PDA

View Full Version : Obamacare ruled unconstitutional...Round 1



OULenexaman
12/13/2010, 03:31 PM
Let the games begin....

(CNN) -- A Virginia federal judge on Monday found a key part of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care reform law unconstitutional, setting the stage for a protracted legal struggle likely to wind up in the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson struck down the "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014. The Justice Department is expected to challenge the judge's findings in a federal appeals court.

Hudson's opinion contradicts other court rulings finding the mandate constitutionally permissible.

"An individual's personal decision to purchase -- or decline purchase -- (of) health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the U.S. Constitution," Hudson wrote. "No specifically constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance."

"Despite the laudable intentions of Congress in enacting a comprehensive and transformative health care regime, the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds," Hudson added. "Salutatory goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers."

A federal judge in Virginia ruled in favor of the administration earlier this month over the purchase requirement issue, mirroring conclusions reached by a judge in Michigan back in October.

Virginia officials had argued that the Constitution's Commerce Clause does not give the government the authority to force Americans to purchase a commercial product -- like health insurance -- that they may not want or need. They equated such a requirement to a burdensome regulation of "inactivity."

Virginia is one of the few states in the country with a specific law saying residents cannot be forced to buy insurance.

"I am gratified we prevailed," said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a conservative Republican elected in 2009. "This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution."

Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, urged Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to request an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court.

:pop: :pop:

MR2-Sooner86
12/13/2010, 03:39 PM
:pop:

3rdgensooner
12/13/2010, 03:40 PM
http://www.peperprojects.com/greeting-cards/images/YeeHaw-lg.jpg

Penguin
12/13/2010, 03:50 PM
Can I sue now to keep the government from forcing me to buy car insurance?

Caboose
12/13/2010, 03:53 PM
Can I sue now to keep the government from forcing me to buy car insurance?

The Federal government forced you to buy car insurance?
Citation needed.

SoonerAtKU
12/13/2010, 03:55 PM
There's no constitutional basis for us having to pay in to Social Security with no opt-out either. I've been holding my breath waiting for that one to be struck down, too. Maybe this will be the big break we need!

Leroy Lizard
12/13/2010, 03:56 PM
"Despite the laudable intentions of Congress in enacting a comprehensive and transformative health care regime, the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds," Hudson added. "Salutatory goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers."


Sounds like good old-fashioned common sense.

OULenexaman
12/13/2010, 03:58 PM
Sounds like good old-fashioned common sense.

yep......suck on it Pelosi and Obama. :mad:

GKeeper316
12/13/2010, 04:00 PM
Can I sue now to keep the government from forcing me to buy car insurance?

states require you to buy car insurance, which you don't have to have or need if you don't drive a car.

pphilfran
12/13/2010, 04:10 PM
states require you to buy car insurance, which you don't have to have or need if you don't drive a car.


And it is liability insurance that is required...

OULenexaman
12/13/2010, 04:12 PM
how in the **** did car insurance get inside my thread??

Penguin
12/13/2010, 04:15 PM
how in the **** did car insurance get inside my thread??


I ****ing posted a question. It got answered. Feel free to delete it.

soonerscuba
12/13/2010, 04:18 PM
I will assume standard outrage regarding the judiciary overturning legislation as a form of activism still applies here, surely no one on this board would be so hypocritical as to laud this decision.

hipsterdoofus
12/13/2010, 04:21 PM
There's no constitutional basis for us having to pay in to Social Security with no opt-out either. I've been holding my breath waiting for that one to be struck down, too. Maybe this will be the big break we need!

Seems that I heard that three counties in Texas opted out when it was allowed...and did quite well with their retirement..

Caboose
12/13/2010, 04:23 PM
I will assume standard outrage regarding the judiciary overturning legislation as a form of activism still applies here, surely no one on this board would be so hypocritical as to laud this decision.

Where is the outrage from the Left against Obama, Pelosi, and the like for wasting the tax-payers money by passing then trying to defending unconstitutional laws?

Aldebaran
12/13/2010, 04:28 PM
Why would someone from the left be outraged by a government trying to make something more socialized? Are you high Caboose?

reflector
12/13/2010, 04:29 PM
I don't worry about the Constitution.


k2iiirr5KI8

Ike
12/13/2010, 04:30 PM
This was all part of the plan of the sinister left to completely destroy the evil insurance companies.

They knew this would happen, which is why they put the mandate plus a separate provision that forbids turning away insureds with pre-existing conditions. So the mandate is gone, leaving the requirement that insurance companies can't turn away people with pre-existing conditions, and nothing to diversify the risk pool. So now people will have every incentive to drop coverage until they get sick....

SpankyNek
12/13/2010, 04:38 PM
This was all part of the plan of the sinister left to completely destroy the evil insurance companies.

They knew this would happen, which is why they put the mandate plus a separate provision that forbids turning away insureds with pre-existing conditions. So the mandate is gone, leaving the requirement that insurance companies can't turn away people with pre-existing conditions, and nothing to diversify the risk pool. So now people will have every incentive to drop coverage until they get sick....

If only the right hadn't crucified the public option....

SpankyNek
12/13/2010, 04:39 PM
states require you to buy car insurance, which you don't have to have or need if you don't drive a car.

Are you required to carry insurance when crossing state lines?

How can a state enforce that?

GKeeper316
12/13/2010, 04:44 PM
Are you required to carry insurance when crossing state lines?

How can a state enforce that?

the state you are crossing into will probably require you to have insurance for the vehicle you are operating...

SoonerAtKU
12/13/2010, 04:46 PM
That's actually not a bad question. If I'm traveling out of state, how am I required to carry insurance if I'm pulled over? How does a Montana statie know that I'm required to carry specific levels of insurance in Missouri, and how can I be cited THERE for failure to carry?

