Virginia federal judge: Obama care unconstitutional

**Donkey Elephant** · 12-13-2010, 12:46 PM

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16026/cont...tguid=QjJkkFhz

On the basis that the federal government can't regulate economic inactivity.

While I agree with the ruling, I'm pissed that a conservative judge didn't make such a ruling earlier, cuz the federal government has been regulate nonhealthcare economic inactivity for decades (war on drugs, prohibition: making pot or alcohol for self consumption)

**1997GST** · 12-13-2010, 02:33 PM

it'll go to the supreme court, and they will strike down the law.

**Excelsior** · 12-16-2010, 01:09 AM

If that happens, maybe everyone who doesn't want to pay for auto insurance can sue the state government and claim that it is against the Constitution for the government to force people to buy auto insurance.

**1997GST** · 12-16-2010, 01:18 AM

they should...
but we all know that will not happen

**Donkey Elephant** · 12-16-2010, 01:46 AM

Originally Posted by Excelsior

If that happens, maybe everyone who doesn't want to pay for auto insurance can sue the state government and claim that it is against the Constitution for the government to force people to buy auto insurance.

lol, thats not even comparable.

you are not required to buy auto insurance to live.

you are required to buy auto insurance in order to use publicly owned/regulated roads.

under obamacare, you are required to purchase health insurance.

nice stretching though.

**Excelsior** · 12-17-2010, 02:09 AM

It's not much of a stretch. In this country, there are over 200 million vehicles, and most people who have a car and drive need that car to live -- to get to work to earn the money that buys their food and pays their rent or mortgage. Of course, there are many people who use buses and trains, but it would be very inconvenient for the majority of drivers to give up their cars and rely on public transportation in this country.

The requirement to purchase health insurance is little different than a tax -- it ultimately is money that goes toward a pool for the greater good. Just like your federal tax dollars go, in part, to our military to protect our country, which is for the greater good.

You can cry about it all you want, but the fact is that most people, at some time in their lives, need some kind of medical care. Since hospitals are not allowed to turn anyone away, the system we have now allows people who pay little or nothing into the system to get very expensive care in an emergency. And on top of that, it discourages lower-income people from getting regular check-ups and treatment, which could prevent the need for expensive emergency care in the first place.

Let's see the the Republicans come up with anything better. They're now going to control the House, so lets see what they come up with. Oh, yeah, their favorites -- "let insurance companies sell insurance across state lines" and "tort reform." As if insurance companies don't already have competition from several other insurance companies within a state. And I'm all for tort reform, but I seriously doubt that it would lower medical costs enough to allow many more lower-income people to have access to health care. It seems I read that a state implementated some kind of tort reform, but that it only had minimal effect -- I wish I clipped the article -- maybe I can find it on line.

But seriously, if the Republicans have any ideas that are better than President Obama's plan; ideas that will really work to get all Americans affordable access to medical care, then I'm listening. I don't care whether a good idea comes from the left or the right -- as long as it works.

**Squid** · 12-17-2010, 08:08 AM

the only way the federal government can require a payment for medical coverage from all citizens is IF the federal government is the provider of the services. And it would have to be called a TAX, not an insurance.

**syn-ack** · 12-17-2010, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey Elephant

lol, thats not even comparable.

you are not required to buy auto insurance to live.

you are required to buy auto insurance in order to use publicly owned/regulated roads.

under obamacare, you are required to purchase health insurance.

nice stretching though.

I concur.

Driving, in which automobile insurance is required for, is a privilege, not a right.

**Henny** · 12-17-2010, 08:29 PM

bout danmed time

**dropcivic** · 12-17-2010, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Excelsior

It's not much of a stretch. In this country, there are over 200 million vehicles, and most people who have a car and drive need that car to live -- to get to work to earn the money that buys their food and pays their rent or mortgage. Of course, there are many people who use buses and trains, but it would be very inconvenient for the majority of drivers to give up their cars and rely on public transportation in this country.

The requirement to purchase health insurance is little different than a tax -- it ultimately is money that goes toward a pool for the greater good. Just like your federal tax dollars go, in part, to our military to protect our country, which is for the greater good.

You can cry about it all you want, but the fact is that most people, at some time in their lives, need some kind of medical care. Since hospitals are not allowed to turn anyone away, the system we have now allows people who pay little or nothing into the system to get very expensive care in an emergency. And on top of that, it discourages lower-income people from getting regular check-ups and treatment, which could prevent the need for expensive emergency care in the first place.

Let's see the the Republicans come up with anything better. They're now going to control the House, so lets see what they come up with. Oh, yeah, their favorites -- "let insurance companies sell insurance across state lines" and "tort reform." As if insurance companies don't already have competition from several other insurance companies within a state. And I'm all for tort reform, but I seriously doubt that it would lower medical costs enough to allow many more lower-income people to have access to health care. It seems I read that a state implementated some kind of tort reform, but that it only had minimal effect -- I wish I clipped the article -- maybe I can find it on line.

