Obamacare has been declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and the entire law has been struck down by a federal judge. According to Mark Levin the decision by this judge clearly states that the administration can not continue to implement the law.
The administration is continuing to implement Obamacare in defiance of the ruling of a federal judge. Obama is breaking the law!
Where is the media?
20 comments:
The ruling will be appealed and probably overturned in my opinion.
Well, according to Chucky Schumer, the judicial isnt a branch of govt, so its all good in the hood.
Whether or not it is overturned at some point in the future is not the point.
As of right now the administration is in violation of a ruling by a federal judge. They are literally breaking the law. How is it that no major media outlet is covering this?
I don't agree with the compulsory purchase of health insurance against our will, period. I don't agree with protecting the right to discriminate against employees who call bullshit and refuse.
Interesting aside though in this article, I' not a Forbes fan but people keep spreading this link around like a "gotcha".
I admit that I don't care what the founding fathers had to say about forced insurance but the fact that many approved should be a surprise to those who evoke them in debate.
But really, who does that?
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/
Very interesting link, Lynn, thanks for posting it.
So, even the founding fathers, albeit in the relatively distant past of America, saw that providing health care to workers, free of charge, actually increases productivity and further empowers the capitalistic essence of democracy.
Workers and management -- working hand in hand. The workers gaining relative stability and the capitalists taking on the financial benefits of their economic risk-taking. All good, in my mind.
But to the Aurorans ...
Oh, but so liberal.
So fascistic.
So hatefilled.
I think the founding fathers were in favor of forcing sailors to buy insurance so the shipping industry would not suffer the setbacks of an unhealthy (but essential) labor pool.
I am not sure that we need to insulate industry from labor shortages caused by illness these days, or we are within our rights to ask industry to foot that cost. (some say this is how it has been, employers providing insurance to protect their labor resource)
I think there is a huge difference though between "providing care" and forcing people to buy insurance.
When you force people to buy insurance you have to then consider what happens to the people who cannot afford it. Subsidize? Create an office of workers to process exceptions? Volumes of regulations for every possible exclusion?
And then there is the forced relationship between the insurance providers, the government forcing citizens to enter into contractual arrangements with terms that may or may not be favorable.
The government is, through compulsory participation, potentially interfering with the supply and demand of the service and that might hurt the "little people", not help. Where is the left on that?
That is my real concern. I would like to see every person have health care. Absolutely. But this is not about accomplishing that.
If the police came to everyone's door and said "you must buy carpet cleaning" what would happen to the price of carpet cleaning?
What if you wanted to clean your carpet yourself? You would be breaking an unjust law.
This is not about right or left but about abuse of law. Which I oppose.
This is when the truth of "reform" is revealed to be a giveaway that screws US. Again.
so, taking it from different perspective, you must then think that people should not be forced, by law, to insure their motor vehicles?
when people do not maintain insurance on motor vehicles, who gets screwed when you have a serious accident caused by some uninsured driver?
you do.
it's the same with health insurance. if your next door neighbor has a heart attack on the street and an ambulance comes and takes him or her to the hospital, the hospital has an obligation to take care of your neighbor. who is going to pay for that since you neighbor has no insurance?
you do, through higher premiums.
perhaps your job pays for your health insurance. well then good for you. perhaps the auroans have jobs that pay their insurance. good for them as well. as a person who employs people as well as pays my own insurance premium, i know what it means when premiums go up because of not only fraud, abuse and corruption within the system, but, as well, the "trickle up" of the costs of providing care to the uninsured.
Anita,
I respectfully reiterate that I make a distinction between the need to have HEALTH CARE and the idea of forcing citizens to purchase it by law.
I am not arguing against health care or insurance or advocating the neglect of the vulnerable.
These are two different issues.
I am saying that I do not think we should be forced to buy a policy or be punished by our government, such as by wage attachment or fines.
What you are defending is the need to have health care.
I am against compulsory insurance.