This is all hypothetical, by the way. I've never been to Montana.

SoonerAtKU
12/13/2010, 04:47 PM
the state you are crossing into will probably require you to have insurance for the vehicle you are operating...

What if they require different levels or types of insurance? Can I be cited in one state for not carrying the proper ones if it's legal in my state?

These are things I don't expect would happen, but I have no real idea about.

OULenexaman
12/13/2010, 04:49 PM
:mad: :mad: :mad: since it's already jacked now....joke time..

Dear Abby,



My husband has a long record of money problems.

He runs up huge credit-card bills and at the end of the month, if I try to

pay them off, he shouts at me, saying I am stealing his money.

He says pay the minimum and let our kids worry about the rest, but already

we can hardly keep up with the interest.

.

Also he has been so arrogant and abusive toward our neighbors that most of

them no longer speak to us.

The few that do are an odd bunch, to whom he has been giving a lot of

expensive gifts, running up our bills even more.

.

Also, he has gotten religious.

One week he hangs out with Catholics and the next with people who say the

Pope is the Anti-Christ, and the next he's with Muslums.

.

Finally, the last straw.

He's demanding that before anyone can be in



the same room with him, they must sign a loyalty oath.

It's just so horribly creepy!

Can you help?

.

Signed, Lost in DC



.

Dear Lost:



Stop whining, Michelle.

You can divorce the jerk any time you want.

The rest of us are stuck with him for two more years!:D

AlboSooner
12/13/2010, 04:56 PM
YEAH!!!!1 GO INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!!!

Leroy Lizard
12/13/2010, 05:09 PM
What if they require different levels or types of insurance? Can I be cited in one state for not carrying the proper ones if it's legal in my state?

These are things I don't expect would happen, but I have no real idea about.


A state can require its citizens to purchase insurance. The issue here is whether the Federal government can. The judge says no, and I agree.

hipsterdoofus
12/13/2010, 05:18 PM
YEAH!!!!1 GO INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!!!

Yeah...because the Federal government is so much less evil than insurance companies... :rolleyes:

Ike
12/13/2010, 05:23 PM
YEAH!!!!1 GO INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!!!

If all that happens is that the mandate gets repealed, this will be a pretty raw deal for insurance companies.

3rdgensooner
12/13/2010, 05:23 PM
WHODATHUNKIT!

Judge Who Ruled Health Care Reform Unconstitutional Owns Piece of GOP Consulting Firm (http://gawker.com/5713041/judge-who-ruled-health-care-reform-unconstitutional-owns-piece-of-gop-consulting-firm)

Caboose
12/13/2010, 05:24 PM
Why would someone from the left be outraged by a government trying to make something more socialized? Are you high Caboose?

That isn't what I asked, now is it?

2121Sooner
12/13/2010, 05:24 PM
You sure he doesnt own part of Haliburton too 3G?


He's a Bush appointee.......dont act so surprised.

3rdgensooner
12/13/2010, 05:26 PM
You sure he doesnt own part of Haliburton too 3G?


He's a Bush appointee.......dont act so surprised.What gave you the impression I'm the least bit surprised?

2121Sooner
12/13/2010, 05:27 PM
What gave you the impression I'm the least bit surprised?

Cause you said Whodathunkit!

Aldebaran
12/13/2010, 05:27 PM
That isn't what I asked, now is it?

Wait.. You're right... It was so poorly written I forced to guess... What did you ask?

3rdgensooner
12/13/2010, 05:28 PM
Cause you said Whodathunkit!Yeeeess, which in this part of Amurica is a sarcastic retort implying a lack of surprise.

2121Sooner
12/13/2010, 05:30 PM
Yeeeess, which in this part of Amurica is a sarcastic retort implying a lack of surprise.


Whodathunkit!

OULenexaman
12/13/2010, 05:31 PM
I thunkit right off the bat...game on!!

2121Sooner
12/13/2010, 05:32 PM
I am just thankful that GW appointed such a nice fella to the bench.

Aldebaran
12/13/2010, 05:34 PM
Because he'll save us all.

opksooner
12/13/2010, 05:35 PM
(CNN) -- A Virginia federal judge on Monday found ===> a key part<=== of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care reform law unconstitutional, setting the stage for a protracted legal struggle likely to wind up in the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson struck down the===> "individual mandate"<=== requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014. The Justice Department is expected to challenge the judge's findings in a federal appeals court.

Hudson's opinion contradicts other court rulings finding the mandate constitutionally permissible.

...just sayin'

Tony
12/13/2010, 05:37 PM
The individual mandate is an idea invented by the Republican Party.

Caboose
12/13/2010, 05:43 PM
Wait.. You're right... It was so poorly written I forced to guess... What did you ask?

Do you have anything valuable to say? It was written in plain English.

KC//CRIMSON
12/13/2010, 05:46 PM
:mad: :mad: :mad: since it's already jacked now....joke time..

Dear Abby,

http://www.laughparty.com/funny-pictures/Dear-Dr-Ruth-438.jpg

Aldebaran
12/13/2010, 05:53 PM
trying to defending

This. And it was typed.

Caboose
12/13/2010, 05:59 PM
This. And it was typed.

So, no then? You dont have anything to add?

soonercruiser
12/13/2010, 07:13 PM
Can I sue now to keep the government from forcing me to buy car insurance?

DUH!
You don't have to buy car insurance!
Just choose no to drive an automobile. Driving an automobile is a "priviledge"; not a "right".
:rolleyes:

soonercruiser
12/13/2010, 07:15 PM
I will assume standard outrage regarding the judiciary overturning legislation as a form of activism still applies here, surely no one on this board would be so hypocritical as to laud this decision.

