Reply With Quote
Vinson stated that he wasn't going to stay the law and that it was obvioulsy going to be decided by the SCOTUS
You're still not explaining their interpretation. Please, I'd like to hear it.
And, on staying Judge Vinson's ruling, he addressed that fairly definitively as well.
If the government is relying on advice from whomever appears to be informing your position on this matter, they'd better think again before Judge Vinson finds them in contempt.
Vinson stated that he wasn't going to stay the law and that it was obvioulsy going to be decided by the SCOTUS
Nope. Declaring the law uncons utional is a declaratory relief action, which means an injunction is unnecessary, and the States can stop complying with the law. The government, on the other hand, can keep forcing the States to comply in a variety of ways (by waving the other court rulings, denying funds, etc). If it gets to that, and the government didn't file a motion to stay, then the judge can file the cease and desist letter and the process described in my other post would commence.
You're not naive enough to think they're not going to appeal this, right?
I mean, the States already know the administration will. They already knew when they filed the lawsuit.
You need to keep in mind this will be a long process...
And here's an informal poll conducted by Paul Krugman
Where does it says in that article that Canadians are displeased with their health system?
That's an article about after-hours care. Did you read that before linking to it?
So you don't have a poll saying they want to scrap the public health care system.
Thanks.
Where does it says in that article that Canadians are displeased with their health system?
That's an article about after-hours care. Did you read that before linking to it?
Canadians love waiting months to see a doctor. A poll proves it.
Also, it is possible to be displeased with a system without wanting to completely do away with it.Where does it says in that article that Canadians are displeased with their health system?
That's an article about after-hours care. Did you read that before linking to it?
Binary Darrin fails on many levels here.
So, you pretty much agree except that you believe the federal government should engage in mafia-type coercion to force States to continue implementing? Got it.
Not the appeal, but the stay. I think this government is stupid enough to think they can continue unabated by a ruling that nullifies the law under which they're operating.
And, according to Judge Vinson, until it is settled, the government needs to stop implementation or seek a stay of his order.
Link the post where I said they want to scrap it.
According to the article you just posted, they can see a doctor right away...
Again, did you read what you linked?
You already linked the post where I asked for precisely that, then you said "No problem." and posted the article you apparently didn't read either.
Here's a nice example of the kind of improvements to their system Canadians might want:
http://www.canada.com/health/Kindly+...#ixzz1Cjvo6BVwA poll last year of 19,700 people in 11 industrialized countries, including Canada, found that the U.K. is the only country where wealth doesn't determine access to care.
Another 2010 Commonwealth Fund ranked the British system second of seven countries analyzed, behind only Holland, in terms of quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and healthy lives. On efficiency, the U.K. was No. 1. Canada ranked sixth overall in the survey, ahead only of the U.S.
Osborn said Britain's success is due to the reforms — and a huge infusion of cash — introduced after Tony Blair became prime minister in 1997.
They included national wait times targets, the establishment of star ratings for hospitals, the creation of a National Ins ute for Clinical Excellence, and the launch of a new auditing system.
"Most importantly, these were all pulled together as part of a coherent national policy and strategic vision that was implemented and sustained over 10 years, which in politics and in health policy, is a rare luxury."
The Labour government's move to allow greater private-sector involvement, harshly criticized by Canadian unions in the health sector at the time, didn't play a significant role in the success story, she said.
But the UK is even worse! I read an anecdote somewhere!
I haven't read where he stated that. In fact, I just posted the portion of his ruling that specifically says he doesn't have to enjoin the government from continuing to implement the law because, the whole damn thing is uncons utional.
From everything I'm reading, the government must specifically seek a stay of Judge Vinson's order in order to continue implementing.
I did read where he stated that.
Last edited by Yonivore; 02-01-2011 at 03:21 PM.
Anecdotes, for the most part.
Nothing about scrapping the system.