And by your admission, you feel the pain of premium increases, how would you like to be a family of five scraping by and get that increase? But be told you are breaking the law if you don't suck it up and deal?
And I can decide not to drive.
And an ambulance can choose to aggressively pursue me for costs, I am not sure that it IS your problem if an ambulance comes and gets me. The fact that hospitals pass on costs is a flaw, not a reason to violate my rights.
Using your logic, people can make the case for lots of things being "good". We could require that you send your kid to college or you are fined. We could require that you maintain a healthy weight or you are fined. We could require that you wash your hands because the flu costs money.
I know those are ridiculous examples, but the trouble Anita is that government should not be in the business of legislating "good" behavior.
And again, forcing people to buy insurance helps the hospitals and insurance companies protect their bottom lines but not necessarily the average working man or woman.
Do you think protecting the hospital from costs is a good reason to force people to buy insurance?
We could also have a "catastrophic plan" or something like flood insurance, to address huge costs. Actually, some people purchase catastrophic cost insurance and then pay regular bills with the money they would have spent on premiums.
Lynn, you are missing a very important element here. The economics of insurance is that the more people you have in the pool of insureds, the fewer times hospitals and doctors and so on have to 'pick up the slack' of those who are uninsured. The net result is, therefore, greater economies of scale with regard to health care costs and, as a carryon, premiums.
It's true that it's the struggling families who are hardest hit by raising premiums. But they are also the ones whose lives are destroyed most often by medical bill for which they are either uninsured or underinsured. And it's not just catastrophic illnesses that can bankrupt people, it can be just the basic costs of chronic illnesses which require expensive medications on a long term or permanent basis, chronic pain patients, for example.
I believe the government does have a role in leveling the playing field with regard to making sure that those at the bottom are not allowed to fall through the cracks. And I believe that it makes overall economic sense to require everyone to have health insurance. This tone of, "how dare he", coming from the right, is kind of comical, particularly when it's coming from members of congress who have the best benefits (our) money can buy.
And as to whether or not you decide to have a car is irrelevant. Yes, you can decide not to have a car. But you can't "decide" not to get cancer.
A few points if I may.
1. This post wasn't about the debate on Obamacare but about the FACT that a federal judge has declared it unconstitutional and therefore our president is LITERALLY breaking the law by continuing to implement it. And yet the media is silent.
2. I'm pretty sure this maritime law has no relevance to the actual situation. I don't say this because i'm a legal expert, but because the actual legal experts who are trying the case have not mentioned it in their arguments in favor of Obamacare.
3. My argument against Obamacare is simply that it can't work. Again i'm no genius but I do know that any time our government gets involved in any kind of commerce it gets more expensive and less effective.
4. My suggestion would be to deregulate the insurance industry. Let people shop for what they think they need from whom they choose to get it from. Personally I have a very expensive plan that I don't need or use but is part of my benefits package. Other than the dentist I have not gone to see a doctor in over 15 years. I would rather have the cash in my paycheck and buy catastrophic insurance with a very high deductible. Of course I don't have that option. So my insurance plan includes allows me to go get fertility treatments and probably a sex change operation but it doesn't cover cosmetic dental work.
The system is screwed up already because the government is telling the insurance companies what they have to provide, who they have to provide it to, and where they're allowed to sell it. Is anyone really dumb enough to believe that they will suddenly be able to take an industry as large as this and make it more efficient?
Again, I think we are talking about two different things- arguing for the need to cover the uninsured and the way it should be undertaken.
I'm not saying half of the things you are defending against, Anita.
My position politically is to be concerned about the forceful hand of government.
This doesn't mean that I don't "get" how forcing people to buy insurance has positive benefits for society.
One of the problems with these discussions is that before you know it you are accused of being indifferent about the plight of orphans or some shit, and it all devolves.
I think we should address the problems of the uninsured. I think cancer sucks. I think it sucks to be bankrupt over a heart attack. I understand that it costs less if millions of people send checks to Blue Cross.
But the way to solve a problem is not always to strip citizens of their rights.