You mean you support the Demoncrats shoving it down our throats, when 67% of Americans didn't want Obamacare in the first place????

soonercruiser
12/13/2010, 07:24 PM
This was all part of the plan of the sinister left to completely destroy the evil insurance companies.

They knew this would happen, which is why they put the mandate plus a separate provision that forbids turning away insureds with pre-existing conditions. So the mandate is gone, leaving the requirement that insurance companies can't turn away people with pre-existing conditions, and nothing to diversify the risk pool. So now people will have every incentive to drop coverage until they get sick....

Ike,
Many of the big insurance companies and drug companies were bought off in the secret negitiation with the Demoncrats.

Haven't you seen all the stories about insurance premiums going up drastically? Why aren't the Obama Administration, Reid, and Peeloski outraged??

Have you seen all the increased drug costs lately; and the drug companies discontinuing low cost generic programs ?? Why aren't the Obama Administration, Reid, and Peeloski outraged??

Same way the AARP sold seniors down the river in supporting Obamacare. Why? So they couls sell more Medicare supplement insurance policies!

I posted the story a day or two ago about Obama SEIU thugs - SEIU cutting the childrens insurance policies for low income employees!
OBAMACARE IS A Demoncratic SCAM!!!!

soonercruiser
12/13/2010, 07:33 PM
SEE!
THIS...is what happens when you have to catch up on 3 pages of posts on the day's most important piece of news!
:D

http://members.cox.net/franklipsinic/Bush/bush-miss-me-yet.jpg

soonercoop1
12/13/2010, 07:34 PM
how in the **** did car insurance get inside my thread??

Failed lib talking points?

JohnnyMack
12/13/2010, 07:41 PM
I will assume standard outrage regarding the judiciary overturning legislation as a form of activism still applies here, surely no one on this board would be so hypocritical as to laud this decision.

Heh.

Penguin
12/13/2010, 08:11 PM
Okay. I have another question. Yes, get ready to start flipping out again, neocons.


So, you cannot require everyone to get insurance. Therefore, the health insurance companies cannot spread out the risk and costs. In other words, the only people with health insurance are the ones who can afford it and that think that there is a possibility of bad health in their future. So, now we will continue to have poor people and people who thought they were indestructible to use the emergency room as their primary physician. The hospitals will continue to use resources on people who cannot or will not pay. So, they will have to spread around the costs to people with insurance.


How is that good for America?

AlbqSooner
12/13/2010, 09:24 PM
DUH!
You don't have to buy car insurance!
Just choose no to drive an automobile. Driving an automobile is a "priviledge"; not a "right".
:rolleyes:

Life, on the other hand, is a right, not a privilege. You cannot legally choose not to live. Hence, you cannot opt out of buying health insurance.

Which gives rise to another question: Is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applicable to Penguins? Anyone?

OULenexaman
12/13/2010, 09:28 PM
You mean you support the Demoncrats shoving it down our throats, when 67% of Americans didn't want Obamacare in the first place????

^^^^HELLO?? Go cruiser.:D

JohnnyMack
12/13/2010, 09:48 PM
Okay. I have another question. Yes, get ready to start flipping out again, neocons.


So, you cannot require everyone to get insurance. Therefore, the health insurance companies cannot spread out the risk and costs. In other words, the only people with health insurance are the ones who can afford it and that think that there is a possibility of bad health in their future. So, now we will continue to have poor people and people who thought they were indestructible to use the emergency room as their primary physician. The hospitals will continue to use resources on people who cannot or will not pay. So, they will have to spread around the costs to people with insurance.


How is that good for America?

It's not.

The answer is that neither the right or the left has come up with a plan to REDUCE the overall cost of healthcare in America.

GKeeper316
12/13/2010, 09:58 PM
It's not.

The answer is that neither the right or the left has come up with a plan to REDUCE the overall cost of healthcare in America.

the only way to reduce the cost of health care in america is to regulate it as a business... no more doctors making a mil a year, no more drug companies spending millions of dollars marketing newly developed drugs that have only a marginal increased effect than those already available... no more insurance company CEOs and their boards giving themselves millions in annual bonuses, and no more insurance lobbyists buying congressional votes to secure their own financial futures at the expense of the health of the people they're in business to help.

i've said it before, i'll say it again... keeping people healthy and alive should not be a for profit venture.

soonercruiser
12/13/2010, 10:06 PM
Okay. I have another question. Yes, get ready to start flipping out again, neocons.


So, you cannot require everyone to get insurance. Therefore, the health insurance companies cannot spread out the risk and costs. In other words, the only people with health insurance are the ones who can afford it and that think that there is a possibility of bad health in their future. So, now we will continue to have poor people and people who thought they were indestructible to use the emergency room as their primary physician. The hospitals will continue to use resources on people who cannot or will not pay. So, they will have to spread around the costs to people with insurance.

How is that good for America?

The ER problem is not fixed by Obamacare.
There will always be people who think that it is cheaper to pay the penalty, rather than by insurance... and they will still use the ER.
In case you didn't see, there is a new trend in the metro to have ERs actually schedule non-life and death visits.

And, I posted the story about even Obama's SEIU cutting off health insurance for children of low wage employees as a cost saving measure.

soonercruiser
12/13/2010, 10:11 PM
Life, on the other hand, is a right, not a privilege. You cannot legally choose not to live. Hence, you cannot opt out of buying health insurance.
Which gives rise to another question: Is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applicable to Penguins? Anyone?

What kind of reasoning is that??

Oh! I am not going to have my right to be "happy" fulfilled unless you give me some of your $$ !!
:rolleyes:

Life and freedom are GOD given rights.
(In case it helps....that's "the right to 'be' and stay alive"!)
(Unless a lib mother thinks you might spoil her life!)

