States ask US court to overturn health overhaul

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
States ask US court to overturn health overhaul

ATLANTA – More than two dozen states challenging the health care overhaul urged a U.S. appeals court on Wednesday to strike down the Obama administration's landmark law, arguing it far exceeds the federal government's powers.

...

Allowing the law to go forward, the states argued in the 69-page filing, would set a troubling precedent that "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."

So far, three federal judges, all Democratic appointees, have upheld the law. Vinson and the Virginia judge, both Republicans appointees, ruled against it. It seems certain that the broad health care challenge will be resolved only by the nation's top court, and Vinson suggested in a March ruling that the "Supreme Court may eventually be split on this issue as well."

The filing comes about a month after the Justice Department formally appealed Vinson's ruling, arguing that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business.

....

The federal government argued that the requirement is a "quintessential exercise" of the legislative branch's powers, but the states that oppose it countered Wednesday that the mandate is an "indefensible" and unprecedented move by Congress.

The law, it said, "imposes a direct mandate upon individuals to obtain health insurance, marking by all accounts the first time in our nation's history that Congress has required individuals to enter into commerce as a condition of living in the United States."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul_lawsuit

and liberals support this

many liberals are so far out of touch with reality they don't see the erosion of individual rights their "feel good" laws entail. yet amazingly.....when bush was president, they were up in arms about FISA....then quieted down after obama supported it...but yet support this intrusion on our lives.

what gives? if you don't support one kind of intrusion....why do you support this kind?
 
I think the funniest part of the whole debate over the individual mandate being unconstitutional is that Paul Ryan's proposal, which the House Republicans have passed, requires seniors to buy private health insurance or forgo the value of the Medicare payroll taxes they paid their entire adult lives. So, near as I can tell, it's OK to tax people for their entire working lives and to then give them back some of that money and requiring them to "enter into commerce" by purchasing private health insurance or they lose any benefit from all of those taxes they paid for all of those years, but it's socialist to penalize people for not buying health insurance. Odd stuff.
 
Yurt said:
States ask US court to overturn health overhaul

ATLANTA – More than two dozen states challenging the health care overhaul urged a U.S. appeals court on Wednesday to strike down the Obama administration's landmark law, arguing it far exceeds the federal government's powers.

...

Allowing the law to go forward, the states argued in the 69-page filing, would set a troubling precedent that "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."

So far, three federal judges, all Democratic appointees, have upheld the law. Vinson and the Virginia judge, both Republicans appointees, ruled against it. It seems certain that the broad health care challenge will be resolved only by the nation's top court, and Vinson suggested in a March ruling that the "Supreme Court may eventually be split on this issue as well."

The filing comes about a month after the Justice Department formally appealed Vinson's ruling, arguing that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business.

....

The federal government argued that the requirement is a "quintessential exercise" of the legislative branch's powers, but the states that oppose it countered Wednesday that the mandate is an "indefensible" and unprecedented move by Congress.

The law, it said, "imposes a direct mandate upon individuals to obtain health insurance, marking by all accounts the first time in our nation's history that Congress has required individuals to enter into commerce as a condition of living in the United States."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul_lawsuit

and liberals support this

many liberals are so far out of touch with reality they don't see the erosion of individual rights their "feel good" laws entail. yet amazingly.....when bush was president, they were up in arms about FISA....then quieted down after obama supported it...but yet support this intrusion on our lives.

what gives? if you don't support one kind of intrusion....why do you support this kind?
Click to expand...

You are a hack Yurt. Liberals hate the individual mandate but they are intelligent enough to understand why it is necessary. Conservatives should understand it, because the individual mandate was a Republican idea. If liberals and progressives had more power the health care bill would have been single payer or would have at least offered a public option.

Conservatives should be thrilled, because the individual mandate is the ONLY way to preserve a fatally flawed system of for profit health insurance.

Why can't conservatives see the fatal flaw of for profit health insurance?
 
Yurt said:
States ask US court to overturn health overhaul

ATLANTA – More than two dozen states challenging the health care overhaul urged a U.S. appeals court on Wednesday to strike down the Obama administration's landmark law, arguing it far exceeds the federal government's powers.

