Reply With Quote
Wow...
Just wow...
Next step, the government makes us all get barcode tattoos on our foreheads or wrists.
Appeals court upholds health-care law
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...s=rss_homepage
A federal appeals court upheld the cons utionality of the 2010 health-care law on Tuesday, granting the Obama Administration its fourth win at the appellate level as it seeks ultimate affirmation of the law from the Supreme Court.
In a 2-to-1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with a lower court judge’s finding that Congress had the authority to enact the law’s requirement that virtually all Americans obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.
The suit was brought by four individuals represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative litigation organization. They argued that the insurance mandate exceeded the limits of Congressional power and impeded their free exercise of religion. ...
Wow...
Just wow...
Next step, the government makes us all get barcode tattoos on our foreheads or wrists.
what do you care. you don't have health ins.
I'll just say what I said before... yawn... wake me up when the SCOTUS takes on this
That will be interesting to see.
appeals are 0-4. Does not take a genius to know what will happen.
Yes I do.
I'm amazed at how often you get facts wrong. Do you do it purposely, or are you that daft?
I have said I don't mind paying out of pocket when I don't have insurance, and have on several occasions. I currently have insurance now.
What bothers me, is the idea that I prefer to pay out of pocket, and have the choice if I buy insurance or not. Not being given the choice, is unamerican.
You and your authoritarian friends...
nah, thats the new tune you took when you got ragged on it.
Yep...
Get ready for that barcoded wrist, or RFID implanted under your skin.
"That a direct requirement for most Americans to purchase any product or service seems an intrusive exercise of legislative power surely explains why Congress has not used this authority before–but that seems to us a political judgment rather than a recognition of cons utional limitations. It certainly is an encroachment on individual liberty, but it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race, that gravely ill individuals cannot use a substance their doctors described as the only effective palliative for excruciating pain, or that a farmer cannot grow enough wheat to support his own family.
The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local–or seemingly passive–their individual origins," - the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
basically if it passed through Congress, it's cons utional.
Now the only option is to repeal it to the Obama haters. I think this law would have a 1% chance of being repealed in a realistictly divided congress.
Results at the district courts are no guarantee of results at the SCOTUS. Barring a death and knowing the makeup of the court I would not be surprised at all with a 5-4 vote limiting the scope of the commerce clause.
That would be a good thing. Congress has abused the commerce clause for decades.
You couldn't be more wrong.
It's actually 1-4, IIRC. Which is why the government requested the SCOTUS to take on it preferably before Nov '12.
I'm not agreeing. Just re-stating the judge's statement.
If the for-profit health care predators hadn't screwed up ACA, the health insurance mandate could have been met with a Public Option insurance taken out of everybody's salary and unearned income.
Then there'd be no silly, ankle-biting, bad-faith objections, nor would the Commerce clause be in the loop.
Health insurance is a personal responsibility, not a right, since America has taken on the humanitarian responsibility of not denying anyone care.
I seriously doubt you will EVER hear a judge say " If it passed through Congress, it's cons utional."
Based on that Judges reasoning, I would have to agree. Putting aside THIS particular issue, and only reading that, to me, chilling statement means: Tyranny of the majority = complete.
Seem pretty damn similar to me. In the statement, the Judge specifically state that individuals are NOT free, and Congress IS.The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local–or seemingly passive–their individual origins,"
The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local–or seemingly passive–their individual origins
Did Obama appoint this judge?
He must be getting senile. Obama didn't appoint him, but may as well of.
Doesn't really matter; there are plenty of judges, appointed by presidents from both parties, who are more than happy to cede our rights to the greater good.
FWDT: we're all waiting for your take, btw.
i disagree it's for the greater good.
When you change the supply and demand equations, you ask for trouble. Forcing everyone to have insurance will increase the costs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