OULenexaman
12/13/2010, 10:14 PM
i've said it before, i'll say it again... keeping people healthy and alive should not be a for profit venture.
damn I'm speechless on that one...by that I guess the next time I have to get up at 3am to run down to my DC operation for an electric motor going to a Hospital that is needed for a breakdown on critical life saving equipment I should do that shatt for free??:rolleyes:

soonercruiser
12/13/2010, 10:16 PM
the only way to reduce the cost of health care in america is to regulate it as a business... no more doctors making a mil a year, no more drug companies spending millions of dollars marketing newly developed drugs that have only a marginal increased effect than those already available... no more insurance company CEOs and their boards giving themselves millions in annual bonuses, and no more insurance lobbyists buying congressional votes to secure their own financial futures at the expense of the health of the people they're in business to help.

i've said it before, i'll say it again... keeping people healthy and alive should not be a for profit venture.

GREAT LIBERAL SOCIALIST WISH LIST!!
YOUR first copuple of suggestions destroy quality healthcare in America, like England and Russia.
In Russia, what used to be midwives are now your doctors. The pay is extremely poor.
I agree with the lobbying and evil Congressional behavior.
But, then how about legislating a cap on professional athlete's salaries??
Too many poor people are paying too much for baseball and basketball tickets.

IT'S AMERICA!!

GKeeper316
12/13/2010, 10:21 PM
damn I'm speechless on that one...by that I guess the next time I have to get up at 3am to run down to my DC operation for an electric motor going to a Hospital that is needed for a breakdown on critical life saving equipment I should do that shatt for free??:rolleyes:

are you contracted by the hospital to do that work for them?

JohnnyMack
12/13/2010, 10:36 PM
the only way to reduce the cost of health care in america is to regulate it as a business... no more doctors making a mil a year, no more drug companies spending millions of dollars marketing newly developed drugs that have only a marginal increased effect than those already available... no more insurance company CEOs and their boards giving themselves millions in annual bonuses, and no more insurance lobbyists buying congressional votes to secure their own financial futures at the expense of the health of the people they're in business to help.

i've said it before, i'll say it again... keeping people healthy and alive should not be a for profit venture.

Disagree.

As level of education increases, so does overall health. Education programs will lower the overall cost of healthcare.

AlboSooner
12/13/2010, 11:15 PM
WHODATHUNKIT!

Judge Who Ruled Health Care Reform Unconstitutional Owns Piece of GOP Consulting Firm (http://gawker.com/5713041/judge-who-ruled-health-care-reform-unconstitutional-owns-piece-of-gop-consulting-firm)

lol.

The French bourgeoisie would have envied and worshiped at the feet of these people, just to learn the trick of how to make the poor, worry and fight for the 2% super wealthy of the population. If only graphs, useless stats, and the media was available back then...

AlboSooner
12/13/2010, 11:23 PM
http://members.cox.net/franklipsinic/Bush/bush-miss-me-yet.jpg

Yes. I miss a $12 trillion deficit, not capturing Bin laden, misusing billions of dollars in Iraq, giving money to Pakistan which in turn gives it to the Taliban. I miss bailing out the rich people, and blaming it on Obama. I miss the quagmire which was the management of the war in Iraq, which cost America many lives, and trillions of dollars. I miss the government spending increasing by 44% compared to Clinton, who in turn was considered a big spender. I miss the brilliant no child left behind. Please come back W. :rolleyes:

SanJoaquinSooner
12/13/2010, 11:35 PM
Yes. I miss a $12 trillion deficit, not capturing Bin laden, misusing billions of dollars in Iraq, giving money to Pakistan which in turn gives it to the Taliban. I miss bailing out the rich people, and blaming it on Obama. I miss the quagmire which was the management of the war in Iraq, which cost America many lives, and trillions of dollars. I miss the government spending increasing by 44% compared to Clinton, who in turn was considered a big spender. I miss the brilliant no child left behind. Please come back W. :rolleyes:

I wish I could say I miss no child left behind. Unfortunately they didn't set an expiration date on that supernova piece of sh1t.

prrriiide
12/14/2010, 12:03 AM
no more doctors making a mil a year.

Non-starter. I'm not about to tell a doctor that he hasn't earned every penny he makes after living through the hell of residency and racking up a set of student loans that could pay for a VERY nice vacation estate in Palm Beach. To me, GOOD doctors have earned every cent they get. Besides, who's next? Who's next to get their pay limited by law? Lawyers (they do drive up insurance costs by encouraging the suing of doctors, often frivolously)? Convenience store owners (they do sell mostly junk food)? TV producers (they do encourage a sedentary lifestyle)? Computers salesmen (they do encourage people to sit and click away for hours at a time)? Probably don't need to go down that road.

The only way to reduce costs is to reduce demand. That means a healthier population. That means that neither Obamacare nor any other healthcare "solution" that has been bandied about have touched on the necessities of bringing down costs. Where are the mandates that all new residential subdivisions must have sidewalks on at least one side of every street? Where is the money for greenways to connect the new subdivisions? Where is the mandate that all new thoroughfares must be built with bike lanes in both directions? Where is the legislation that ensures that healthy foods cost the same as the hyper-preserved, artificially-flavored schidt that you buy in the store for half the price? Where are the changes to the tax code that encourage 1) individuals to live a healthy lifestyle and 2) corporations to help them accomplish that? There has to be legislation that reduces the threat of litigation, not just limiting the damages. I needs to be much harder to sue a provider when they have made their best effort in good faith.

There needs to be a much greater emphasis on nutrition and health curriculum in public schools, from Kindergarten to graduation. Kids (and parents) need to know that drinking one 12 oz can of coke is NO DIFFERENT than eating four spoons full of sugar at a time, it only tastes better. People need to know that what you get in your pasta bowl at Olive Garden is really about 3 servings of your entree. People need to know that a large QP with cheese and a large fries meal from Micky-D's contains 70% of your daily fat recommendation in one meal. It's like shovelling 18 teaspoons of pure lard in your mouth at a time. People need to know that.