But seriously, if the Republicans have any ideas that are better than President Obama's plan; ideas that will really work to get all Americans affordable access to medical care, then I'm listening. I don't care whether a good idea comes from the left or the right -- as long as it works.

explain why dual income households are being punished $100 a month then. That doesnt sound right

**Donkey Elephant** · 12-18-2010, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by Excelsior

It's not much of a stretch. In this country, there are over 200 million vehicles, and most people who have a car and drive need that car to live -- to get to work to earn the money that buys their food and pays their rent or mortgage. Of course, there are many people who use buses and trains, but it would be very inconvenient for the majority of drivers to give up their cars and rely on public transportation in this country.

The requirement to purchase health insurance is little different than a tax -- it ultimately is money that goes toward a pool for the greater good. Just like your federal tax dollars go, in part, to our military to protect our country, which is for the greater good.

You can cry about it all you want, but the fact is that most people, at some time in their lives, need some kind of medical care. Since hospitals are not allowed to turn anyone away, the system we have now allows people who pay little or nothing into the system to get very expensive care in an emergency. And on top of that, it discourages lower-income people from getting regular check-ups and treatment, which could prevent the need for expensive emergency care in the first place.

Let's see the the Republicans come up with anything better. They're now going to control the House, so lets see what they come up with. Oh, yeah, their favorites -- "let insurance companies sell insurance across state lines" and "tort reform." As if insurance companies don't already have competition from several other insurance companies within a state. And I'm all for tort reform, but I seriously doubt that it would lower medical costs enough to allow many more lower-income people to have access to health care. It seems I read that a state implementated some kind of tort reform, but that it only had minimal effect -- I wish I clipped the article -- maybe I can find it on line.

But seriously, if the Republicans have any ideas that are better than President Obama's plan; ideas that will really work to get all Americans affordable access to medical care, then I'm listening. I don't care whether a good idea comes from the left or the right -- as long as it works.

Bad healthcare system or no, it's not smart for the prolonged health of the union to allow the federal government to unconstitutionally dictate what people must consume.

Maybe a couple decades from now, with r tards like sotomoyer or whoever that knew justice, the government will be dictating that we eat carrots and broccoli instead if burgers and fries.

After all, you believe it's fine for the greater good to infringe on private property rights to the extreme.

/communist utopia.

**Excelsior** · 12-19-2010, 07:04 AM

Okay, there I'll agree with you. I'm more than tired of the infringements of our personal freedoms that have occurred for two decades. It's why all of the electronic safety crap is jammed into new cars, and it's why we have seatbelt laws and bicycle helmet (for kids) laws. It's also why we have excessive anti-smoking laws. I'd like to see the Republicans do something about that -- it's why I used to vote for them. But other than Jeb Bush repealing a motorcycle helmet law, I haven't seen any progress there.

But for health care, I will not compromise my view. I've seen what has been going on with our current "system," and it is not what the best country in the world should be doing. I had a previous employer yank my health benefits without even telling me because I wasn't eligible for them, even though their outsourced-to-India HR department told me I was eligible. I have a friend who lost coverage when the company he worked for went out of business -- and he is diabetic and has had a heart attack -- not exactly a prime candidate for a buying his own personal plan. As I've said in previous posts over the years, this isn't demanding that the government buy us all a plasma TV. This isn't a luxury. This is something that nearly everybody needs on some level to survive.

**Donkey Elephant** · 12-19-2010, 12:17 PM

using government money to subsidize the health insurance policies of those who can not afford to purchase health insurance is a completely different issue than requiring those who can afford it to buy it.

the government has been subsidizing lifestyles/(i.e. subsidizing consumption) for the last century, including health insurance (medicare has been around a LONG time)

it HAS NOT been dictating what we must consume

this is a completely different subject than what you would like to talk about.

we are all used to th idea of the government giving people money.

what we are concerned with, is the new power grab in to a completely different avenue not yet exercised: the idea of telling us what we must consume to even be able to live in the US

i for one, do not want social engineers. and thats what this is, the government telling us what we MUST DO, so that we can live the perfect lifestyle according to them.

we should ONLY have laws that tell us what we CANT DO (property crime), not laws what we MUST DO (brush our teeth, buy insurance, eat healthy food).

**TEDDER1** · 12-19-2010, 01:24 PM

Another thing worth noting is that the insurance carriers are in the black, deep in the black, making nice profits. If they keep this law in effect, the money doesn't do anything productive but line stockholders pockets.

They should have kept the government provided plan to drive cost down, which i thought was the whole plan in the first place. Driving cost down removes some of the excessive profit and dumps it right back into the economy.

**Zan** · 12-19-2010, 01:26 PM

if they just take it out on taxes am fine with that. But with what i heard people who doesnt pay in to it can face jail time.

**1997GST** · 12-19-2010, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by TEDDER1

Another thing worth noting is that the insurance carriers are in the black, deep in the black, making nice profits. If they keep this law in effect, the money doesn't do anything productive but line stockholders pockets.

They should have kept the government provided plan to drive cost down, which i thought was the whole plan in the first place. Driving cost down removes some of the excessive profit and dumps it right back into the economy.

problem with that is that the government could provide such cheap insurance that they would drive all the health insurance companies out of business.
not a good thing.