The beginning of round two?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 … titutional
"A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court," the Associated Press reports.
The wire service adds that "U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida."
Correction - beginning of round three. Two previous rulings have upheld the individual mandate as written.
Henry Hudson is a Bush (the lesser) with holdings in a GOP consulting firm. We will see how far his ruling goes in the appeals process. The judge did not strike down the entire law, and he stayed (delayed) implementation of his ruling. This is going to be decided by the USSC and I think we all agreed on that.
Being a Bush croney, his desicion can be easily appealed. But I do agree tha forcing people to buy insurance is unacceptable. What happened to the public option? It would of been better off if we went with a flat out universal health care system.
I guess my response would be "Well,DUH" I've got an 8th grader that thought demanding an American citizen purchase a product via the Commerce Clause had a funny smell! I'm just surprised a federal judge had as much sense as an 8th grader. Most don't based on past decisions
Frankly, I favor giving conservatives against the 'mandate' what the hell they want. Make an opt-out option for adults only with the following provision. Anyone who opt out will be demanding the provisions that the uninsured/self-pay currently have. Namely -
The opt-out conservatives can have insurance if offered by their employer with whatever options their employer offers. Or none if the employer decides to cancel.
If they can’t get insurance through their employer, they can buy on the private market at whatever rate private insurance is available – unregulated by the government. Price increases also unregulated.
If you want free enterprise with no mandate – OK – insurance companies will be able to cancel YOUR insurance at will with no warning for no reason. Expect this if you get sick. You want it – you got it.
Insurance companies WILL be able to deny coverage to anyone in the opt-out free-market system. If you develop a heart condition or cancer, get a tin cup.
Now OFFER an opt out – don’t worry, there’s nothing unfair here. It’s the system that EXISTS for the uninsured / self-pay. I don’t expect people will be trampled trying to sign up for that deal. But let them have it if they want it. Then it will be apparent that they aren't trying to have that system for themselves - they are just trying to inflict that system on the less-equal Americans who are dying without.
As it should be.
Forcing people to be insured, especially the people that don't have money is like arresting people because they are homeless, they don't have a job.
Good deal! A Judge finally with some common sense, it appears.
I guess they will be striking down auto insurance next...not fair to force all people to buy insurance.
The individual States regulate auto insurance.
As it should be.
Driving is a privilege granted to citizens by the state using roads funded by the state (and fed), and so they can require what they want to require as part of licensing. We, as citizens of a state, do not HAVE to purchase auto insurance, because we do not HAVE to drive.
While you can argue that not driving is essentially handicapping yourself, or making yourself less competitive (and I will agree totally with you if you do), you have to admit that there is a clear distinction.
I can argue that without a car, I have no job. I should get an exception, as I cannot live and support my family without a car.
And what about home owners insurance? Can't get a loan to buy a house without it, right? UnConstitutional to the max!
Well, if we must have this out all the way to reductio ad absurdum , I would argue that you don't NEED a car to have the job. If your argument is one of getting to the job, there are other forms of transportation. There are also other jobs. Furthermore, if you live far away from where the jobs are and that is your reasoning, then I would argue you can also live somewhere closer to public transportation or walking distance to jobs.
The home owner's insurance argument not only doesn't work against my argument, it actually supports it. But first, you don't have to own a home, so you don't have to buy the insurance. Furthermore, you don't have to have homeowner's insurance to own a home, you have to have it to get a home loan. If you pay cash for your house, you can do what you want because you are the only one taking any risk in not having it insured.
Which is essentially what people have (or used to have) the right to do with health care insurance. We "own" our health. It's ours free and clear. If we don't want to insure it, we shouldn't be forced to. If we can't afford to insure it, we shouldn't be forced to. If we can't afford it but want insurance somehow because we recognize the value of it, it would be nice for our society to make ways for it to be affordable, I agree with that part of the debate. But mandating it is absurd and anti-American.