Again, the entire system would not have to be scrapped to end the horrors Darrin chronicled.
http://www.canada.com/health/Kindly+...#ixzz1Cjyy3KJTBut the U.K. also allows parallel private insurance, now used by about 12 per cent of the population, as a "safety valve."
Insured people can use the insurance to avoid long waits for elective surgeries, to choose and quickly access specialists, and to go to private hospitals with more amenities.
"It's not controversial. The public accept it, and don't see it as a threat to the NHS. But they definitely would not let the government expand it to replace what they expect the NHS to cover."
Now I've got to find British anecdotes! brb
What I believe has nothing to do with it. And I disagree it's mafia-type. Much to your chagrin, Judge Venson's ruling has no more weight than the ruling of other federal judges whose opinion is that the law is cons utional.
Unless the Judge forces the administration's hand with an actual injunction, the government can take it's time filing a motion of stay and an appeal.
I personally don't like this law or the mandate. I also didn't like the status quo prior to this law. Ultimately, it's irrelevant. The SCOTUS will rule, and all of us will go from there.
I don't think you understand the ruling. The ruling didn't force to government to stop anything. That would require an injunction. The ruling merely granted the plaintiffs (the States) the ability to ignore the law. Should the government decide to force said States to comply, then the judge might be forced to issue an actual cease-and-desist/injunction/contempt of court ruling.
Where does the judge's opinion says that?
Seeking a stay is the due course of action here, there's no doubt about it.
That said, you can file a motion to stay 'pending appeal', or you can file it as part of the appeal process. Considering that the judge didn't actually issue an injunction, the government has a modi of time to prepare for the appeals process.
I would welcome a mixed system in the US too. I think it's great for everybody. If you have the money and want to go the private route, then by all means. I would even let you opt out of the public system as long as you can prove you're paying for a compe ive private plan.
I still don't see where Canadians aren't loving their public system though...
Please note the judges words bolded and in red, below:
Professor Jacobsen, of Cornell Law, put it in layman's terms as such...
Obviously, from Judge Vinson's words, he felt an injunction was unnecessary since the law was deemed in his summary judgment to be invalid and inoperative.Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, in a lawsuit by 26 state attorney generals, has held that Obamacare is uncons utional. Judge Vinson first found that the mandate was uncons utional, and then found that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the entire law be deemed uncons utional.
Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient. In effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived. By contrast, in the ruling in Virginia last year invalidating the mandate, the Judge severed the mandate from the rest of the law (but denied an injunction preventing the rest of the law from taking effect).
Here is the key language from the Order showing that Judge Vinson expects the federal government to obey the declaration that the law is unenforceable in its entirety:
In this sense, this decision is far more sweeping than the Virginia case, and presents a greater problem for the Obama administration which arguably does not have authority to implement any aspect of Obamacare.
I guess we'll see over the next few days.
Last edited by Yonivore; 02-01-2011 at 03:42 PM. Reason: I should have bolded another sentence, as well.
By the way, I'm still curious of how you would explain the other two judge's ability to declare the individual mandate a cons utional concept.
It's probably just the ones who know what they are missing, i.e. ones who have been to America.
The judge actually denied as unnecessary the requested injunction, since it's presumed that federal officials will adhere to his ruling. Quote from the opinion:
Which means that the Judge has given the government the benefit of the doubt. Should the government push for compliance with the States, the judge then can issue an injunctive relief/contempt of court/etc.Code:There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.
I don't think it's going to get to that. I'm pretty sure we'll see a motion to stay and an appeal before that.
Which is correct. We're not disagreeing in that. What you think is that the government needs to cease and desist right away, whereas in reality, there's some time that the government can take until filing the stay motion. Not in the order of magnitude of years. But it could take a week or two.
What is there to explain? They're no different that Judge Vinson.
They interpret the law as they see it. It's not the first time judges disagree on interpretation. That's why there's an appeals process, decisions get reversed and remanded, and ultimately there's always the SCOTUS if they choose to hear a case.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