...

Allowing the law to go forward, the states argued in the 69-page filing, would set a troubling precedent that "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."

So far, three federal judges, all Democratic appointees, have upheld the law. Vinson and the Virginia judge, both Republicans appointees, ruled against it. It seems certain that the broad health care challenge will be resolved only by the nation's top court, and Vinson suggested in a March ruling that the "Supreme Court may eventually be split on this issue as well."

The filing comes about a month after the Justice Department formally appealed Vinson's ruling, arguing that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business.

....

The federal government argued that the requirement is a "quintessential exercise" of the legislative branch's powers, but the states that oppose it countered Wednesday that the mandate is an "indefensible" and unprecedented move by Congress.

The law, it said, "imposes a direct mandate upon individuals to obtain health insurance, marking by all accounts the first time in our nation's history that Congress has required individuals to enter into commerce as a condition of living in the United States."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul_lawsuit

and liberals support this

many liberals are so far out of touch with reality they don't see the erosion of individual rights their "feel good" laws entail. yet amazingly.....when bush was president, they were up in arms about FISA....then quieted down after obama supported it...but yet support this intrusion on our lives.

what gives? if you don't support one kind of intrusion....why do you support this kind?
Click to expand...

If the Repubs had gone along with a government option or a single payer system there wouldn't be this problem.

As for "an 'indefensible' and unprecedented move by Congress" are you suggesting wanting to ensure everyone has access to medical care is indefensible? Are you suggesting people should needlessly suffer? What makes it indefensible?
 
Yurt said:
States ask US court to overturn health overhaul

ATLANTA – More than two dozen states challenging the health care overhaul urged a U.S. appeals court on Wednesday to strike down the Obama administration's landmark law, arguing it far exceeds the federal government's powers.

...

Allowing the law to go forward, the states argued in the 69-page filing, would set a troubling precedent that "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."

So far, three federal judges, all Democratic appointees, have upheld the law. Vinson and the Virginia judge, both Republicans appointees, ruled against it. It seems certain that the broad health care challenge will be resolved only by the nation's top court, and Vinson suggested in a March ruling that the "Supreme Court may eventually be split on this issue as well."

The filing comes about a month after the Justice Department formally appealed Vinson's ruling, arguing that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business.

....

The federal government argued that the requirement is a "quintessential exercise" of the legislative branch's powers, but the states that oppose it countered Wednesday that the mandate is an "indefensible" and unprecedented move by Congress.

The law, it said, "imposes a direct mandate upon individuals to obtain health insurance, marking by all accounts the first time in our nation's history that Congress has required individuals to enter into commerce as a condition of living in the United States."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul_lawsuit

and liberals support this

many liberals are so far out of touch with reality they don't see the erosion of individual rights their "feel good" laws entail. yet amazingly.....when bush was president, they were up in arms about FISA....then quieted down after obama supported it...but yet support this intrusion on our lives.

what gives? if you don't support one kind of intrusion....why do you support this kind?
Click to expand...

i still want a single payer plan, but this will do until something better comes along
 
So far, three federal judges, all Democratic appointees, have upheld the law. Vinson and the Virginia judge, both Republicans appointees, ruled against it.
Click to expand...

just one more example to show we're headed for a very destructive civil war that can't be won and will finally rip the nation apart.
 
apple0154 said:
If the Repubs had gone along with a government option or a single payer system there wouldn't be this problem.

As for "an 'indefensible' and unprecedented move by Congress" are you suggesting wanting to ensure everyone has access to medical care is indefensible? Are you suggesting people should needlessly suffer? What makes it indefensible?
Click to expand...
Sorry but you're wrong. First, a government option/single payer system is essentially the same thing and second, a single payer system would not work with out an individual mandate. Keep in mind all modern wealthy industrial nations, except the USA, have a health care system financed on three fundamental principles.

#1. an individual mandate
#2. a single payer system
#3. price controls.