Not where I live.
Public bus runs 3 times a day, and does not even stop in my town!
There is a senior bus, but they make umpteen million stops a day, and it varies day-by-day. Unless I can tell my boss---"hey-I'll be in sometime between 9 and 11....forget it. I NEED a car, it is no luxury! And I am FORCED to buy insurance!
Plus, if a kid calls home sick, I would need to call a taxi to go get them.......that's AT LEAST $40.00, which I don't regularly have extra.
And, as in everything in America----if you have enough cash-you're home free. Rich don't need home insurance huh? Well well WELL...It FIGURES!
I'll agree--mandating anything is absurd. That goes for all the things that are forced on me. Like school for my kids. Clothes on my back. Licensing me to drive.
I think you've missed my point.
Nobody is MAKING you live in that town. And nobody is MAKING you have that job you have. Therefore, nobody is MAKING you own that car and, as a consequence, MAKING you buy insurance.
There are REASONS that you do it, but nobody is MAKING you do any of it.
The health care thing will NOT be an option. You will be MADE to do it or you will suffer government enforced penalties.
There is a tremendous difference.
Haha Shades it's pretty amusing and amazing the way some can think.
Most would figure that they need a job to get a car, but some delusional people live in a world where you need a car to get a job.
There are those who will always be the helpless victim of circumstance; always looking for a hand out to alleviate themselves from the "oppressions" of life; always blaming external factors for the things in life which they are dissatisfied with; but never willing to accept the role they play in their own circumstances.
Actually, I've reread your comment and you made a point more poignant than was immediately obvious to me. The 'helpless victim' is more helpless than one might imagine except to an enlightened person. One cannot know until one knows, right? We can look back at our lives and in some part, at some time, claim the helpless victim role. If we were fortunate to have been made aware of our circumstance from another's perspective, even through self-help books or whatever resource we found available to us, we were able to turn the situation around, go through it, and thrive - grow. Unfortunately, so many don't try to find a way out. They expend a lot of negative energy pointing fingers, looking for excuses, and as you pointed out, blaming external factors. There will always be external factors pushing us in one way or another. Admittedly, it is often difficult to cross the thin boundary which separates us from our inner strength and wisdom. Once found, though, self-empowerment grows like wildfire.
Shades, this is exactly why I was disappointed with the healthcare bill that got passed. In my book, healthcare reform should have looked like this:
Starting on January 1st, 2011, all American citizens shall have equal access to the same health care package that Congress enjoys as a job benefit. If an American citizen prefers to use a different healthcare insurance plan, he or she may do so, but the Congressional Healthcare Package remains available should they change their mind.
It'd work like public schools work. They're there for everyone, and anyone may use them, but if you prefer, you can send your kids to private schools or homeschool them. Similarly, the public option would be there for everyone, and anyone can use it, but if they prefer, they can buy into a different insurance plan, or they can give their GP a chicken in exchange for treatment, I guess. Or they can opt out of healthcare altogether, I suppose. Some religious sects now do that.
I'm not sure your comparison with the public schools was a good one. I understand, it's there for everyone. Hopefully, the medical care would be better than the education system.
Either way this thing goes, Congress AND the president should have to be a part of it.
I just wish people would stop calling it health care. It's insurance for medical attention should there be the need. (and not very good insurance.) I give myself health care. I take care of my health. It's like saying you have auto care. You have auto insurance. The care of your auto is the maintainance.
There is no law requiring you to have homeowners insurance.
You know the difference between entering into a contract for a loan and a law right?
No kidding! AND it is regressive! Young people are charged WAY more than anybody else.
Because they are considered a higher risk. Unfortunate. I agree with you that this is somewhat unfair as they should not be guilty until they do something wrong.
Thats the nature of Insurance. Insurance is gambling. The higher the risk assigned, the higher the rates. It's simple realy. Statistics show that youthfull drivers get in more accidents. They get more citations for bad driving. It's only logical that insurance would cost more for that group.
