Va. Judge rules New Healthcare law unconstitutional...surely headed for SCOTUS

Va. Judge rules New Healthcare law unconstitutional...surely headed for SCOTUS

This is a discussion on Va. Judge rules New Healthcare law unconstitutional...surely headed for SCOTUS within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; I heard on the news that a judge in Virginia ruled the Healthcare Bill unconstitutional. Several other states are gearing up for a lawsuit now. ...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 73

Thread: Va. Judge rules New Healthcare law unconstitutional...surely headed for SCOTUS

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array jwhite75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    5,318

    Va. Judge rules New Healthcare law unconstitutional...surely headed for SCOTUS

    I heard on the news that a judge in Virginia ruled the Healthcare Bill unconstitutional. Several other states are gearing up for a lawsuit now. Will eventually end up in SCOTUS. Wonder how that will turn out with the recent appointees?
    Friends don't let friends be MALL NINJAS.


    I am just as nice as anyone lets me be and can be just as mean as anyone makes me. - Quoted from Terryger, New member to our forum.


  2. #2
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    You mean the same scotus Obama embarrassed?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6148956n&tag=api

    Obamacare

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array Sig35seven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,115
    This comes from a judge who enjoys government provided health care.

    The DOJ has announced the judge is wrong and mandatory participation in healthcare insurance is constitutional.
    "Confidence is food for the wise man but liquor for the fool"

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array sigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig35seven View Post
    This comes from a judge who enjoys government provided health care.

    The DOJ has announced the judge is wrong and mandatory participation in healthcare insurance is constitutional.
    Well I guess that settles it.

  5. #5
    Distinguished Member
    Array Xader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,564
    As much as I dislike Obamacare, I can't see even a shadow of a reason it would be unconstitutional. What part could it possibly infringe upon?

  6. #6
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,063
    I too can't see it as unconstitutional. First off, several other judges in other circuits ruled the other way; so yeah, it is headed to the supremes for a "political" not a judicial determination.

    We have mandatory auto insurance in my state and in almost all if not all. Why? If that is constitutional, what is different about mandatory health insurance? Mass. already does that--- get insurance of pay a penalty at tax time.

    The only other way I can think of that would make insurance for all work would be to tell folks that if they show up at the ER without it they'll be left to rot in the hallway. Would that be a better solution?

    The young always think they are invincible and don't need insurance; until they get an STD, pregnant, or have a ski accident.

    The fairly affluent may also think they don't need insurance until they wake up with a major heart problem, kidney problem, or infection.

    The only people who shouldn't be required to buy insurance are those who have enough money that they can put up a two million dollar financial responsibility bond. We do that here for auto insurance. You don't have to buy it but have to prove you are able to afford to meet the minimum insurance requirements.

  7. #7
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,725
    Answer me this, where in the Constitution does it say health care is a right and must be provided by the government. And as far as car insurance, driving is a privilege regulated by the states.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  8. #8
    Member Array Rightwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    231
    Un Constitutional because of the "Commerce Clause" which I am assuming states that the govt cannot make you purchase or participate in something that you have to pay for (yeah I know income tax...) Someone more learned will elaborate, I hope..
    "You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body." CS Lewis

    S&W .41 Mag - Colt DS - Ruger Single Six - Ruger Security Six - Buckmark-Beretta 21A - S&W 351PD 22 Mag- Spfld XD 9mm -- Plenty Of Long Guns--- Dry Powder and RCBS.

  9. #9
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I too can't see it as unconstitutional. First off, several other judges in other circuits ruled the other way; so yeah, it is headed to the supremes for a "political" not a judicial determination.

    We have mandatory auto insurance in my state and in almost all if not all. Why? If that is constitutional, what is different about mandatory health insurance? Mass. already does that--- get insurance of pay a penalty at tax time.

    The only other way I can think of that would make insurance for all work would be to tell folks that if they show up at the ER without it they'll be left to rot in the hallway. Would that be a better solution?

    The young always think they are invincible and don't need insurance; until they get an STD, pregnant, or have a ski accident.

    The fairly affluent may also think they don't need insurance until they wake up with a major heart problem, kidney problem, or infection.

    The only people who shouldn't be required to buy insurance are those who have enough money that they can put up a two million dollar financial responsibility bond. We do that here for auto insurance. You don't have to buy it but have to prove you are able to afford to meet the minimum insurance requirements.
    However I have to option and freedom in this country of not owning an automobile and therefore not having insurance. When they make it mandatory to own a vehicle in this country, then you can compare the two instances.

  10. #10
    Member Array patrol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    414
    Keep your fingers crossed. It would be awesome if this Health Care atrocity was struck down so the business world wouldn't worry about hiring people again and good Doctors wouldn't put in their papers to retire.
    If you can read this thank a teacher. If it is written in English thank a Marine.

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I too can't see it as unconstitutional. First off, several other judges in other circuits ruled the other way; so yeah, it is headed to the supremes for a "political" not a judicial determination.