Obama's reforms does many good things. I'm particularly pleased with the standardizations and reporting requirements it implements, a fact most opponents are either ignorant of it's significance or don't care, but the only fundamental reform being implemented is the individual mandate and the opponents of HC reform understand that. If the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional then HC reform in this nation will be virtually impossible. If that were to occur then eventually the problem of cost will become so bad that the average person will be locked out of the health care system by prohibitive cost and/or the current system would collapse.

I wonder how the opponents of HC reform can oppose the individual mandate for health care but not oppose it for auto insurance?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Sorry but you're wrong. First, a government option/single payer system is essentially the same thing and second, a single payer system would not work with out an individual mandate. Keep in mind all modern wealthy industrial nations, except the USA, have a health care system financed on three fundamental principles.

#1. an individual mandate
#2. a single payer system
#3. price controls.
Click to expand...
yet again, you get the order of priorities in the wrong sequence.


Mott the Hoople said:
I wonder how the opponents of HC reform can oppose the individual mandate for health care but not oppose it for auto insurance?
Click to expand...

mainly, the requirement for auto insurance isn't a federal law. they extort those STATE laws by withholding federal highway funds. I also don't believe that auto insurance requirements are constitutional by state constitutions either.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Pure hyperbole.
Click to expand...

really? tell us mott, where do you see enforced ideology bringing us? I see millions of people resisting violently from either side, depending on whatever legislation is pushed through by the feds and the influence of unamerican policy.

so what do you see? 300 million people gladly accepting enforced behavior against their will?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Sorry but you're wrong. First, a government option/single payer system is essentially the same thing and second, a single payer system would not work with out an individual mandate. Keep in mind all modern wealthy industrial nations, except the USA, have a health care system financed on three fundamental principles.

#1. an individual mandate
#2. a single payer system
#3. price controls.

Obama's reforms does many good things. I'm particularly pleased with the standardizations and reporting requirements it implements, a fact most opponents are either ignorant of it's significance or don't care, but the only fundamental reform being implemented is the individual mandate and the opponents of HC reform understand that. If the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional then HC reform in this nation will be virtually impossible. If that were to occur then eventually the problem of cost will become so bad that the average person will be locked out of the health care system by prohibitive cost and/or the current system would collapse.

I wonder how the opponents of HC reform can oppose the individual mandate for health care but not oppose it for auto insurance?
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. Single payer/government option are not the same thing. This can most readily be determined by the fact that single and option are contradictory terms. To make it really clear for you, single payer would mean one (single) payer. Gov. option would mean other payers with the government as an option.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Sorry but you're wrong. First, a government option/single payer system is essentially the same thing and second, a single payer system would not work with out an individual mandate. Keep in mind all modern wealthy industrial nations, except the USA, have a health care system financed on three fundamental principles.

#1. an individual mandate
#2. a single payer system
#3. price controls.

Obama's reforms does many good things. I'm particularly pleased with the standardizations and reporting requirements it implements, a fact most opponents are either ignorant of it's significance or don't care, but the only fundamental reform being implemented is the individual mandate and the opponents of HC reform understand that. If the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional then HC reform in this nation will be virtually impossible. If that were to occur then eventually the problem of cost will become so bad that the average person will be locked out of the health care system by prohibitive cost and/or the current system would collapse.

I wonder how the opponents of HC reform can oppose the individual mandate for health care but not oppose it for auto insurance?
Click to expand...

First, a government option/single payer system is not the same thing. For example, in Quebec, Canada one has a choice between purchasing a drug plan through a private insurance company or through a government plan. Private insurance companies cover different drugs than the government plan, however, both have to cover certain essential medications so while one does have a choice everyone is covered for vital medications.

Second, a single payer system does not require an individual mandate. While the majority of Provinces in Canada require people to pay a monthly premium such is not he case in Quebec. Every Quebecer is covered. Every Quebecer is issued a medical card which is scanned when visiting a doctor, similar to the way ones credit card is scanned when making a purchase. The "bill" is then forwarded to the government. There is no charge to the individual.