Yeah. But honestly I think the appeals process should be investigated. All those people have to do is take it to the Supreme Court, which, these days, contains activist self-centered people like Sonja Sotomayor and others, making it scary that they'll strike down common-sense rulings anyway. I don't view the Supreme Court as very "supreme" anymore. I hope I'm wrong..
Too bad we don't have more judges with this mindset. This thing will go all the way to the Supreme Court and hopefully they'll rule as this judge did.
"MEET JUDGE HENRY HUDSON.... Federal district court Judge Henry Hudson ruled the way conservatives wanted him to earlier today, finding the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act to be unconstitutional. Republicans are applauding the outcome, which will be appealed, and which declares unconstitutional an idea they came up with in the first place.
It's worth pausing to note why Virginia's hyper-conservative attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli (R), hoped Hudson would hear this case, and why health care reform advocates expected this outcome.
That prediction is built partly on Hudson's roots in Republican politics. He was elected Arlington's commonwealth attorney as a Republican, briefly ran against U.S. Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.) in 1991 and has received all of his appointments -- as U.S. attorney, as a Fairfax County Circuit Court judge in 1998 and to the federal bench in 2002 -- from Republicans. [...]
It is somewhat unusual for a federal judge to give an interview in the midst of a major case. But Hudson has always been known for his willingness to step into the public light.
In the 1980s, President Reagan appointed him chairman of the Meese Commission, a controversial group that investigated the effects of pornography.... In the 1990s, Hudson had his own radio show and made regular appearances as a television legal analyst.
Under the circumstances, today's ruling wasn't exactly a shocker."
Why....Why....I'm SHOCKED!! A rightwing talk radio judge!! Isn't he what used to be demonized as an 'activist" judge?
"His ruling -- such of it as I've read -- also is replete with emotionally-laden and/or superlative adjectives and adverbs, and as such reads more like a policy paper -- or even a political position paper -- as it does a federal judicial ruling. I would guess it will raise some eyebrows at the appellate level, even in the Fourth."
Like Rush Limbaugh, in a dress!
"and which declares unconstitutional an idea they came up with in the first place."
The Supreme Court will make a big mistake if it confirms this decision.
theres no more jobs coming. we cant pay more anyway.
its our money not the goverments. its our money.
there are no more jobs coming. Don you see any jobs coming that pay enough to raise a family in 2011?
Lets keep the health care we got and set up a fraud clean up group to get the waste stopped in health care.
If there are no jobs coming, why do they LIE and say the tax give-aways to Uber-Rich are to create jobs?
32,00o people are beneficiaries of it. 700 mil added to deficit.
Schumer bill to make it 1 mil was shut down. It was not enough.
We are going to be FORCED to subsidize 32,000 bazillionaires.
It could be 3,200...but I gave them the benefit of the doubt.
lmc - we've heard this so many times from you. Get this: Leaving the tax schedule the way it is does not add to the deficit. Spending adds to the deficit. Please learn facts and stop calling everyone a liar. You should probably sell your car, stay home and collect U.E. for 3 years. This is now the best way to uplift the economy. Or haven't you heard.
joke - You're right. That was the original idea. Somehow, it got distorted by those who thought it was a good idea to take care of the idiot masses who cannot take care of themselves. I'm not saying we're idiots, but this is what they believe we are, that we are not capable of making good decisions for ourselves. True, some people will never make good decisions for their lives but I don't want to be forced to carry them and pay for something I don't want because of it.
I don't understand how the HC law will work if everyone doesn't have to buy insurance. Aren't the ins. companies counting on premiums from young healthy people in order to pay for the care of older, sicker people?
It will work the same way it works now. Most people over 62? I think are on Medicare. They don't pay health insurance companies so younger, healthy people are not paying for them. Except in taxes to fund Medicare.