I think this will keep going into the "people need insurance" loop and I don't want to get repetitive.
That said, consider that an arrogant and corrupt political regime that strips your rights for good can just as easily strip them for bad.
I'm wary of this, Anita.
Actually, the mandate to purchase insurance is only part of the overall healthcare law. And it doesn't kick in until 2014. So no one is breaking any laws at this point. I am assuming that this will make it to the supreme court eventually (probably sooner rather than later).
And Rhinoceros, I think the "a la cart" system would work for many people. Selection-based plans.
And again, the insurance company has the ability to determine how I- in conjunction with my doctors- treat my problems.
If 17,000 a year is spent on my behalf for medical insurance, it seems odd that I have to tolerate some peon in a cubicle telling me what pill I can take and why.
Anita, as a woman, this control over your body isn't offensive to you?
It is to me.
Once again Anita let me reiterate what I said earlier.
FACT a FEDERAL JUDGE has declared the ENTIRE Obamacare bill to be unconstitutional.
This means that they are to cease and desist with implementing the bill and according to Mark Levin who is a constitutional attorney and worked in the Reagan Justice Department it's pretty clear language.
Therefore the administration is currently in violation of federal law.
Also, I am in fact indifferent to the plight of orphans. No oliver you can't have more!
Maybe Oliver's mother should have been sterilized aqainst her will to cut costs.
Because if it saves money, and prevents Oliver from suffering, it must be good.
Why should Oliver's mother get to have choices? What about Anita's high insurance premiums?
If an ambulance arrives to deliver Oliver, she has to pay that cost.
How fair is that?
Lynn what you're saying is not only crazy, but ACTUALLY HAPPENED right here in the U.S.
We had a eugenics program right here on Long Island long before Hitler was anybody. If you're interested check out a book called
WAR AGAINST THE WEAK by Edwin Black.
Talk about a shameful episode in American history, I was blown away.
I hope it was clear that I was being sarcastic and not actually advocating for this. I was trying to make a point that there are some paths of logic that do not need to lead to a fascist solution.
I think it is our knee jerk reaction to look for a parent "state" to control us to solve problems.
And if you disagree with the solution it is assumed that you have no regard for the impact of the problem.
Rhinoceros you are correct that this has happened, and in other situations as well. I'm sure somebody thought that this was a good idea for the good of society and a bunch of "good" people went along with it.
This is why we should be suspicious any time the state solves a problem by putting a boot on our necks.
Actually I totally agree with you (Lynn) on the idea of some number cruncher deciding what pill and how many of them I should take. And I don't think it's purely a "woman" thing. I think that men should be alarmed as well.
I had that happen to me recently. My doctor gave me a new prescription for 30 mg of a medication, which I've been taking for a least a year. When I went to the pharmacy to pick it up, I was told that "the insurance company" had decided I only needed 20 milligrams!! Someone sitting at a desk telling me that a medication I've been taking for awhile at the same dosage suddenly decides, on their own volition, it's too high. I couldn't believe it.
And to top that off, and to make this particular thread more relevant to me today, I just found out, about an hour ago, that my health insurance company had conducted an "audit" and decided to drop me. Just like that. And I am a person who has had (and continues to be treated for) a "catastrophic" illness. Twelve years of paying premiums (and hundreds of dollars in co-pays), two years of illness and boom!! You're out.
Anyway, bottom line, I think I'm gonna get on this anti-obamacare bandwagon. In fact, Kucinich has indicated that this ruling of the mandate being unconstitutional may end up resulting in Medicare being opened up for all ... which, and I'm sure you will not be surprised to hear, I would be totally in favor of.
I should not have said that, I agree that it is gender neutral.
I threw it in because sometimes I shake my head in the pro-choice camp wondering why there isn't more "my body, my medicine cabinet" revolt.
Where's the march on empire blue cross?
I wonder how many people would be dropped with mandatory insurance, I'm having Allstate flashbacks.
Post a Comment