Utopia Talk / Politics / Judge rejects healthcare challenge

Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Thu Oct 07 21:36:33 http://www...allenge-michigan_n_754882.html Michigan Federal Judge Rejects Challenge To Health Care Overhaul DETROIT â?? 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. "As a result, the most costly individuals would be in the insurance system and the least costly would be outside it," Steeh said. "In turn, this would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums." Julian Davis Mortenson, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. Supreme Court law clerk, said the decision affects only the parties in the lawsuit and is not binding on any other federal judges hearing challenges to the law. Nonetheless, the Justice Department hailed Steeh's opinion as the first time a "court has considered the merits of any challenge to this law." "The court found that the minimum coverage provision of the statute was a reasonable means for Congress to take in reforming our health care system," spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said. "The department will continue to vigorously defend this law in ongoing litigation." Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which filed the case, said he would take it to a federal appeals court in Cincinnati. The four individual plaintiffs said they do not have private insurance and object to being forced to buy it. They also fear that any financial penalty paid to the government would be used to pay for abortions. In Florida, a federal judge is overseeing a lawsuit filed by 20 states. They, too, say the law is unconstitutional and claim it would force states to absorb higher Medicaid costs. A decision on whether to dismiss the case is expected by Oct. 14, though the judge said last month that he would probably dismiss only parts of the complaint while letting others go to trial. There is also a lawsuit pending in Virginia. Randy Barnett, who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University, said Steeh's ruling could be cited by lawyers trying to persuade other judges. "This is one judge's opinion. They'll read it," Barnett said. Steeh "accepted the government's argument, the same argument that's being made in front of other judges."
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Thu Oct 07 21:39:37 Man what an ass whooping this is for the repubs who promised to try and block all of obamas election promises in court. "Randy Barnett, who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University, said Steeh's ruling could be cited by lawyers trying to persuade other judges. "This is one judge's opinion. They'll read it," Barnett said. Steeh "accepted the government's argument, the same argument that's being made in front of other judges."" Man this is game over for the court challenges we are getting healthcare even if repubs dont like it
habebe Member	Thu Oct 07 21:47:26 " Man what an ass whooping this is for the repubs who promised to try and block all of obamas election promises in court. " So instead they will just take back the house and now the Senate is looking to be 50/50. Also, what really matters is what the SCOTUS says.
habebe Member	Thu Oct 07 21:48:42 Why do you want to force a bll on people that they apparently hate? I thought the people in support of this bill said once it's passed people will like it, the Dems will have something to run on, they dems running on HC are the ones who voted against it.
Renzo Marquez Member	Thu Oct 07 21:50:36 This decision is not binding precedent on other federal courts. The federal government can cite it but it means nothing. This is one district court judge. Frankly, it won't even matter what the federal circuit courts have to say either. The constitutionality of the individual mandate and other controversial provisions will be determined by the Supreme Court. We already know this. Everything else is theater.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 07:59:07 Just heard on the news that a ban has been placed on importing all foreign cars and only GM, Chrysler and Ford cars built in the USA by union workers will be available for sale after Jan. 1, 2011.
Milton Bradley Member	Fri Oct 08 08:03:04 stop talking horse shit
MrPresident07 Member	Fri Oct 08 08:16:46 You cannot make people buy a commercial product, at least at the federal level. That is illegal and unconstitutional. Such will be the ruling when it hits the USSC.
ehcks Member	Fri Oct 08 08:21:00 Really? So I don't need car insurance? So when I get arrested for driving without insurance I can sue?
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 08:25:26 ehcks - Really? So I don't need car insurance? Those are state laws, not federal.
miltonfriedman Member	Fri Oct 08 08:37:02 So you "heard" it, just like Gfagd "heard" that condoms are 84% effective?
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 08:38:49 That is why I love you people so much. Every facetious remark is grist for the mill. :)
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Fri Oct 08 08:41:01 Man he's just trying to do his usual thread derailing. He's touching his wrinkly ass thinking he is being damn smart MrP so you cant make people buy products? WHy the fuzz are people required to have clothes and car insurance and all the other fuzzing insurance everyone needs?