Until we see the trifecta of better education and information, easier access to (read: cheaper) healthy food, and encouragement to exercise safely without a monthly gym fee, we aren't going to see a significant decrease in healthcare costs. Any legislation that doesn't address those issues isn't worth wiping your arse with, and will be as effective as a screen door on a submarine. Making people buy insurance isn't going to do anything other than make the insurance companies richer.

I have no problem with someone making a profit keeping people healthy. But when the profits are put above the people and that service is made unattainable by a significant portion of the population, then it's a problem. There's a middle ground in there. Unfortunately, the new Speaker of the House has declared "compromise" to be a dirty word. Not that anyone in DC is too fond of the word to begin with.

47straight
12/14/2010, 12:07 AM
Yes. I miss a $12 trillion deficit, not capturing Bin laden, misusing billions of dollars in Iraq, giving money to Pakistan which in turn gives it to the Taliban. I miss bailing out the rich people, and blaming it on Obama. I miss the quagmire which was the management of the war in Iraq, which cost America many lives, and trillions of dollars. I miss the government spending increasing by 44% compared to Clinton, who in turn was considered a big spender. I miss the brilliant no child left behind. Please come back W. :rolleyes:

Wow, every single one of those has gotten worse since W left.

47straight
12/14/2010, 01:10 AM
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/12/13/flashback-pelosi-asked-if-obamacare-individual-mandate-is-constitutional-are-you-serious-you-can-put-this-on-the-record-that-is-not-a-serious-question/


Hee-hee. We can all have a good discussion about the constitutionality issue and disagree. But to act indignant with a "are you serious" response (I hate the "seriously?" debate tactic) only to get shown up later takes a real horses ***.

Turd_Ferguson
12/14/2010, 01:40 AM
Yes. I miss a $12 trillion deficit, not capturing Bin laden, misusing billions of dollars in Iraq, giving money to Pakistan which in turn gives it to the Taliban. I miss bailing out the rich people, and blaming it on Obama. I miss the quagmire which was the management of the war in Iraq, which cost America many lives, and trillions of dollars. I miss the government spending increasing by 44% compared to Clinton, who in turn was considered a big spender. I miss the brilliant no child left behind. Please come back W. :rolleyes:Your sh*t'n us...right?

OnlyOneOklahoma
12/14/2010, 06:03 AM
Judge should have recused himself. He owns stock in a company that runs campaigns for prominent Republicans. Also he was appointed by Bush.

by making a decision like this, his partiality has been challenged.

EnragedOUfan
12/14/2010, 07:08 AM
All Republicans and most Americans should be rejoicing right now..........The insurance companies will probably eventually end up winning since this law is really not even going to be in full effect until 2014 and will probably be repealed before then. Ultimately, this will results in more profits and less rules to the insurance companies (which everyone seems to want) and more money to Republican congressman since they'll be making a ton of money from the lobbyists which will help with their reelection. Capitalism at its finest....

AlbqSooner
12/14/2010, 07:12 AM
What kind of reasoning is that??

Oh! I am not going to have my right to be "happy" fulfilled unless you give me some of your $$ !!
:rolleyes:

Life and freedom are GOD given rights.
(In case it helps....that's "the right to 'be' and stay alive"!)
(Unless a lib mother thinks you might spoil her life!)

It is solid reasoning. And if you ponder on its meaning you will realize that it supports your position.

The government can force people to buy car insurance without impinging on the Constitution because they have the ability to opt out by not driving.

The government cannot force people to buy insurance without impinging on the Constitution because they are not given an opt out source. Under Obamacare, you MUST be drawn into the "stream of Commerce" by purchasing a product that you may or may not wish to purchase. This judge ruled that the Constitution does not contain any enumerated powers granted to Congress which would allow them to require individuals to purchase a product that they do not want and may not need.

My post does NOT suggest that you or anyone else give me money. It simply suggests that Congress cannot, in this instance, require ME to give it any of my money.

SpankyNek
12/14/2010, 08:43 AM
If the government can force you to buy into social security, they are certainly within their rights to force a purchase of healthcare.

The Canadian system works rather well, costs are reduced, and private insurance is flourishing in that country.

Remember all of the Cipro we bought from Canada during the Anthrax scare because they could negotiate a better rate than we could get?

It is all about buying power.

The Pres would have been better off by simply increasing everyone's Federal Income Tax by $300 and giving a credit to those that could prove coverage...it would have made this argument moot.

Allowing anyone to buy into Medicare would have been the proper way to go, IMO (The old McCain, Liebermann plan).

sappstuf
12/14/2010, 10:12 AM
Judge should have recused himself. He owns stock in a company that runs campaigns for prominent Republicans. Also he was appointed by Bush.

by making a decision like this, his partiality has been challenged.

You're right.. We should only allow judges that were appointed by Dems to make judgements on bills that were passed by Dems.

Aldebaran
12/14/2010, 10:19 AM
http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/we-will-kill-you-in-your-sleep-on-christmas.jpg

DIB
12/14/2010, 10:22 AM
Judge should have recused himself. He owns stock in a company that runs campaigns for prominent Republicans. Also he was appointed by Bush.

by making a decision like this, his partiality has been challenged.

If an Obama appointed judge had ruled the law constitutional, would his partiality be in question? Every judge has ties to one party or another. Should each party's judges, alone, be allowed to rule on laws passed by a congress controlled by that party? It seems in the spirit of Checks and Balances that a judge from one party would rule on the laws passed by another.