Maybe you are right older people are sicker, perhaps. The problem is that they worked hard in their life and now there is no money for them. The same is with SS. Government like to spend and emptied social security, now what? Government should be completely changed. There is problem. People are taught in schools socialism: we have right for everything. We are demanding from gov. to do job for us and run the world.
I believe we have to come back to God.
PS. Old people do not get so many infectious diseases as kids have. Problem they have is effect from fertilizing, additives, preservatives and also MSG. My grandma who raised me never seen doctor only in terminal event age 77. It was her daughter who called MD. I seen first doctor when I was 18 y/o or sinusitis. .
Yes. I totally and completely agree with you.
And if they want to raise taxes to pay for this thing, they should. Call a spade and spade and do it.
But I don't think they should mandate a purchase from a semi-private gobbledygook of whatever the hell this health care is going to end up being. You can't make people buy stuff. It's wrong. It will criminalize the young in particular, people who hardly make anything and who have no fear of death because they don't get sick in any significant numbers. So, when their budgets get tight, they will cut (stop paying) the expense they have (their health care payment) that does NOTHING for them first sign of financial trouble (not enough beer money) and become criminals.
The whole point of taxes is to pay for the crap the citizens want the government to give them since they can't do it themselves. (I'm not going to get into the implications of that statement.)
Our grandparents took our money to pay for their retirement. Our parents looted those funds and are now going to use whatever is left for their retirement. But at least they had the balls to take it from us up front in the form of a "YOU HAVE TO GIVE US YOUR MONEY BECAUSE WE WANT IT" law.
They should have the same courtesy with this. Just take it. Don't end run it with a bunch of complicated crap that criminalizes young people and poor/marginally poor (wherever that income line is going to be that makes this a joke) people for what everyone who has a brain knows is going to happen. People aren't going to go get it if they have a choice. Period.
Just like people will smoke pot, legal or not, and people did drink booze during Prohibition legal or not.
I love a good ideal. I think ideals are great and should be at the heart of lawmaking. But so should reality. Ideals with no reality are just stupid.
If a person were to opt-out 100% from ALL public funds for absolutely any medical expense, they should be excluded from the "must buy" provision. If they die because they can't afford treatment, that's their choice.
The problem is, most of these brave, patriotic Obama haters would cry like little girls when they faced the situation and beg for compassion.
You should probably refrain from attacking and generalizing 'most'. As a person who has never had health insurance, I have always paid my own medical bills, including the times I broke my collar bone, wrist and ribs playing football, the time I bashed my head on the kitchen counter when I blacked out, the time I had my eyes slashed with RK, all the other minor illnesses. Most of the visits to the hospital were from injury not illness because I take care of my health. If more people did this instead of stuffing themselves with junk, they would be healthier.
If I ever see evidence that the wingnuts don't act in the manner I described, I will retract my statement.
I am quite confident that will never happen.
My crying little girl comparison stands.
Actually, Ron, I did cry like a little girl. That broken collar bone really hurt. I got the wind knocked out of me, literally couldn't breath. I don't know how you boys play these rough games. New respect for the male of the species with regard to strength and hard-hitting competition.
Well, I hope you are not hit with a major illness that you had no control over or that you have lots of money saved to pay for it.
Thank you, U W. Here's my idea of how the HC bill/law should work. People pay for the insurace they want. Government pays for major/catastrophic illness (which truly only the uber wealthy can afford to pay for themselves), children, elderly, and military including families for as long as a person is enlisted. Everyone is eligible for this care. Government needs to stop sending money to other countries except in the case of catastrophies like the one in Haiti. We cannot support the world and bring them up to our standard. The world needs to evolve naturally. And illegal aliens should not be eligible for government funded care (or gov. funded anything for that matter).
"Government pays for major/catastrophic illness (which truly only the uber wealthy can afford to pay for themselves)"
How about the government doesn't pay for it at all?
They have no money.
If they don't pay then the only incompetence you have to worry about will be the incompetence of the medical professionals.