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 08:44:00 JMB, all I did was make an obvious joke, that you may or may not find funny, it is you and the others that are derailing the thread by trying to make something else out of it.
miltonfriedman Member	Fri Oct 08 08:46:05 Oh, I see. You lie because it is funny?
Milton Bradley Member	Fri Oct 08 08:47:15 hotrod hijacks and ruins another thread.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 08:47:41 It is better than your lies which are misleading and vicious.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 08:48:49 Milton Bradley, "all I did was make an obvious joke, that you may or may not find funny, it is you and the others that are derailing the thread by trying to make something else out of it."
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Oct 08 08:49:15 "It is better than your lies which are misleading " Are there non-misleading lies, Rod? You lied a lot in here, which of your lies were non-misleading? Just curious.
MrPresident07 Member	Fri Oct 08 08:50:09 "Really? So I don't need car insurance? So when I get arrested for driving without insurance I can sue?" You can choose not to drive. We've been over this stupid argument before with Aeros. Get a fucking clue. Not only that, but it is a STATE implemented policy. How many times can you use a dumb argument and think it will work? This is illegal.
Milton Bradley Member	Fri Oct 08 08:50:36 "It is better than your lies which are misleading. My lies are not misleading"- hotrod
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Oct 08 08:51:50 "You cannot make people buy a commercial product, at least at the federal level. " You'd be ok with your state forcing you to buy a commercial product, MP? Just not the feds?
Rugian Member	Fri Oct 08 08:52:08 ehcks Member Fri Oct 08 08:21:00 "Really? So I don't need car insurance? So when I get arrested for driving without insurance I can sue?" Goddamnit ehcks. People like you who don't understand as simple concepts like the difference between the state and federal governments...just, goddamnit.
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Fri Oct 08 08:53:49 "You can choose not to drive" Nobody is a damn prisoner here. You can choose not to live here. See man you can avoid paying it like you can avoid paying car insurance.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Oct 08 09:34:40 I wasn't aware of this but there is a provision in Affordable Care Act, inserted by senator Wyden, that allows any state to gain an exemption from any federal requirements, yes including the individual mandates, if they believe they can come up with a better way to cover their citizens. So far, no propositions from any states that are suing the feds.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Oct 08 09:37:14 "So, in both the Healthy Americans Act and in the current health reform law, I included a provision that would allow states to gain an exemption from certain federal requirements—such as the individual mandate, the employer penalty and the exact standards for designing the exchanges, subsidies and basic health insurance policies—if they could find a way to do a better job of covering their state’s citizens. To date, I haven’t seen a single one of those states currently filing lawsuits against the individual mandate propose better ways of covering their citizens. In fact, one of the reasons I have been drawing attention to the state waiver is to highlight the insincerity of those filing lawsuits. If states aren’t happy with the federal law they should be spending their energy innovating ways to do better rather than wasting taxpayer dollars on lawsuits that—if successful—would leave their state’s citizens with nothing. " http://www...issing-the-point_b_704475.html
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 09:47:36 The trick is not to be a State seeking waivers, but to be a friend of The Administration seeking waivers. McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers Updated 16h 54m ago | Comments 1,659 | By Drew Armstrong, Bloomberg Business News Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers. Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees. The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether. Without waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014. FIGHTS: Lawsuits over health care law heat up REFORM: A consumer primer for health insurance changes in 2011 WHAT'S CHANGING: Provisions of the new health law HEALTH CARE: New website compares coverage prices Q&A: Answers on adding adult children to health insurance "The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got." The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, the California-based cooperative that offers coverage to farm workers, was allowed to exempt 17,347 people. San Diego-based Jack in the Box's waiver is for 1,130 workers, while McDonald's asked to excuse 115,000. The plans will be exempt from rules intended to keep people from having to pay for all their care once they reach a preset coverage cap. McDonald's, which offers the programs as a way to cover part-time employees, told the Obama administration it might re-evaluate the plans unless it got a waiver. McDonald's and Jack in the Box didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. The waiver program is intended to provide continuous coverage until 2014, when government-organized marketplaces will offer insurance subsidized by tax credits, says HHS spokeswoman Jessica Santillo. The regulations would have hit some insurance plans for young adults in the universal coverage program run by the state of Massachusetts. The program, enacted in 2006, has a plan for individuals ages 18 to 26 who can't get coverage through work, covering about 5,000 people. The waiver obtained by the state "will give us time to implement the transition plan in a manner designed to mitigate premium increases," says Dick Powers, a spokesman for the state program. The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says. http://www...010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Oct 08 09:50:14 Has any of the suing states asked for a waiver and was refused?