OUMallen
12/14/2010, 10:26 AM
Non-starter. I'm not about to tell a doctor that he hasn't earned every penny he makes after living through the hell of residency and racking up a set of student loans that could pay for a VERY nice vacation estate in Palm Beach. To me, GOOD doctors have earned every cent they get. Besides, who's next? Who's next to get their pay limited by law? Lawyers (they do drive up insurance costs by encouraging the suing of doctors, often frivolously)? Convenience store owners (they do sell mostly junk food)? TV producers (they do encourage a sedentary lifestyle)? Computers salesmen (they do encourage people to sit and click away for hours at a time)? Probably don't need to go down that road.

The only way to reduce costs is to reduce demand. That means a healthier population. That means that neither Obamacare nor any other healthcare "solution" that has been bandied about have touched on the necessities of bringing down costs. Where are the mandates that all new residential subdivisions must have sidewalks on at least one side of every street? Where is the money for greenways to connect the new subdivisions? Where is the mandate that all new thoroughfares must be built with bike lanes in both directions? Where is the legislation that ensures that healthy foods cost the same as the hyper-preserved, artificially-flavored schidt that you buy in the store for half the price? Where are the changes to the tax code that encourage 1) individuals to live a healthy lifestyle and 2) corporations to help them accomplish that? There has to be legislation that reduces the threat of litigation, not just limiting the damages. I needs to be much harder to sue a provider when they have made their best effort in good faith.

There needs to be a much greater emphasis on nutrition and health curriculum in public schools, from Kindergarten to graduation. Kids (and parents) need to know that drinking one 12 oz can of coke is NO DIFFERENT than eating four spoons full of sugar at a time, it only tastes better. People need to know that what you get in your pasta bowl at Olive Garden is really about 3 servings of your entree. People need to know that a large QP with cheese and a large fries meal from Micky-D's contains 70% of your daily fat recommendation in one meal. It's like shovelling 18 teaspoons of pure lard in your mouth at a time. People need to know that.

Until we see the trifecta of better education and information, easier access to (read: cheaper) healthy food, and encouragement to exercise safely without a monthly gym fee, we aren't going to see a significant decrease in healthcare costs. Any legislation that doesn't address those issues isn't worth wiping your arse with, and will be as effective as a screen door on a submarine. Making people buy insurance isn't going to do anything other than make the insurance companies richer.

I have no problem with someone making a profit keeping people healthy. But when the profits are put above the people and that service is made unattainable by a significant portion of the population, then it's a problem. There's a middle ground in there. Unfortunately, the new Speaker of the House has declared "compromise" to be a dirty word. Not that anyone in DC is too fond of the word to begin with.

Your doctor friends need to be smarter if their loans could pay for a "VERY" nice vacation estate in Palm Springs. Wouldn't that be over a mil?

The ONLY way to reduce costs is to reduce demand? Seriously, you think that is the ONLY possible way?

Also, there are more problems than just obesity.

Get some perspective.

Aldebaran
12/14/2010, 10:26 AM
DIB,

Obviously we should have a quasi-priesthood of judges who are segregated from society and politics. We should probably ritualistically cut off their nuts as well (if applicable).

Only then will we be able to say we are getting pure rulings on the law and not some farsical partisan squabbling in our legal system.

Let's make it happen.

OUMallen
12/14/2010, 10:27 AM
If the government can force you to buy into social security, they are certainly within their rights to force a purchase of healthcare.

The Canadian system works rather well, costs are reduced, and private insurance is flourishing in that country.

Remember all of the Cipro we bought from Canada during the Anthrax scare because they could negotiate a better rate than we could get?

It is all about buying power.

The Pres would have been better off by simply increasing everyone's Federal Income Tax by $300 and giving a credit to those that could prove coverage...it would have made this argument moot.

Allowing anyone to buy into Medicare would have been the proper way to go, IMO (The old McCain, Liebermann plan).

Best post so far.

DIB
12/14/2010, 10:39 AM
DIB,

Obviously we should have a quasi-priesthood of judges who are segregated from society and politics. We should probably ritualistically cut off their nuts as well (if applicable).

Only then will we be able to say we are getting pure rulings on the law and not some farsical partisan squabbling in our legal system.

Let's make it happen.

Point of clarification: Would they be Eunuchs or Nullos?

Aldebaran
12/14/2010, 10:44 AM
Nullos... And they'll also have to have their pubic hair removed because it's unclean and partisan.

DIB
12/14/2010, 10:46 AM
Nullos... And they'll also have to have their pubic hair removed because it's unclean and partisan.

I have Democrat pubes on my balls and Republican pubes around my shaft. My business is bi-partisan.

3rdgensooner
12/14/2010, 10:52 AM
I have Democrat pubes on my balls and Republican pubes around my shaft. My business is bi-partisan.
I know what you're trying to say
You're trying to say it's time for business
It's business time
It's business
It's business time

sappstuf
12/14/2010, 11:23 AM
If the government can force you to buy into social security, they are certainly within their rights to force a purchase of healthcare.

The Canadian system works rather well, costs are reduced, and private insurance is flourishing in that country.

Remember all of the Cipro we bought from Canada during the Anthrax scare because they could negotiate a better rate than we could get?

It is all about buying power.

The Pres would have been better off by simply increasing everyone's Federal Income Tax by $300 and giving a credit to those that could prove coverage...it would have made this argument moot.

Allowing anyone to buy into Medicare would have been the proper way to go, IMO (The old McCain, Liebermann plan).

Do you have a link for that?

All I can find is that Canada took away Bayer's patent two years before it should have been up in 2001 and then paid a different company to make a generic brand.

Soon after that the Canadian government changed their mind and gave the patent back to Bayer. The money they paid the other company was lost forever and Canadian government paid twice for their Cipro for awhile.

Doesn't sound like a good way to reduce costs to me.