    We have mandatory auto insurance in my state and in almost all if not all. Why? If that is constitutional, what is different about mandatory health insurance? Mass. already does that--- get insurance of pay a penalty at tax time.
    Not quite. Auto insurance is mandatory for those that choose to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway. And motor vehicle insurance is required and regulated by the states. And the Mass law (a state law) is not universal.
    Section 2. (a) As of July 1, 2007, the following individuals age 18 and over shall obtain and maintain creditable coverage so long as it is deemed affordable under the schedule set by the board of the connector, established by chapter 176Q:? (1) residents of the commonwealth; or (2) individuals who become residents of the commonwealth within 63 days, in the aggregate. Residents who within 63 days have terminated any prior creditable coverage, shall obtain and maintain creditable coverage within 63 days of such termination
    So if it is not deemed affordable by the board's standard, you are not required to maintain coverage.
    The only other way I can think of that would make insurance for all work would be to tell folks that if they show up at the ER without it they'll be left to rot in the hallway. Would that be a better solution?

    The young always think they are invincible and don't need insurance; until they get an STD, pregnant, or have a ski accident.

    The fairly affluent may also think they don't need insurance until they wake up with a major heart problem, kidney problem, or infection.

    The only people who shouldn't be required to buy insurance are those who have enough money that they can put up a two million dollar financial responsibility bond. We do that here for auto insurance. You don't have to buy it but have to prove you are able to afford to meet the minimum insurance requirements.
    I believe the basic issue is that constitutionally the federal government is limited in what it is allowed to control. Part of that is interstate commerce. Some are arguing that the interstate commerce clause is what empowers the government to impose this on us. The only problem with that is the federal government is now forcing us to engage in this interstate commerce so they can regulate it! Insurance is a consumer product.
    Would it be constitutional for the federal government to tell each and every citizen that they must purchase a new motor vehicle meeting federal standards for engine displacment, fuel efficiency, seating capacity, number of doors, and color, every year? And you must purchase one for each family member, not just those with drivers licenses.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array Sig35seven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,115
    Quote Originally Posted by msgt/ret View Post
    Answer me this, where in the Constitution does it say health care is a right and must be provided by the government. And as far as car insurance, driving is a privilege regulated by the states.
    In 1986, President Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act into law, which requires virtually all hospitals to provide emergency care regardless of the patient's ability to pay, citizenship or immigration status. The Act imposes significant penalties on hospitals for noncompliance but provides no funding to finance emergency room care. This causes hospitals to increase the price of emergency room care so that it can recoup some of its costs from insured patients who access emergency room care. It also causes hospitals to increase the cost of non-emergency medical care provided to insured/paying patients.

    So, in a nut shell, those of us who pay for our health insurance end up paying for those who don't want to pay. Does that sound fair to you?
    "Confidence is food for the wise man but liquor for the fool"

  13. #13
    Senior Member Array DoctorBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by Xader View Post
    As much as I dislike Obamacare, I can't see even a shadow of a reason it would be unconstitutional. What part could it possibly infringe upon?
    Xader, what is it that you don't like? Choose from the list below:

    Starting in 2014, all US Citizens - employed or not - will be required to have health insurance. All employers of more than 50 people must arrange to provide access to some sort of health insurance to their employees. If they do not, they are assessed $2500 per employee - not counting the first 30 employees.

    Individuals earning less than 4 times the Federal Poverty Level (FPL = about $22k for family of 4; about $10/hour) are eligible for sliding scale subsidies for insurance and for financial assistance related to cost sharing for medical expenses.

    Indivials earning less than 133% of FPL will be eligible for Medicaid.

    beginning this year, small employers with between 10 and 25 employees will get a 35% tax credit if they offer health insurance.

    In coming years
    lifetime policy limits will be eliminated
    premium increases will be scrutinized carefully
    recission will be limited (abillty of company to cancel your policy when you get sick) to instances of fraud

    insurers will be required to spend 80 to 85% of premiums in providing medical care (Medicare spends about 97-98%) This is referred to as the "loss ratio."

    in 2014, pre-existing conditions are out and premiums cannot be based on gender or health history. Age, tobacco use and geographic locality CAN be used to determine premiums.

    Public option (other than Medicare for those over 65) does not exist

    insurance exchanges for both individual and group policies will exist and each insurer must offer at least 4 tiers of coverage. Each tier must contain an essential benefits package

    Care providers will NOT be required to sign participation agreements

    "Prudent layperson" standards will apply for coverage of emergency care.

    Actuaries predict that more than 2/3 of the currently uninsured population will acquire insurance coverage.

    Source: EMPulse, Fall 2010

  14. #14
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    For most mid to large companies it will make better fiscal sense to not offer healthcare to ANY employees.... force them to go on government paid aka taxpayer funded care, and pay the fines. It will be cheaper.

  15. #15
    New Member Array xd shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8
    government paid aka taxpayer funded care
    And how good do you think THAT healthcare will be? As good as our Post Office? As good as Social Security?

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. California Court Rules Ammunition Ban AB962 Unconstitutional
    By skysoldier29 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 19th, 2011, 02:18 PM
  2. Judge rules Wisconsin concealed carry ban unconstitutional
    By MoResident in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: November 19th, 2010, 01:21 AM
  3. Stolen Valor Act Found Unconstitutional by Colorado District Court Judge
    By msgt/ret in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: August 9th, 2010, 01:37 PM
  4. SCOTUS rules you must speak up if you want your right to remain silent!
    By ROFL SQUAD in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2010, 12:06 PM
  5. SCOTUS--Court Rules in Gun Case
    By falcon1 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 10th, 2007, 11:33 PM