|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Mar 5, 2011 12:39:00 GMT -5
...door... wide... open... ...must... re... sist...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 7:33:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2011 15:46:23 GMT -5
lol... I'm also medicated.... i'll use that as an excuse.... I do not understand what you are trying to say... how about that...
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 5, 2011 17:00:03 GMT -5
MA and TN are not signle payer systems, neither is the UK really- regardless, Canada's system works quite well, so does the UK's. The only thing ours is number one in is per capita cost- and we don't even cover everyone. We let our citizens die and go broke for profit. It is a national disgrace. For some reason you are still under that America is number one at everything delusion- sorry but that ship has sailed long ago. National healthcare is inevitable and tomorrow isn't soon enough. The people will figure it out- and would have already if the GOP had the sack to end medicare as their ideology dictates they should. Instead they choose to scare people with a bunch of bs death panels, bs horror stories about other countries national systems, etc. They know they must kill this bill now because of what it might lead to-the end of private insurance for basic care. People are starting to learn about it, and big insurance's useful idiots are losing ground fast- so defund it, sue, refuse to comply, whatever. Bring out the big guns, because contrary to your opinion, it is insurance companies on the ropes. Vermont is getting their waiver and will be exempt from the plan as they are going to implement a statewide single payer- times are looking up for once.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 6, 2011 20:14:16 GMT -5
oped, you say, "The ONLY part being declared unconstitution is the mandate... if there was a severability clause, the whole thing would not have been deemed unconstitutional... and the Supreme Court has recently settled other issues by saying you don't need a severability clause, you need a specific Non Severability clause if it isn't severable... so the whole thing is not going to be thrown."
Care to cite the case? There's a reason a severability clause is boiler plate. They got in a hurry, they got sloppy because they just wanted to ram it through and they got burned. However, Judge Vinson's ruling however ends this whole debate over severability. The whole thing has been declared unConstitutional, so now each part will have to be defended before the Supreme Court using all the contradictory arguments they've made-- it's a tax, it's not a tax; the whole law hinges on the individual mandate, no, wait, the rest of the law is enforceable...They're in a mess-- a mess they made themselves, and it is a mess the Supreme Court is not likely to stretch very far to clean up for them.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 6, 2011 20:17:10 GMT -5
Canada's system doesn't work well, it works because of the United States bailout to the south. Canada's own elected officials come here for care because the wait is so long there. They have access to the queue, which is a far different matter than access to care.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 7:33:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2011 21:16:23 GMT -5
"While a detailed doctrinal analysis to support this assertion would be more appropriate for another venue, a careful review of the Court's severability reasoning in United States v. Booker and Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board suggests directions in which the Court may be moving the doctrine. Justice Breyer’s pragmatic approach to severability in Booker is more forward-looking and consequentialist than the standard approach. Chief Justice Robert’s approach to severability in Free Enterprise Fund emphasizes the need for clear evidence that Congress intended inseverability; given the typical absence of such evidence, the result of this approach is minimalist with respect to the scope of invalidation (though the pragmatic approach is more likely to be minimalist with respect to practical consequences). Finally, textualist Justices eschew, in other contexts, the sort of exercises in imaginative reconstruction that standard formulations of severability doctrine on their face require. Perhaps they might begin to do so in this context as well. For all these reasons, it is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court would conclude both that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and also that the remainder of the Act is inseverable. "
This is analysis i read, its not what i'd consider a citation worthy source on its own, but it gives the cases. If i have the time to study them more indivdiually, i'll post that too...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 7:33:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2011 21:20:39 GMT -5
Also: Legal Severability and the Case Against Obamacarehttp://www.healthpolicy-news.org/article/28274Maureen Martin, senior fellow for legal affairs of The Heartland Institute, outlines the history of Supreme Court decisions on severability questions, showing that in this case, striking down the individual mandate could have more limited results: “On numerous occasions the Court has ‘severed’ an unconstitutional provision from legislation even though Congress omitted a severability clause. In 1996, for example, the Court held: ‘Although the 1992 Act contains no express ‘severability clause,’ we can find the Act’s ‘severability’ intention in its structure and purpose.’†Martin also spoke about her column and the legal issues in a podcast for Health Care News: www.healthpolicy-news.org/audio.html. Severability and Obamacarehttp://www.redstate.com/ben_domenech/2010/08/17/severability-and-obamacare/The Heartland Institute’s Benjamin Domenech contends the Court will ultimately give a narrower ruling because the vast majority of President Barack Obama’s legislation does not follow from the individual mandate, but such a ruling will have immense consequences anyway: “[T]he overwhelming portion of this legislation is not tied directly to the individual mandate. Yet even if the Court behaved in the same way when deciding the constitutionality of the individual mandate, in practical terms, judging the mandate unconstitutional would set off a domino effect throughout the insurance industry. The mandate is the only thing which made other anti-market regulatory demands (such as guaranteed issue and community rating) workable for the industry.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 6, 2011 22:24:13 GMT -5
Let me clarify the question, because there seems to be some confusion as to what it was: Cite the case law.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 6, 2011 22:25:22 GMT -5
Congress intended inseverability.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 7:33:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2011 22:31:44 GMT -5
United States v. Booker and Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board for one.