There are many options when implementing a single payer system as dozens of countries have shown. The Repubs have intentionally thwarted what could have been a simple solution. Raise everyone's tax the equivalent of what they would pay for an individual mandate and exempt taxes for those earning less than a minimum amount. It works out to the same thing as people paying individually and the government helping those who can't afford it.

I don't understand the opposition to the health care plan. It's no different than paying taxes for schools and roads and the military and all the other things everyone requires. The vast majority of people who are capable of purchasing health insurance do so. It appears the main opposition is due to not caring if the poor suffer.
 
I am opposed to the health care overhaul. From my perspective, it is targeting the symptom (high cost of insurance) rather than the disease, which is the rising cost of health services. That said, so long as the health care overhaul remains in effect, the individual mandate is an essential piece of the puzzle. By increasing the number of people paying into the system, the increased costs associated with improved benefits (e.g. covering pre-existing conditions) will be offset, in theory. This is why I oppose repealing the individual mandate until the entire law is repealed. Furthermore, I oppose repealing the law until a viable alternative is proposed. Obamacare shouldn't be repealed; it should be replaced.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I think the funniest part of the whole debate over the individual mandate being unconstitutional is that Paul Ryan's proposal, which the House Republicans have passed, requires seniors to buy private health insurance or forgo the value of the Medicare payroll taxes they paid their entire adult lives. So, near as I can tell, it's OK to tax people for their entire working lives and to then give them back some of that money and requiring them to "enter into commerce" by purchasing private health insurance or they lose any benefit from all of those taxes they paid for all of those years, but it's socialist to penalize people for not buying health insurance. Odd stuff.
Click to expand...

why is that funny?
 
apple0154 said:
If the Repubs had gone along with a government option or a single payer system there wouldn't be this problem.

As for "an 'indefensible' and unprecedented move by Congress" are you suggesting wanting to ensure everyone has access to medical care is indefensible? Are you suggesting people should needlessly suffer? What makes it indefensible?
Click to expand...


if obama and the libs had simply focused on medicare...there wouldn't be this problem.

see what i did there?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
really? tell us mott, where do you see enforced ideology bringing us? I see millions of people resisting violently from either side, depending on whatever legislation is pushed through by the feds and the influence of unamerican policy.

so what do you see? 300 million people gladly accepting enforced behavior against their will?
Click to expand...


I see people realizing they have to work together, look after each other, as the economy worsens.

Here's a story of how one woman overcame obstacles, took "personal responsibility", struggled until she made it and then....(Excerpt) Brianna Karp entered the workforce at age ten, supporting her mother and sister throughout her teen years in Southern California. Although her young life was scarred by violence and abuse, Karp stayed focused on her dream of a steady job and a home of her own. By age twenty-two her dream became reality. Karp loved her job as an executive assistant and signed the lease on a tiny cottage near the beach.
And then the Great Recession hit.....(End)
http://girlsguidetohomelessness.com/read-the-book/

Consider the uprisings in the middle east and elsewhere. The spreading of freedom and democracy and capitalism. Everyone entitled to grab all they can. More and more people chasing fewer and fewer resources.

Whether it happens on the other side of the world or at home logic dictates some form of "supervision" will be necessary. The people with little or nothing to lose will be the greater fighter because of that fact as we've seen the correlation with poverty and terrorism. The man trying to provide life's necessities for his family will have a more determined frame of mind than the man unable to afford a vacation.

We see the results of a "capitalist" ideology. From terrorism abroad to building more prisons at home. Only the proverbial blind can not see the direction things are going. History has shown, over and over, when the discrepancy between the Have's and Have-not's reach a certain point the Have's invariably lose.

I believe the majority of people are smart enough to realize that although we'll always have those who feel entitled to more than their share.
 
Yurt said:
if obama and the libs had simply focused on medicare...there wouldn't be this problem.

see what i did there?
Click to expand...

But there would still be a problem because expanding medicare would still mean some people would not qualify. The goal is for everyone to be covered so Medicare would have to be expanded to cover everyone. In that case what would be the difference between that and a full government plan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top