Unconstitutional

[DidUHearThat? 10+ year member]

Did any of the judges that ruled either way issue an injunction or enforcement?

You have proven you have no rational argument beyond the provision that has been axed. Just hot air on both sides.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

You have proven you have no rational argument beyond the provision that has been axed. Just hot air on both sides.

You have not a clue what you are talking about...is it 2014? NO Thanks for your display of not knowing what happened you should work for Keith Olbermann.

 

[DidUHearThat? 10+ year member]

You have not a clue what you are talking about...is it 2014? NO Thanks for your display of not knowing what happened you should work for Keith Olbermann.

I have repeatedly asked what is your complaints with the bill other than the basic "requirement" provision that has been axed. You have not provided any other problems with the plan. You have none. You keep hammering on the one issue that is moot. You're going to keep crying about it till well after 2015. You've got nothing else. You are just a one note wind bag. Just like all the other wind bags on this issue. No substance, just whinny little girl bitching about the other party.

What does partisan dick taste like? You guys suck it all day long. When you get off your knee's and rise to become an American, maybe we can have a rational debate on health care and some future plan.

40+ pages of whinning with no substance or logical debate. Whinny Bitches!

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

I have repeatedly asked what is your complaints with the bill other than the basic "requirement" provision that has been axed. You have not provided any other problems with the plan. You have none. You keep hammering on the one issue that is moot. You're going to keep crying about it till well after 2015. You've got nothing else. You are just a one note wind bag. Just like all the other wind bags on this issue. No substance, just whinny little girl bitching about the other party. What does partisan dick taste like. You guys **** it all day long.

40+ pages of whinning with no substance or logical debate. Whinny Bitches!

You must not have read very much, price controls = rationing , and subsidies do not ever lower costs for those who do not get them...meaning it drives up the costs for everyone else.....How does removing the liability cap reduce costs? It will drive up rates and get people even more upset with the cost of health care insurance then big brother will swoop in and do more price controls....this script has been played out before.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

First Read - Florida judge rules health care law unconstitutional

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

Hey moonbats! You L-O-S-E!!!!! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/imdaman.gif.bc6c552e19aa4ad8c47461144f40eb1a.gif

 

[DidUHearThat? 10+ year member]

LOL!

No surprise here. Back to the conversation I tried to have before. What are we going to do about our country's health care now that this provision is finally out of the way? We still have a problem that has to be dealt with. Just in a more rational, and Constitutional way.

As NPR's Julie Rovner reports, Vinson took a big legal step by saying the mandate couldn't be separated from the rest of the law, so the whole overhaul of health care should be tossed.

Just about everyone expected Vinson to declare the individual mandate to be beyond Congress' power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. Still, many also expected Vinson would allow most of the rest of the law to stand, as a federal judge in Virginia did in December.

Vinson, however, showed no interest in half-measures. He wrote:

"I must conclude that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit. The individual mandate cannot be severed."

Federal Judge In Florida Rules Health Overhaul Violates Constitution : Shots - Health News Blog : NPR

 

[DidUHearThat? 10+ year member]

You must not have read very much, price controls = rationing , and subsidies do not ever lower costs for those who do not get them...meaning it drives up the costs for everyone else.....How does removing the liability cap reduce costs? It will drive up rates and get people even more upset with the cost of health care insurance then big brother will swoop in and do more price controls....this script has been played out before.

True to form, you offer not one suggestion of what we can do to improve our health care rationaly and Constitutionaly. All you do it Bitch like a little girl. You're a partisan pole smoker.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

True to form, you offer not one suggestion of what we can do to improve our health care rationaly and Constitutionaly. All you do it Bitch like a little girl. You're a partisan pole smoker.

True to form you claim to have read my rants and just like before you have not read any......You have already proven yourself a useless idiot....Stalin wouldn't even have liked you. You asked before "what other problems I had with the bill" and claimed I didn't have any and now you change the question I have answered at least 10 times between 3 threads......

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

LOL!
No surprise here. Back to the conversation I tried to have before. What are we going to do about our country's health care now that this provision is finally out of the way? We still have a problem that has to be dealt with. Just in a more rational, and Constitutional way.

Agreed...get the gov't OUT of healthcare, allow cross state competition for health insurance and TORT REFORM...you sue, and you lose, YOU pay. It's a start.

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

This is a ruling that protected liberty. Our freedom NOT to do something we don't wish to do. That's right ... the freedom to be inactive. Here's what Judge Vinson had to say on page 42 of his 78-page ruling:

"It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting - as was done in the Act - that compelling the actual transaction is itself 'commercial and economic in nature and substantially affects interstate commerce', it is not hyper bolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted."

Well that is EXACTLY the point! We DO have a congress that believes that it can do almost anything it wants. Nancy Pelosi does not believe that questions regarding the Constitutionality of legislation should be given serious consideraton. Former Democrat Congressman Phil Hare from Ohio was a bit more blunt when he blurted out "I don't CARE about the Constitution."

I particularly enjoyed that part of Judge Vinson's ruling where he quoted statements made by Barack Obama during a 2008 campaign speech. Obama was slamming Hillary Clinton for her plans for health care reform. Hillary wanted to require people to buy health insurance. Obama thought that was a bad idea. He was steadfastly opposed to it. Obama said that if you could solve the problem of medical care by requiring people to buy insurance, then you could solve the problem of homelessness by requiring people to buy a house. That statement was made February 28, 2008. Now here we are two years later and Barack Obama has completely changed his mind. Funny how that works, isn't it?

 

[DidUHearThat? 10+ year member]

Agreed...get the gov't OUT of healthcare, allow cross state competition for health insurance and TORT REFORM...you sue, and you lose, YOU pay. It's a start.

I think there is a role for gov't. A big role even. Just not as big brother. The fed gov't is the single largest employer and insurer and has a big stake in what our health care system looks like and how to control costs while providing the best care. Or at least the best bang for it's buck.

If they and other large employers, unions, hospitals and doctors have a rational discussion on how to get better health care for the money we already spend and limit costs without the big insurance companies and HMO's having a seat at the table. I'd like to see that happen. Maybe some legislation and some tax funding too. Just something reasonable and not a blank check with unlimited power. There has to be a way to make improvements without pissing on the Constitution and bankrupting everything and everyone while leaving grandma getting beaten with a coat hanger.

Tort reform is mostly just lobbying by a few big companies to limit award sizes for cases they know they are about to lose. I don't believe in blanket imunities or jury limits. The tort system is too slow and expensive, but otherwise it works pretty well.

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

I think our present gov't has proven more than once that other than the military, they are completely useless and the less they do or get involved in the better. THEY are the ones that fucked up healthcare in the first place, and the fact that you are now arguing that they are the ones who can fix what they fucked up proves how much of a retard you are. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

I think our present gov't has proven more than once that other than the military, they are completely useless and the less they do or get involved in the better. THEY are the ones that fucked up healthcare in the first place, and the fact that you are now arguing that they are the ones who can fix what they fucked up proves how much of a retard you are. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

I think it is funny how minions want the very problems created by government think government will fix the very problem they created...

in many cases these "problems" are caused with a purpose and instead of being "undone" the government wants a powergrab.

 

[SicAudio 5,000+ posts]

couldn't be worse than this: GOB votes to invade mexico with "hired" mercs