fine to the fed of which all those premiums/fines are not equal or based upon income levels.

tazzygirl -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/6/2011 11:02:15 AM)
quote: Except I would get rid of the individual mandate. How many times do I have to say it. Is that the mandate you said on another thread doesnt exist? quote: It is also unequal taxation but I haven't really gotten into that since it falls under a tax law and you pay some civilian that tax in the form of premiums mandated by law or pay a fine to the fed of which all those premiums/fines are not equal or based upon income levels. This is exactly what you claimed wasnt a mandate for employers.. yet is exactly the same thing. Please, do make up your mind... or do you know what your mind is?

KenDckey -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/6/2011 12:31:18 PM)
Because of OSHA and EPA I am not so sure of the employer mandate and it's legality. In the negotiations for OSHA the employer agreed to a no fault system for worker compensation and employee's gave up their right to sue for injuries. Took a while to convince the unions and management to agree. Turned out to be a fairly good system. Not sure anyone understand what goes on in the EPA - not even the EPA lol However, I still don'tlike the employer mandate. Takes away from the unions rights at the bargaining table (not that I am pro union but I do believe they have their place) However, since there is no severability clause in there, at least one that I could find, I don't see how they can keep any part if one part is considered unconstitutional

tazzygirl -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/6/2011 7:35:20 PM)
OSHA and the EPA have no part in this. The Unions were all for it. Workman's comp is different than insurance, as I am sure you understand, so I dont see the issue with that. You are pulling things out of the air now.

rulemylife -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/6/2011 8:31:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey However, since there is no severability clause in there, at least one that I could find, I don't see how they can keep any part if one part is considered unconstitutional There doesn't need to be a severability clause, the legal standard is whether the law can stand alone without the portion that was ruled unconstitutional.

Charles6682 -> RE: Missippi Challenge to Obamacare (2/6/2011 9:06:40 PM)
Obamacare is going to be decided by the Supreme Court.Too many different courts coming up with too many different answers.The Supreme Court is divided by liberal to conservative judges.There is usually the one judge who is sort of "in the middle".I wouldn't mind if they threw out the mandate to buy insurance.However,I know thats not what these law suits are really about.This is about denying health coverage to those who can least afford it.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

9.179688E-02