JohnnyMack
12/14/2010, 12:51 PM
The Pres would have been better off by simply increasing everyone's Federal Income Tax by $300 and giving a credit to those that could prove coverage...it would have made this argument moot.

Allowing anyone to buy into Medicare would have been the proper way to go, IMO (The old McCain, Liebermann plan).

A $300 tax to people who can't prove coverage? Methinks those are the same people who pay little if any Fed taxes anyway.

SpankyNek
12/14/2010, 12:54 PM
Do you have a link for that?

All I can find is that Canada took away Bayer's patent two years before it should have been up in 2001 and then paid a different company to make a generic brand.

Soon after that the Canadian government changed their mind and gave the patent back to Bayer. The money they paid the other company was lost forever and Canadian government paid twice for their Cipro for awhile.

Doesn't sound like a good way to reduce costs to me.

The generic patent dispute was merely a negotiating tool that Canada used to get a price closer to the one negotiated by the US.

Here is the timeline.

Anthrax Scare

US threatens Bayer if they do not give them a better governmental rate on Cipro then they will buy them from Canada or from other sources that will produce a generic.

US Price is $1.77 and and Canada is $1.72.

US renegotiates with Bayer for a price of under $1 per tablet.

Canada announces it will produce its own generic formulation and refute the patent if their pricing does not fall in line with new US deal. (Also due to a fear of Bayer not being able to meet demands...Bayer says it will allow Canadian government to use their generic supply if they are unable to deliver)

Bayer decides to renegotiate rate with Canada to reflect US renegotiations.
Delivers 200,000 tablets free of charge, and drops price to 1.30.

Remember, the US was bidding to purchase 1,440,000,000 tablets (A 60 day supply for 12 million people) at a difference of .05 in regard to Canada, that equates to a savings if bought from Canada of about 76 million dollars.

BBC Story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1617235.stm)
AP (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-47691113.html)
Official government documents (http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/cl/cipro/)

The Canadian government was able to use the generic tablets after the patent expired...(This is not unusual, many companies produce generic equivalents while the patents are still in effect so that they have stockpile to go to market with after expiration.)

Also as mentioned before, Bayer said that they would allow Canada to use them if the need arose.

SpankyNek
12/14/2010, 12:59 PM
A $300 tax to people who can't prove coverage? Methinks those are the same people who pay little if any Fed taxes anyway.

At least then they would be paying $300.

JohnnyMack
12/14/2010, 01:05 PM
At least then they would be paying $300.

I'd imagine the EITC would render 99% of that charge null and void.

OnlyOneOklahoma
12/14/2010, 01:07 PM
You're right.. We should only allow judges that were appointed by Dems to make judgements on bills that were passed by Dems.

I knew I should have left the Bush part off. It was irrelevant to the argument. But the judge's direct monetary involvement with Republican politics should be recognized and seen as a conflict of interest.

OUMallen
12/14/2010, 01:17 PM
A $300 tax to people who can't prove coverage? Methinks those are the same people who pay little if any Fed taxes anyway.

Same people who can't afford it now.

AlboSooner
12/14/2010, 01:23 PM
JjzHZDPrYKg

sappstuf
12/14/2010, 01:36 PM
The generic patent dispute was merely a negotiating tool that Canada used to get a price closer to the one negotiated by the US.

Here is the timeline.

Anthrax Scare

US threatens Bayer if they do not give them a better governmental rate on Cipro then they will buy them from Canada or from other sources that will produce a generic.

US Price is $1.77 and and Canada is $1.72.

US renegotiates with Bayer for a price of under $1 per tablet.

Canada announces it will produce its own generic formulation and refute the patent if their pricing does not fall in line with new US deal. (Also due to a fear of Bayer not being able to meet demands...Bayer says it will allow Canadian government to use their generic supply if they are unable to deliver)

Bayer decides to renegotiate rate with Canada to reflect US renegotiations.
Delivers 200,000 tablets free of charge, and drops price to 1.30.

Remember, the US was bidding to purchase 1,440,000,000 tablets (A 60 day supply for 12 million people) at a difference of .05 in regard to Canada, that equates to a savings if bought from Canada of about 76 million dollars.

BBC Story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1617235.stm)
AP (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-47691113.html)
Official government documents (http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/cl/cipro/)

The Canadian government was able to use the generic tablets after the patent expired...(This is not unusual, many companies produce generic equivalents while the patents are still in effect so that they have stockpile to go to market with after expiration.)

Also as mentioned before, Bayer said that they would allow Canada to use them if the need arose.


You said that:


Remember all of the Cipro we bought from Canada during the Anthrax scare because they could negotiate a better rate than we could get?

I don't see anything anywhere saying we bought Cipro from Canada and I also see us getting a lower price first and Canada throwing a hissy fit to match our price, but not before paying a third company millions of dollars and getting nothing for it.

SpankyNek
12/14/2010, 01:43 PM
You said that:



I don't see anything anywhere saying we bought Cipro from Canada and I also see us getting a lower price first and Canada throwing a hissy fit to match our price, but not before paying a third company millions of dollars and getting nothing for it.

You're right, should have said "Remember all of that Cipro we were going to buy from Canada before Bayer stepped in to save face?"

I guess it could be argued that we both wasted billions of dollars as the Anthrax scare never materialized into a true threat.

I am sure we found a use for our stockpiles as did Canada.

sappstuf
12/14/2010, 01:43 PM
I knew I should have left the Bush part off. It was irrelevant to the argument. But the judge's direct monetary involvement with Republican politics should be recognized and seen as a conflict of interest.

He bought stock in a company over a decade ago that he still owns.. Big deal.

Every judge has "direct monetary involvement" in the healthcare debate one way or another.