Why would you think the congress intended inseverability? There is no specific unseverabililty clause...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 7, 2011 1:08:35 GMT -5
Well, the first clue is there's no severability clause. But then there's the government's own argument which Judge Vinson cited frequently in his 71 page ruling, and because the judge himself has now ruled that the individual mandate is inseverable: www.scribd.com/doc/47909640/vinsonruling1-31-11
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 7, 2011 12:17:42 GMT -5
Kind of funny. If this gets shot down because it forces people to purchase private insurance, then the dems could just rework it to true national healthcare where you don't have to purchase anything. Then instead of picking your health insurance it will just be free healthcare for all. Will the republicans prefer that?
Because careful what you wish for.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 7, 2011 13:22:43 GMT -5
Single payer is what Dems had in mind all along. They didn't do it because it's so wildly unpopular they'd never have gotten it passed. As it stands, they passed a bill that nearly 70% of voters think should be repealed when you really honestly ask and examine the numbers. At one point they were going to "deem and pass" the bill-- just imagine Governor Walker and the Republican-controlled legislature in Wisconsin "deeming a bill passed"-- which also would have made it void, and unConstitutional on the process alone.
As it stands- they can re-write it all day long. This law is going to be struck down, in its entirety, and nothing like it will ever see the light of day in our lifetimes.
You can tell yourself what you want to tell yourself while we all wait, but I'm right on this. It's over. It's mission accomplished for the TEA Party and "We The People".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 7:33:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2011 13:23:13 GMT -5
The lack of severability clause is not evidence of intent not to sever... that's the point.. and people have said Vinson was wrong in that, and the supreme court it unlikely to kick it all... guess we'll have to wait and see...
Severability would generally have been added in the pass between the houses, and since that didn't happen, it didn't get added... pointing to an oversight and not intent... even so... the supreme court has been moving towards the need for express non-severabilty, rather than express severability... ie. it is considered severable until it is stated as being nonseverable...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 7, 2011 13:34:24 GMT -5
oped- it doesn't matter. A judge has ruled the entire bill unConstitutional. It goes to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals now, and they won't overturn the ruling. The Supreme Court-- which could decline to hear the case at all-- will not overturn the ruling, either. THE END IS NEAR...
We're about to put the period at the end of the stupid "national healthcare" debate.
Then we can get on to real, market-based reforms-- because that's all that's left.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 7:33:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2011 13:40:38 GMT -5
Sure paul... whatever...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 7, 2011 13:42:10 GMT -5
Based on what? It doesn't matter what the federal judge has said when it goes to the supreme court.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 7, 2011 13:42:19 GMT -5
The government argued that the mandate was fundamental to the law and that the whole thing wouldn't work without it, they had hoped that a judge wouldn't have the nerve to rule the entire thing unconstitutional.
The bill did have a severability clause at one time but it was removed, some have said as an oversight, others would argue that it was removed because it was integral to the bill so should not be severable and thus the clause was removed from the bill
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 7:33:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2011 13:44:19 GMT -5
It will bankrupt the insurance companies without the mandate.... it will work for me though .... I agree there are some sections that will be lumped, if it comes to that, but i highly doubt it will all be thrown..
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 7, 2011 13:45:59 GMT -5
Based on what? It doesn't matter what the federal judge has said when it goes to the supreme court. I think it matters what lower courts say, but the SCOTUS will have the final say. And even though I think it is a horrible law and that at least the mandate is clearly Unconstitutional, I am not at all confident on how they will rule. I hate that Congress can't seem to do things in steps, why create a 2000 page monstrosity, when they could at least handle some issues that most everybody agrees with.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 7, 2011 14:06:36 GMT -5
Perhaps they will consider the lower courts rulings, but then you have to remember that 2 courts ruled it constitutional & several courts threw the entire case out. So the fact that 2(??) judges have now found it unconstitutional doesn't exactly make this a landslide decision. There have been times when the supreme court has ruled against the lower courts, so really anything could happen.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 7, 2011 14:55:18 GMT -5
Without getting into the back and forth above, there is another article worth reading about Judge Vinson's 7 day order. It says, in part: ".......Judge Vinson decided to treat the dilatory tactics as a motion for a stay, and granted it. But he also gave the Justice Department a mere seven days—that is, this Thursday—to file an appeal and required that it seek an expedited appellate review. He writes that "the battle lines have been drawn, the relevant case law marshalled, and the legal arguments refined." There is no reason for further delay. Along the way, Judge Vinson argues that the Administration's case depends on "stretching existing Supreme Court precedent" about the reach of the Commerce Clause "well beyond its current high water mark and further away from the 'first principles' that underlie our entire federalist system. . . . It is not for a lower could to expand upon Supreme Court jurisprudence, and in the process authorize the exercise of 'highly attractive power' that Congress has never before claimed in the history of the country" ......... online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580004576180552381168580.html?mod=googlenews_wsjWe could use Judge Vinson on the Supreme Court.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Mar 7, 2011 15:06:45 GMT -5
