"Individual mandate" deemed unconstitutional.

Started by Zeal Ex Nihilo3 pages

"Individual mandate" deemed unconstitutional.

Freedom: 1. Shitty Democratic policies: 0.

A federal judge struck down the heart of the Obama administration’s health reform law Monday, ruling that the individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

In the closely watched suit brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, District Judge Henry Hudson found that the mandate “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”

Hudson stopped short of blocking the law’s implementation until a higher court acts, but said he expects the administration to honor his ruling.

“The final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court,” Hudson wrote in his ruling. “In this Court’s view, the award of declaratory judgment is sufficient to stay the hand of the executive branch pending appellate review.”

Within hours of his victory, Cuccinelli called for the case to be fast-tracked up to the Supreme Court, arguing that prolonged uncertainty over the law would be detrimental to all parties involved. “The costs we would have to incur implementing…would be wasted if the bill is unconstitutional,” Cuccinelli told reporters Monday.

The Obama administration, however, doesn’t plan to push the case to the high court early. Doing so would be “premature,” one administration official said at a briefing with reporters this week. And, without the Department of Justice’s backing, Cuccinelli may back off on the issue.

“We have not decided what we would do if the Department of Justice was not agreeable to accelerating or skipping the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,” he said.

For its part, the Department of Justice said Monday that it’s confident the law will be upheld by higher courts.

“We are disappointed in today’s ruling but continue to believe – as other federal courts in Virginia and Michigan have found – that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional,” said DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. “There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail.”

The Virginia ruling is arguably the most prominent in an onslaught of legal challenges that immediately followed the law’s passage in March. In another key case in Florida, where 20 states are challenging the law, the court will hear oral arguments on Thursday.

Of the 15 cases that judges have opined on so far, the Virginia suit is the first to strike down any part of the health reform law.

The White House does not believe the decision will have any impact on the ongoing implementation of the health care law. Officials downplayed the suggestion that rulings against the law would create uncertainty in the middle of its implementation, largely because some of the key provisions don’t take effect until 2014. The White House anticipates all challenges to the law will have worked their way through the system by then.

Justice for the little man. Finally.

got.to.be.****ing.kidding.me.

What's the count now, two rulings that uphold it, one that negates it? This means, literally nothing. Everyone knew that its going to get taken to the supreme court, eventually, so pretty much every ruling before that is negligible.

Take the source for what ever it may be.

http://www.newser.com/story/107483/judge-who-nixed-health-care-owns-stake-in-gop-firm.html

Honestly he's kinda right, individual mandate ****ing sucks, if you have a tightly knit oligopoly you have to purchase from.

Obama's "Health Care Reform" is a pile of shit, and it's tragic, that it will likely delay the inevitable and necessary real reform, which hopefully improves the lives of Americans.

Obama's "Health Care Reform" is a pile of shit, and it's tragic, that it will likely delay the inevitable and necessary real reform, which hopefully improves the lives of Americans.

Ding. We need either some form of universal health care or free market health care, but not a crappy mixture of the two.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Ding. We need either some form of universal health care or free market health care, but not a crappy mixture of the two.

Ding. You have Downs Syndrome? Y-yes?

Originally posted by Epic_net_cliche
Ding. You have Downs Syndrome? Y-yes?

Hahahaha Brilliant!!!

Ding. Wiki leak, he does!

Dude, start using subtler socks. I like talking to you, but it doesn't go far if you get banned after 2 seconds.

ok, so here is what makes no sense to me

one of the primary reasons people voted for Obama, at least from my perspective, was the desire for health care reform

so, he pussies out on some universal system (tbh, I don't know a lot about the current plan), makes huge concessions to the republicans, just so he can pass it.

He faced massive protests, calls of "socialist", he has essentially empowered a far right movement (though, hey, health care is, imho, worth stuff like that) because of how pissed it appeared people got.

AND IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE CONSTITUTIONAL

I'm divided between Obama being either a terrible politician or the best ever, depending on how cynical I want to be

He's secretly a Republican agent sent in to discredit and destabilize the Left.

