jump to last post 1-29 of 29 discussions (112 posts)

Federal Judge In Virginia Rules Health Care Law Unconstitutional

  1. Reality Bytes profile image90
    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago

    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."

    1. Doug Hughes profile image61
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. Vladimir Uhri profile image62
          Vladimir Uhriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Paul you do not have to call people with insulting names.
          I lived in socialistic medicine and it is not good.

  2. EPman profile image60
    EPmanposted 6 years ago

    refreshing!

  3. tobey100 profile image61
    tobey100posted 6 years ago

    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

    1. Doug Hughes profile image61
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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.

  4. OpinionDuck profile image60
    OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago

    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.

  5. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago

    Good deal!  A Judge finally with some common sense, it appears.

  6. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    I guess they will be striking down auto insurance next...not fair to force all people to buy insurance.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image90
      Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The individual States regulate auto insurance.

      As it should be.

    2. Shadesbreath profile image87
      Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        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!

        1. Shadesbreath profile image87
          Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. Shadesbreath profile image87
              Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. EPman profile image60
                EPmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. couturepopcafe profile image59
                  couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  EP - I'm glad you said it.

                2. couturepopcafe profile image59
                  couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image89
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. profile image0
              Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. couturepopcafe profile image59
                couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                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.

        2. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          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?

          1. couturepopcafe profile image59
            couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm pretty sure she doesn't, Jim.  But she can count to umpteen.

    3. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No kidding! AND it is regressive! Young people are charged WAY more than anybody else.

      1. couturepopcafe profile image59
        couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        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.

      2. profile image61
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        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.

  7. b. Malin profile image55
    b. Malinposted 6 years ago

    Hooray for that Judge...Hopefully more will follow!

  8. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago

    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..

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Don't worry, you are. smile

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        big_smile

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          God bless that little lady.

  9. profile image0
    Longhunterposted 6 years ago

    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.

  10. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "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?
    May be.....
    "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!

  11. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "and which declares unconstitutional an idea they came up with in the first place."

    ahahahaha.....love it!

    1. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Put back into context: Affordable health insurance and insurance industry reform, not mandated insurance.

  12. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    The Supreme Court will make a big mistake if it confirms this decision.

    1. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Please elaborate, Mr. Deeds. Just looking for your POV.

  13. jokeapptv profile image60
    jokeapptvposted 6 years ago

    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.

    1. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. couturepopcafe profile image59
        couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        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.

    2. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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.

  14. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    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?

    1. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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.

    2. Vladimir Uhri profile image62
      Vladimir Uhriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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. .

  15. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    They can make us pay taxes.

    1. Shadesbreath profile image87
      Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Your point regarding poor people having to buy something they can't afford is incorrect.  Low income families will have their premiums subsidized.

      2. couturepopcafe profile image59
        couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Shades - hmm

  16. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    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.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        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. smile

        1. couturepopcafe profile image59
          couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Brett Favre could give you some pointers. smile

      2. Uninvited Writer profile image81
        Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image59
          couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          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).

          1. Jim Hunter profile image60
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "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.

            1. couturepopcafe profile image59
              couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not on you.

                Just thought you may have forgotten the government doesn't have money.

                They forget all the time.

                1. couturepopcafe profile image59
                  couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks.  I'll never forget.  I'm constantly trying to figure out ways to keep as much of my money as I can.  Still love your avatar.  It says it all.

  17. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    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.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not possible politically.  A pragmatist deals with reality rather than ideological purity.

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image62
        Vladimir Uhriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, yea ideological purity. What a statement.

    2. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "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.

    3. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

      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???

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Scalia and Thomas are not righteous according to the book of Brenda.

        1. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          He said "the book of Brenda..."

    4. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

      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??? lol

    5. Ken Crow profile image61
      Ken Crowposted 6 years ago

      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....

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "WE" are on the fringe?

        lol  lol  lol

        You did not source any of your "facts" because they don't exist.

    6. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      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!

    7. melpor profile image89
      melporposted 6 years ago

      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.

      1. profile image56
        Alex Friasposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        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..

      2. couturepopcafe profile image59
        couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image59
          couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          But don't tell Jim I said this.  lol

    8. melpor profile image89
      melporposted 6 years ago

      I believed he and other members of Congress checked it before they got started on this bill.

    9. Milla Mahno profile image53
      Milla Mahnoposted 6 years ago

      Well, there are some sane judges around. Still...

    10. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

      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)."

      Ta-da.

      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!

      1. EPman profile image60
        EPmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You mean education would function better without government intervention?

        Pshhh, you must hate kids!

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I HATE THEM SO MUCH!!!!

          1. couturepopcafe profile image59
            couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Evan - sometimes you are absolutely brilliant.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Apparently, such times do not include forum posts.

              1. couturepopcafe profile image59
                couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Seriously, Ron, doesn't it make some sense?  If people were responsible for the outcome of their behavior, they would not spend frivolously.

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. couturepopcafe profile image59
                    couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    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."

                    1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      It is hard to argue that virtue and right action results in poverty unless one is a victim of nature's caprice.

                    2. Uninvited Writer profile image81
                      Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      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.

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              So... anyway...

              thanks!

    11. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      "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??

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not a republican. Don't call me a republican.

        That would be like me calling you Stalin.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image59
          couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          roll

        2. Vladimir Uhri profile image62
          Vladimir Uhriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I like this comment Evan.

      2. couturepopcafe profile image59
        couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        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?

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. couturepopcafe profile image59
            couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Watch you mouth, mister. wink

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image89
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "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.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I suppose that depends on what you mean by liberal. Lincoln's comments on private property and taxation suggest he had very little in common with modern liberals.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          her "r"s were capitalized.

    12. Reality Bytes profile image90
      Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago

      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.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Your slippery slope argument is total nonsense.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          How so Ron?

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
            uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Nonsense.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          indeed, howso?

          you added nothing to the debate.

          I think Reality made a lot of good points.

    13. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago

      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.

    14. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      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.
      Non-partial.
      Non-Judicial.

      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.

      Ehhhhhh, FOUL.

      And.....hello sad....a radio talk show host.....another one? Jd Hayworth, this is your future.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        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.

     
    working