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 09:52:27 Just one question, how can any state afford to pay for a program that would allow them to opt out?
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Oct 08 09:53:34 I don't know, how are they paying for things now? What are their revenue streams?
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 09:55:01 Thanks to Obama and his policies, severely curtailed.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Oct 08 09:56:31 I asked what are their revenue streams, retard. Not the condition of the streams.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 09:59:49 LOL, you can't be serious. You want me to list all of the methods the various States use to collect revenues from their citizens? That is patently absurd. BTW, 95,000 more jobs lost last month, we are still at 9.6% unemployment.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Oct 08 10:01:53 "LOL, you can't be serious. You want me to list all of the methods the various States use to collect revenues from their citizens? That is patently absurd. " No, you asked how are they gonna pay, I said the same way the pay for everything else. Stupid? It doesn't have to be now, individial mandates start only in 2014.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 10:04:00 What makes you think things will be better in 2014? IMHO, they will probably be much worse.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 10:05:37 CR - What are their revenue streams? Sound like you want a detailed list to me.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Oct 08 10:07:50 So, they can pay for any program the same way they pay for anything else, agreed.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 10:09:04 By spending money they do not have and cannot create?
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Oct 08 10:10:57 Yes, remember how you objected to running the wars on money that you did not have and couldn't create? Me neither.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 10:14:52 Ah, but The Federal Government can create money when they want to. You really should study up on how our government is run.
Hot Stick Member	Fri Oct 08 10:19:06 "Yes, remember how you objected to running the wars on money that you did not have and couldn't create? Me neither. " Well if George was a Democrat I would have. That counts for something.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Oct 08 10:20:05 So you don't object to paying for health care, you just lament that states can't do the same thing as feds? In that case, they should raise taxes or cut other spending, the old fashion way.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 10:27:10 CR = The undisputed champion of 'twist and shout.' I'm going to lunch.
MrPresident07 Member	Fri Oct 08 12:21:10 "You'd be ok with your state forcing you to buy a commercial product, MP? Just not the feds?" Way to twist my words. Hell no I wouldn't be ok. I just said it's illegal for the feds to do this. I'd have to research about the states. I was just assuming there were probably loopholes for the states to jump through if they wanted to pass it (aka MA).
MrPresident07 Member	Fri Oct 08 12:22:49 "Nobody is a damn prisoner here. You can choose not to live here. See man you can avoid paying it like you can avoid paying car insurance." Get the fuck out of here. Just like you need a license to drive, you also need insurance. I don't like mandatory car insurance either, but I accept that it's the law (and legal).
Hellfire Member	Fri Oct 08 13:16:40 "You cannot make people buy a commercial product, at least at the federal level. That is illegal and unconstitutional. Such will be the ruling when it hits the USSC. " Another article: http://www...-provisions-of-health-care-law The attorney generalsâ?? suit argues that the federal government canâ??t force people to buy a product merely because they are U.S. citizens. But federal attorneys say Congress can regulate interstate commerce and has imposed laws for more than 200 years requiring men to buy muskets and ammunition, for example. -------------------------------------------- apparently this isn't the first time the feds have mandated that people buy a product.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Oct 08 13:54:14 just because they did something wrong the first time, doesnt mean it becomes right.
Ninja Member	Fri Oct 08 14:34:44 Turning over hundreds of years of case law happens very infrequently, don't count on it.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 08 20:35:11 I'm the oldest one here and the Federal Government never made me buy a musket. Got a link to that claim. BTW, IMHO the Commerce Clause is there to protect the citizens, not mandate what they have to buy because some bureaucrat thinks it is best for them.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sat Oct 09 05:57:14 Ninja Member Fri Oct 08 14:34:44 "Turning over hundreds of years of case law happens very infrequently, don't count on it." They don't have to overturn hundreds of years of case law. This is a matter of first impression. There are zero Supreme Court cases on point.
Hip79223 Member	Sun Feb 05 00:15:43 from good small next then plain little ?
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: