obamakare dealt blow by Appeals Court
-
QuakerOatshttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44121956/ns/politics-white_house/?GT1=43001
If this sticks at the Supreme Court level (which it clearly should), then they may as well simply repeal the entire disaster and start over. -
believer
fixedQuakerOats;860127 wrote:If this sticks at the Supreme Court level (which it clearly should), then they may as well simply repeal the entire disaster and move on. -
redstreak one
Please let this go away! -
derek bomar
believer;862653 wrote:fixed
you dont think there is a problem to be fixed before this was enacted? -
sleeper
Good. I hope it burns to the ground. What a terrible piece of legislation. -
believer
ObamaKare is the biggest piece of crap legislation to ever be crammed down the throats of Americans in my lifetime. It fixed nothing.derek bomar;862887 wrote:you dont think there is a problem to be fixed before this was enacted?
Is the financing of the finest health care system on the planet in need of some adjustments? No question, but ObamaKare isn't the solution. -
derek bomar
believer;863404 wrote:ObamaKare is the biggest piece of crap legislation to ever be crammed down the throats of Americans in my lifetime. It fixed nothing.
Is the financing of the finest health care system on the planet in need of some adjustments? No question, but ObamaKare isn't the solution.
I'm not arguing the point that it fixed anything. Your previous statement implied there wasn't a problem to begin with. -
BGFalcons82
derek bomar;863410 wrote:I'm not arguing the point that it fixed anything. Your previous statement implied there wasn't a problem to begin with.
The Left then bullrushed in to "solve the problem" because isn't that government's role in our Constitution??? Heaven forbid people solve the issues with the world's greatest health care system. Only Barry, Harry, & Nancy knew how to tackle it and make all of us serf's "feel" better. -
cruiser_96
derek bomar;863410 wrote:I'm not arguing the point that it fixed anything. Your previous statement implied there wasn't a problem to begin with.
Just out of curiosity, can you list just 3 problems withe prior state of health care. (I don't mind your answer...just would like to see some of your points.) -
derek bomar
cruiser_96;863423 wrote:Just out of curiosity, can you list just 3 problems withe prior state of health care. (I don't mind your answer...just would like to see some of your points.)
inability to buy across state lines
the fact that we pay for people already to get healthcare who don't have it, yet we do so in a really inefficient way (hospital emergency rooms vs. pre-screening or preventative care)
lack of fluid information sharing / record keeping
these things just came to mind as issues pre-obamacare that I would have liked to have seen fixed by:
1) allowing individuals to buy across state lines
2) not sure about #2 without mandating everyone have insurance....
3) investment in upgrading the way we keep medical records (I'm not an expert, but the fact that only about 6% of physicians use fully-functional Electronic Health Record system in their practices bothers me) -
derek bomar
BGFalcons82;863421 wrote:The Left then bullrushed in to "solve the problem" because isn't that government's role in our Constitution??? Heaven forbid people solve the issues with the world's greatest health care system. Only Barry, Harry, & Nancy knew how to tackle it and make all of us serf's "feel" better.
again...not arguing with the point that obamacare sucks... we agree bud -
BGFalcons82
derek bomar;863471 wrote:inability to buy across state lines
the fact that we pay for people already to get healthcare who don't have it, yet we do so in a really inefficient way (hospital emergency rooms vs. pre-screening or preventative care)
lack of fluid information sharing / record keeping
I heard a good one today regarding your first point. Health insurance was not and is not available for purchase across state lines. One of the Left's tenets that they claim makes Obamakare Constitutional is the fact that health care falls under the never-ending auspices of what we know as, "The Commerce Clause". Now, by definition, The Commerce Clause is for interstate commerce. Since Obamakare is not portable between states, then how in the hell is this covered by The Commerce Clause which regulates commerce between states?
Ironically, the R's are FOR purchase of heath insurance across state lines, thus entering into The Commerce Clause sphere of influence. -
BoatShoesBGFalcons82;863559 wrote:I heard a good one today regarding your first point. Health insurance was not and is not available for purchase across state lines. One of the Left's tenets that they claim makes Obamakare Constitutional is the fact that health care falls under the never-ending auspices of what we know as, "The Commerce Clause". Now, by definition, The Commerce Clause is for interstate commerce. Since Obamakare is not portable between states, then how in the hell is this covered by The Commerce Clause which regulates commerce between states?
Ironically, the R's are FOR purchase of heath insurance across state lines, thus entering into The Commerce Clause sphere of influence.
Under a Justice Thomas style view of the Commerce Clause, which you adhere to, it is unlikely that Congress has the power to regulate insurance. In 1869, Paul v. Virginia the SCOTUS first ruled that Issuing an insurance policy was not commerce and therefore that it was beyond the regulation of commerce. It wasn't until U.S. v. Southeastern Underwriters in 1945 (when they were expanding the scope of the commerce clause to unconscionable heights in the conservative view) that the Court determined that Congress could indeed regulate insurance transactions. In the Aftermath, Congress, in perhaps a bold propping up of State's Rights at the time, passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act which exempted the insurance business from most federal regulation and left it to the states.
So, if you're going to say that Congress has the authority to regulate health insurance, you're going to have to accept a broader view of the commerce clause and federal regulatory authority or be left with the more protectionist state based system we have now that might be more constitutionally pure under a strict constructionist view but has, at least in the minds of libertarian types/cato (and IMHO as well fwiw) contributed to the cost problems in our health insurance markets.
But finally, under BHO's health care law, you will be able to purchase insurance from an out of state insurance company through the federally regulated exchanges. They say they have to be in a regulated federal exchange because otherwise there may be a concern that the insurance companies would be cherry picking people in their new state markets. -
BGFalcons82
Thanks, Boat. I'm no lawyer, but it's obvious you've spent some time looking at this.
On a side note, it's sort of intriguing that the SCOTUS over the years has taken the very simple language in "The Commerce Clause" and twisted it to fit whatever whims were blowing in the wind. How in the hell, in 1869, was the purchase of a product not considered commerce? Webster defines it such, so why was the SCOTUS into the rewriting of definitions? It couldn't be that they were influenced by their times, could it??? Same thing with McCarran-Ferguson...how in the hell does an entire industry get exempted? Sounds like there were backroom deals, "Cornhusker-kickback" types, and strong lobbyists in their time. THIS is how we got to the convoluted, assinine, and nee I say corrupt IRS tax code of today. This shit never ends and people wonder why the TEA Party exists to return to Constitutional standards.
Sure makes the Consumption Tax-backers look miles ahead of the curve. I know gut hates the Fair Tax, but it's got to be better than the horsemanure tax code in effect today. But that's for a different thread...sorry. -
fish82
Bottom line...unless Scalia/Roberts/Thomas/Alito or Kennedy get hit by a bus in the next month, the Mandate doesn't have a prayer of surviving.BoatShoes;863817 wrote:Under a Justice Thomas style view of the Commerce Clause, which you adhere to, it is unlikely that Congress has the power to regulate insurance. In 1869, Paul v. Virginia the SCOTUS first ruled that Issuing an insurance policy was not commerce and therefore that it was beyond the regulation of commerce. It wasn't until U.S. v. Southeastern Underwriters in 1945 (when they were expanding the scope of the commerce clause to unconscionable heights in the conservative view) that the Court determined that Congress could indeed regulate insurance transactions. In the Aftermath, Congress, in perhaps a bold propping up of State's Rights at the time, passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act which exempted the insurance business from most federal regulation and left it to the states.
So, if you're going to say that Congress has the authority to regulate health insurance, you're going to have to accept a broader view of the commerce clause and federal regulatory authority or be left with the more protectionist state based system we have now that might be more constitutionally pure under a strict constructionist view but has, at least in the minds of libertarian types/cato (and IMHO as well fwiw) contributed to the cost problems in our health insurance markets.
But finally, under BHO's health care law, you will be able to purchase insurance from an out of state insurance company through the federally regulated exchanges. They say they have to be in a regulated federal exchange because otherwise there may be a concern that the insurance companies would be cherry picking people in their new state markets.