Maybe you'll get a pro-caddy who stayed at a holiday inn to remove your kidney...could happen.
Oh, crap. Jim got on me. Hell, Jim, I'm on your side. What I meant was if they want to spend our money, at least spend it in an area where there is likely going to be less needed rather than spending it where it does no good to the American taxpayer.
I'm not on you.
Just thought you may have forgotten the government doesn't have money.
They forget all the time.
That's exactly what I was going to say (but not in such an eloquent way). Forget the mandate. Forget making people buy insurance.
If our country believes that health care is a right and not a privilege, then they (the government) should fund it. End of story.
Not possible politically. A pragmatist deals with reality rather than ideological purity.
"If our country believes that health care is a right and not a privilege, then they (the government) should fund it. End of story."
Uhhhh, "they" can't fund anything.
We the people fund everything.
Why is it so hard to understand that money does not originate in Washington D.C.?
The government does not produce nor manufacture anything that provides an income for its self.
We provide the money.
Re: Supreme Court
"..contains activist self-centered people like Sonja Sotomayor and others..."
Sonja Sotomayor is an activist self-centered person?
On what actions is this statement based?
And who, pray tell, are the "others" on the Supreme Court that are sapping the Court of its supremacy???
Well Thomas engaged in some self-centered activities prior to his confirmation, that's a fact.
But Scalia? He's not exactly lefteous, now is he???
Most of you get so wound up on the fringe of this. These are the facts!
1. This is America and we have a very valid document named "The Constitution". That is reality.
2. Several Federal Judges have ruled that the very illegal law is in fact illegal. One Circuit Court Judge ruled it was legal, but the Federal Judges have said it is in fact "Unconstitutional".
3. If this new law is allowed to stand, then legally the government can come in and order you to purchase a car, a boat or whatever they want to.
4. America is now financially devastated. WE cannot afford this health care bill.
5. America is a land of freedom, how can any of you back this bill whom love freedom and liberty.
6. There are better ways to accomplish the goal of insuring Americans without abridging our freedoms and liberties.
All of you have missed the point. This was not about insuring Americans. This was about government taking over neartly 20% of the economy for more socialism. Obama now owns the auto's, has his hands neck deep in the banking industry and is attempting to bankrupt the insurance industry. This was about big government folks. This was about seizing more and more power..
Wanna guess how "Net Nuetrality" turns out....Your wrong, we have already lost. He had the FCC do it. We are in serious trouble America. We are losing our freedom of the press, freedom of enterprise and the ability to choose our products. And you guys are fussing about auto insurance? My gosh....
So this judge was part owner of a firm that lobbied to stop the healthcare bill. Unbiased jurist? HA! Hardly. He was appointed by W. He's obviously a right-wing operative placed in gvt to further the righty cause.
Step down you partial man!!!
Impartial interpreter of the law my Aunt Fanny!
Reality Bites, This is not unusual. This not the first law attacked by a state judge. In the past the law went on to become a full law with no changes. Congress does have the right to put into law to make the population buy insurance if that what it take to control the spending in this country. Especially, when millions of people end up in the emergency room without health insurance. Someone has pay the bill.
Mr Melpor, I supported the President's healthcare bill and I do trust that as the constitutional expert he is, he visited this question before taking the country through this huge change.
I admit I have my reservations about the consitutionality (is that a word) of the manfdate. I think regulating commerse and mandating people to create commerse are two separate issues. PErhaps the judge in Virginia saw it that way. Ur thoughts..
melpor - with respect, I think you are mistaken on this. Congress has the right to create laws but the U.S. is ultimately governed by the Constitution though it is a document written with a broad stroke, intentionally open to interpretation because the writers understood the country might change with the times. Please explain how you view mandating health insurance as controlling spending. Granted, hospital bills are inflated to cover non-payers. Maybe government can take over ER care. The costs would still likely be less than what they currently give away.