Originally posted by Free_Assange
Hahahaha Brilliant!!!

Ding. Wiki leak, he does!


Originally posted by Epic_net_cliche
Ding. You have Downs Syndrome? Y-yes?

So mad.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so here is what makes no sense to me

one of the primary reasons people voted for Obama, at least from my perspective, was the desire for health care reform

so, he pussies out on some universal system (tbh, I don't know a lot about the current plan), makes huge concessions to the republicans, just so he can pass it.

He faced massive protests, calls of "socialist", he has essentially empowered a far right movement (though, hey, health care is, imho, worth stuff like that) because of how pissed it appeared people got.

AND IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE CONSTITUTIONAL

I'm divided between Obama being either a terrible politician or the best ever, depending on how cynical I want to be


He also made a backroom deal with the ****ing drug companies because he's a corporatist shill. You know what would reduce medication costs? Allowing us to import drugs from Canada freely.

All that hope and change people wanted faced the reality of the American political system.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
He also made a backroom deal with the ****ing drug companies because he's a corporatist shill.

but like, whatever deal he made, isn't it sort of his job to know if it is constitutional or not?

and like, its not like this was some abstract piece of legislature, this was essentially a campaign promise. and it might not be legal.

bewildering incompotence

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You know what would reduce medication costs? Allowing us to import drugs from Canada freely.

but then you are giving money to our socialist asses 😉

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
All that hope and change people wanted faced the reality of the American political system.

and he doesn't even fight against it

change in what?

Originally posted by inimalist
but like, whatever deal he made, isn't it sort of his job to know if it is constitutional or not?

and like, its not like this was some abstract piece of legislature, this was essentially a campaign promise. and it might not be legal.

bewildering incompotence

I don't think individual mandate was part of the specific promise. I also don't see how it could be ruled unconstitutional given that the US already has individual mandate for car insurance based on similar principles.

Originally posted by inimalist
but like, whatever deal he made, isn't it sort of his job to know if it is constitutional or not?

change in what?

Then, we are also talking about programs like Social security and medicare. This plan, no matter my personal issues with it, are no more invasive than mandatory taxes taken in the form of paying into the current generation's support for the next generations government hand out.

"Change", for a second term. I hope he gets it.

What always amazes me is how folks from the likes of the tea party bemoan and decry bailouts for huge corporations, asking why the government doesn't bail them out instead, and then says shit like 'no socialism, no bailouts, no free ride at the expense of responsible tax payers!"....outraged because they didn't get their government check, too.

Originally posted by skekUng
Then, we are also talking about programs like Social security and medicare. This plan, no matter my personal issues with it, are no more invasive than mandatory taxes taken in the form of paying into the current generation's support for the next generations government hand out.

SS and Medicare are hated more than anything else by Libertarians and Tea Partiers. So there's not really a contradiction there.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think individual mandate was part of the specific promise. I also don't see how it could be ruled unconstitutional given that the US already has individual mandate for car insurance based on similar principles.

It depends on how far back certain political perspectives want to move the country. "Keep your government hands off my medicare/cade" resound from the same people who now see this as unjustified (read:democrat, liberal, socialist, etc) intrusion of government. So much of what has gone on in this country is unconstitutional -defined strictly and without the progression intended by the actual document itself- but people are used to it and have had time to consider it theirs, just like other rights. Some people want anything 'new' to be unconstitutional, simply because they're used to what they already have and appreciate. Much like this healthcare reform, as mundane as it might be, change has to be forced on people, like it or not. In a decade, people will be carrying signs that say "Hands off my healthcare!", just like they do medicade and social security now.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
SS and Medicare are hated more than anything else by Libertarians and Tea Partiers. So there's not really a contradiction there.

See my previous post.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think individual mandate was part of the specific promise. I also don't see how it could be ruled unconstitutional given that the US already has individual mandate for car insurance based on similar principles.

But, the car insurance exists in state laws, doesn't it?