OnlyOneOklahoma
12/14/2010, 02:22 PM
I own stock in planned parenthood, and a biotech looking to cure AIDS via stem cells. Therefore I say women have a right to choose and we can continue stem cell research.

soonerscuba
12/14/2010, 02:44 PM
I own stock in planned parenthoodNo you don't.

OklahomaTuba
12/14/2010, 05:18 PM
I own stock in planned parenthoodSo you profit from the wholesale slaughter of unborn black children???

Must be a nice feeling.

SpankyNek
12/14/2010, 05:52 PM
So you profit from the wholesale slaughter of unborn black children???

Must be a nice feeling.

The DeBeers executives have known this for ages.

JohnnyMack
12/14/2010, 05:53 PM
So you profit from the wholesale slaughter of unborn black children???

Must be a nice feeling.

Abortion burger.

MMMMmmmmm.

Tasty.

OnlyOneOklahoma
12/14/2010, 06:19 PM
No you don't.

Welcome to the internet, where everyone speaks in literals.

soonerscuba
12/14/2010, 06:20 PM
OK, who is bigger nozzle? One who lies about owning stock in an exempt organization, or the person who parses that lie into an even stupider point?

OnlyOneOklahoma
12/14/2010, 06:26 PM
Stupider.

OnlyOneOklahoma
12/14/2010, 06:28 PM
Also, while my argument is foolish, which I happily admit. No on in their right mind would expect me to b capable of making an unbiased decision about public policy. The exact same standard that this judge should be held to.

JohnnyMack
12/14/2010, 06:28 PM
OK, who is bigger nozzle? One who lies about owning stock in an exempt organization, or the person who parses that lie into an even stupider point?

Even I knew he was kidding.

soonerscuba
12/14/2010, 06:37 PM
Even I knew he was kidding.I'm pretty dense, and I'm just going to blame this on the OUI refugees.

Thaumaturge
12/14/2010, 08:09 PM
But are there any abortion companies whose stock I might purchase?

Leroy Lizard
12/14/2010, 08:35 PM
At least then they would be paying $300.

http://indiana.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/13/turnip_blood_2.jpg

Leroy Lizard
12/14/2010, 08:37 PM
The following point is relevant.


If the government can force you to buy into social security, they are certainly within their rights to force a purchase of healthcare.

The following points are irrelevant.


The Canadian system works rather well, costs are reduced, and private insurance is flourishing in that country.

Remember all of the Cipro we bought from Canada during the Anthrax scare because they could negotiate a better rate than we could get?

It is all about buying power.

Whether or not Obamacare is a good idea (and frankly I think it's a horrible idea) has no basis on its Constitutionality.

soonercruiser
12/14/2010, 08:42 PM
It is solid reasoning. And if you ponder on its meaning you will realize that it supports your position.

The government can force people to buy car insurance without impinging on the Constitution because they have the ability to opt out by not driving.

The government cannot force people to buy insurance without impinging on the Constitution because they are not given an opt out source. Under Obamacare, you MUST be drawn into the "stream of Commerce" by purchasing a product that you may or may not wish to purchase. This judge ruled that the Constitution does not contain any enumerated powers granted to Congress which would allow them to require individuals to purchase a product that they do not want and may not need.

My post does NOT suggest that you or anyone else give me money. It simply suggests that Congress cannot, in this instance, require ME to give it any of my money.

I may have misunderstood the drift of your post.

BTW - state governments only make you buy enough insurance to protect others, IF you choose to drive a vehicle.

soonercruiser
12/14/2010, 08:44 PM
If the government can force you to buy into social security, they are certainly within their rights to force a purchase of healthcare.

The Canadian system works rather well, costs are reduced, and private insurance is flourishing in that country.

Remember all of the Cipro we bought from Canada during the Anthrax scare because they could negotiate a better rate than we could get?

It is all about buying power.

The Pres would have been better off by simply increasing everyone's Federal Income Tax by $300 and giving a credit to those that could prove coverage...it would have made this argument moot.

Allowing anyone to buy into Medicare would have been the proper way to go, IMO (The old McCain, Liebermann plan).

Spanky,
We've debated the Canadian system on the OUI site.
There are plenty of problems with the Canadian healthcare system...and a goodly number of patients coming south over the border for care....especially cancer care.

soonercruiser
12/14/2010, 08:49 PM
The generic patent dispute was merely a negotiating tool that Canada used to get a price closer to the one negotiated by the US.

Here is the timeline.

Anthrax Scare

US threatens Bayer if they do not give them a better governmental rate on Cipro then they will buy them from Canada or from other sources that will produce a generic.

US Price is $1.77 and and Canada is $1.72.

US renegotiates with Bayer for a price of under $1 per tablet.

Canada announces it will produce its own generic formulation and refute the patent if their pricing does not fall in line with new US deal. (Also due to a fear of Bayer not being able to meet demands...Bayer says it will allow Canadian government to use their generic supply if they are unable to deliver)

Bayer decides to renegotiate rate with Canada to reflect US renegotiations.
Delivers 200,000 tablets free of charge, and drops price to 1.30.

Remember, the US was bidding to purchase 1,440,000,000 tablets (A 60 day supply for 12 million people) at a difference of .05 in regard to Canada, that equates to a savings if bought from Canada of about 76 million dollars.

BBC Story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1617235.stm)
AP (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-47691113.html)
Official government documents (http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/cl/cipro/)

The Canadian government was able to use the generic tablets after the patent expired...(This is not unusual, many companies produce generic equivalents while the patents are still in effect so that they have stockpile to go to market with after expiration.)

Also as mentioned before, Bayer said that they would allow Canada to use them if the need arose.

Sounds like good ole capitalism to me!

soonercruiser
12/14/2010, 09:40 PM
But are there any abortion companies whose stock I might purchase?

Maybe Obamacare will soon have to sell stock to makes ends meet.
Because, when "ends' decide to meet, the result is more children.