I believed he and other members of Congress checked it before they got started on this bill.
here's a fantastic solution to this whole mess. The new law should read:
"If you want to have insurance, buy it. If you don't, then don't. The AMA will be disbanded, and the government will stop funding any sort of medical stuff (this will lower costs by making doctors and medical staff ACTUALLY have to decide if the new gizmo they want is worth it)."
Believe me, the "government will stop funding X" is an important piece to any legislation. I've been doing teaching observations at public schools and have seen these new, stupid things called "Smart boards", which are basically $4,000 chalkboards. And I hear numerous teachers say "oh we got these new textbooks.. .they're really ruining my class. I didn't really want to get new textbooks, but the school was offering to buy some, and you just don't pass up on those opportunities!"
Make people responsible for themselves FULLY, and things will clear themselves out. Punish sloth, reward frugality. Let the markets work!
You mean education would function better without government intervention?
Pshhh, you must hate kids!
Evan - sometimes you are absolutely brilliant.
Apparently, such times do not include forum posts.
Seriously, Ron, doesn't it make some sense? If people were responsible for the outcome of their behavior, they would not spend frivolously.
People are in fact responsible for their actions. When right-wingers disparage the needy as somehow being less virtuous than those fortunate enough to have acquired wealth, they are demonstrating an incredible ignorance of how the successful become successful, and even the very definition of success.
Ron - with respect. you can't possibly believe or mean that. Right-wingers disparage the needy, how? And don't hand me the tired "successful got that way on the backs of the oppressed."
It is hard to argue that virtue and right action results in poverty unless one is a victim of nature's caprice.
Some don't understand that there is a bit of luck in being successful. Yes, hard work, but luck is also a part of it. Not everyone who works hard is successful.
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." Seneca
The role of "luck" in everyday life is over estimated. If it were not than I would have won the lottery already.
luck has very little to do with being successful.
Going out and creating wealth has a LOT more to do with it.
1) I'm not a right-winger.
2) Someone becomes wealthy by providing a good or service at an exchange of wealth that others agree to pay. This NECESSARILY means that the wealthy get wealthy by CREATING wealth.
-- note: yes, i'm fully aware that evil people exist and they use power to get wealth, but this happens in any system. However when it happens on a free market, the people get punished, and when it happens in government, they get rewarded.
Anyway, you're probably just going to post with a picture of an island. So i'm not going to write more.
thanks for backing me up.
Ron's posts are little more than troll-posts.
The statement "Apparently, such times do not include forum posts" adds NOTHING to the argument, and is nothing more than offensive.
"Horace Mann (May 4, 1796 – August 2, 1859) was an American education reformer, and a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives from 1827 to 1833. He served in the Massachusetts Senate from 1834 to 1837. In 1848, after serving as Secretary of the Massachusetts State Board of Education since its creation, he was elected to the US House of Representatives. Mann was a brother-in-law to author Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Arguing that universal public education was the best way to turn the nation's unruly children into disciplined, judicious republican citizens, Mann won widespread approval from modernizers, especially in his Whig Party, for building public schools. Indeed, most states adopted one version or another of the system he established in Massachusetts, especially the program for "normal schools" to train professional teachers. Mann has been credited by many educational historians as the "Father of the Common School Movement".
"Arguing that universal public education was the best way to turn the nation's unruly children into disciplined, judicious REPUBLICAN citizens"
Hmmmm, public eduation/mandated insurance.
2 Republican ideas which are now trashed by Republicans.....what changed? Republican ideals, or those calling themselves Republican??
I'm not a republican. Don't call me a republican.
That would be like me calling you Stalin.
lmc - with respect, I believe he meant 'republican' as in federal republic, not Republican as in the party. That part doesn't make sense. Why would he want little Republicans if he was a Whig?