Based on what? It doesn't matter what the federal judge has said when it goes to the supreme court. I think it matters what lower courts say, but the SCOTUS will have the final say. And even though I think it is a horrible law and that at least the mandate is clearly Unconstitutional, I am not at all confident on how they will rule. I hate that Congress can't seem to do things in steps, why create a 2000 page monstrosity, when they could at least handle some issues that most everybody agrees with. Congress didn't create it, they had some administrators or lawyers do it. If congress created it then they wouldn't of had to read it and I doubt more than 5 % read that whole bill. Representation without literation(yes made up word). lol
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 7, 2011 15:28:11 GMT -5
Perhaps they will consider the lower courts rulings, but then you have to remember that 2 courts ruled it constitutional & several courts threw the entire case out. So the fact that 2(??) judges have now found it unconstitutional doesn't exactly make this a landslide decision. There have been times when the supreme court has ruled against the lower courts, so really anything could happen. Tell yourself whatever you have to tell yourself to get through your day. I'm not persuaded. I remain confident that the whole thing is finished. And Barack Obama agrees with me. If you were a confident POTUS defending your defining historical acheivement, would you drag your feet? Neither would I. It's over.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 7, 2011 15:48:56 GMT -5
Right back atcha I don't expect to persuade you, nor do I think you really expect to persuade me. I don't think think this whole thing is just going to go away in a mere 3 days now (per your "1 week away from the death of Obamacare" in your OP). I think it will go to SCOTUS & if they rule it unconstitutional (and I'm not sure what they will rule), then it will probably go back to square 1 in the house & we will see what republicans come up with. We know the general public wants something done about healthcare, so let the republicans take the lead this time. The biggest problem has been that many (not all) that are against the bill have no idea what is in it & many (not all) who are for the bill have no idea what is in it. Most of the arguing about this bill has been around myths, lies, & rumors on both sides. I can't take the polling numbers very serious on these issues because honestly most people have no idea what is in the bill to be able to adequately state whether they want all of it, parts of it, or want the whole thing thrown out. Even on these boards people still like to bring up the death panels - which never existed.
|
|
rovo
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,628
|
Post by rovo on Mar 7, 2011 19:52:27 GMT -5
No, they never existed in name but the concept has to be applied. Calling them "death panels" is just scare tactics. The reality is there will be decisions made as to who will be treated for what and likewise, who will not be treated. There is a finite amount of money for health care and it will be rationed to do the most good for the largest number of people.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 7, 2011 20:42:42 GMT -5
Canada's system doesn't work well, it works because of the United States bailout to the south. Canada's own elected officials come here for care because the wait is so long there. They have access to the queue, which is a far different matter than access to care. I suggest you talk to some Canadians-and while you're at it talk to some (insert any other industrialized nation here) about their health care systems- you might just learn something. And, please- enlighten me to what is so horrible about this law (other than the fact that insurance companies are still allowed to operate). All I can come up with is that it doesn't go far enough-yet.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 7:33:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2011 23:21:55 GMT -5
How about you show me some country where everyone gets exactly what health care they want any time they want, on demand....
Fine... there are limited resources... i'd rather a panel i had some control over through representation make the decisions... rather than some corporation who only had profits as their guiding principle...
|
|
rovo
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,628
|
Post by rovo on Mar 7, 2011 23:51:31 GMT -5
I don't think you are being rational on this item.
The insurance companies do not make the decision on standard treatments. Most of this stuff comes from the State insurance boards. This means we get much more treatment than the insurance companies would like to provide. The State commissions do a pretty good job of defining the coverage since they do not have to pay the bills for the treatments.
When the government is responsible for defining the covered treatments AND responsible for paying the bills, then I can see some problems looking forward. And besides the treatments they (the government) will be such a large portion of the payouts that they will also be able to define, without negotiations, the amount to be received by the doctors and the facilities. If the doctors do not get enough money we will find ourselves with many fewer doctors going forward. Read this as long wait time to see a doctor.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 8, 2011 7:22:38 GMT -5
There are some steps being taken now to mitigate the possible shortage of medical care. As it is now, doctors must see everyone, regardless of the problem with which the patient presents. That's not really necessary, and more and more physicians offices are adding physician's assistants and nurse practitioners to their staffs to deal with the less urgent, less complicated complaints. Emergency rooms are doing the same thing. These professionals can see, and treat a good number of patients who present to the doctor's office, or the ER, saving the doctor's time for those who truly need him/her. Up to now, proper useage has not been made of PAs and NPs, except in rural areas. That's something that should be considered no matter which way we end up going with health care.
|
|