Until the rise of the Democrat and liberal press, around the time of that bigoted, racist, tyrant Woodrow Wilson(who we are all lucky he had a stroke), the word republican was not a pejorative and democrat not an accolade. Thomas Jefferson, who so many Democrats falsely believe is the sire of their party, remarked, on the passage of the Constitution, that "We are all republicans now." I doubt he meant members of the GOP since it would be a little more than four score and seven years before the GOP made its political impact on American politics.
But one should never be surprised when one is offered anger and ignorance by a liberal by what other means could one remain a liberal.
"I doubt he meant members of the GOP since it would be a little more than four score and seven years before the GOP made its political impact on American politics." And at that time the GOP was pretty liberal.
This Health care legislation will be a pivotal ruling in our country's history. If it is held up as Constitutional, it will set a precedent giving the Federal government the power to mandate the population to purchase anything it deems necessary.
It will also give Federal Authorities jurisdiction within the States, irrelevant that there is no option to purchase an insurance policy across State lines.
This is where the commerce clause needs to be interpreted. Whatever the outcome it will be a ruling that will shape the future of the Nation for generations to come.
Your slippery slope argument is total nonsense.
It is nonsense because argument by contradiction is always better than argument by reason. Ron said it is nonsense and' being intimately acquainted with nonsense. Ron knows nonsense - especially, when he sees, hears, speaks, writes or touches nonsense.
you added nothing to the debate.
I think Reality made a lot of good points.
It's very common for judicial decisions to be based on the doctrine of Stare Decisis. Based on the common law tradition, past court decisions become precedent for deciding future cases. Lower courts must follow the precedent established by higher courts. That's why all federal and state courts in the U.S. must follow the precedents established by the U.S. Supreme Court decisions. State courts are not required to follow the legal precedents of another state. The doctrine of Stare Decisis is believed to be the lighthouse, the well-defined channel which has proven to be secure and worthy. Once set, it can be changed in future, but not easily.
I just want to know why a guy who was part owner of a firm working to destroy the healthcare legislation in the first place has any business ruling on anything to do with it?
That is CONflict of interest.
It's like Pete Rose betting on a baseball game. He throws the game so he can win the bet.
This dude declares the bill unconstitutional after he worked to destroy it in the first place.
And.....hello ....a radio talk show host.....another one? Jd Hayworth, this is your future.
notice her choice of words:
"a FIRM working to DESTROY the healthcare legislation..."
But i would like to point out that the company in question is using government (read: the military backing of legislation) to its advantage.
The bill IS unconstitutional, and -- GASP -- perhaps that's why he was working to "destroy" it.
If I were fighting to "destroy" a bill that outlawed my buying a car, then:
1) I would be directly vested in the outcome of the legislation
2) be working hard from the very beginning to "destroy" the legislation
3) be declaring it unconstitutional.
and yet there's nothing wrong with this.
by C.J. Wright6 years ago
Recently the addition of 500 waivers brought the total number of waivers to over 700 entities that are allowed to "opt" out of the new Health Care Law. Now we see that the Senate has agreed to repeal the 1099...
by Doug Hughes6 years ago
Sixth Circuit upholds ObamaCare mandate POSTED AT 1:15 PM ON JUNE 29, 2011 BY ED MORRISSEY "The decision got overlooked in all of the attention to Barack Obama’s press conference, but nonetheless this will...
by My Esoteric5 months ago
My thought is No, they should go ahead and filibuster Judge Gorsuch now and not wait. The fear of filibustering now is that the Rs might use the "Nuclear Option" - using a simple majority to change...
by Longhunter5 years ago
Now that Obama has already taken a "shot" at the Supreme Court, what do you think Obama's reaction will be if Obamacare is struck down?
by SparklingJewel6 years ago
This link has good information on this subject. I haven't read it all yet. It is from a conservative news site.http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi … eId=106694
by SparklingJewel5 years ago
This legislation was covertly run through the system over the objections of at least half of the American people. The president justified it by saying that it didn’t raise our taxes. Now the Supreme Court has...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.