Can't make us buy HC Insurance

[Tom]

Court decision today - Congress does NOT have the authority to firce us to buy insurance under the commerce clause.

Round 1 - American people

[johnhannibalsmith]

Boy, I'd like to dig up a few old threads now.

[lamboguy]

does this mean that i am going to get my $3000 penalty i got from the romney deal last year for not having prescription dope insurance?

this might be good news for me

[bigmack]

Nance & jognlope ain't gonna like this one bit.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Tom

Court decision today - Congress does NOT have the authority to firce us to buy insurance under the commerce clause.

Round 1 - American people

Without doubt, this will go to the SC. Then it becomes a crap shoot.

As Rush correctly pointed out, this all goes to show just how ideologically-biased the courts are. I think there have been decisions by liberal activist judges who favor legislating from the bench and they, of course, have come down in favor of ObminationCare. Now, this conservative judge, who is a constitutionalist and strict interpreter of law, comes down against the same bill.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Tom

Court decision today - Congress does NOT have the authority to firce us to buy insurance under the commerce clause.

Round 1 - American people

A different federal judge in Virginia and one in Michigan have ruled that it is constitutional. In addition a number of suits seeking to overturn that portion of the Affordable Health Care Act have been dismissed on other grounds.
A long way to go before we have a final decision on this. Don't forget this peovision does not go into effect until 2014.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by mostpost

A different federal judge in Virginia and one in Michigan have ruled that it is constitutional. In addition a number of suits seeking to overturn that portion of the Affordable Health Care Act have been dismissed on other grounds.
A long way to go before we have a final decision on this. Don't forget this peovision does not go into effect until 2014.

But funding those "freebies" begins soon, which is why the House must move sooner than immediately to set the wheels in motion for repeal, as symbolic as that will be. But the timing would be politically important.

Boxcar

[Spiderman]

Section 1501, mandating a "penalty" for not purchasing health care, was severed from the health care bill. Opponents to health care reform shopped for and found the right judge.

The Public Option, which was not fought for by Obama, would have negated today's Virginia court decision. The ruling is an injunction for an enactment that will not begin until 2013. Though, the make-up of the incoming congress will likely not consider a health care plan.

Without Public Option, Health Care Reform will be difficult to achieve. There are good reasons to reduce the costs of health care and provide children and people with pre-existing conditions with medical treatment.

[ArlJim78]

It was a penalty but they removed it and now try to claim it's a tax. just another shell game.

the first order of business in the new congress will be a repeal and replace healthcare measure. keeping what's already in place and replacing the stuff that occurs down the road with something that isn't quite so insane.

[Ocala Mike]

What Spiderman said.

Health care reform should not be about health care insurance anyway. A finding that the mandate to purchase it is unconstitutional may actually bring us closer to universal health care for all, the gold standard in almost every other industrialized nation on earth.


Ocala Mike

[bigmack]

[YT="NP"]APUhVXImUhc[/YT]

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

What Spiderman said.

Health care reform should not be about health care insurance anyway. A finding that the mandate to purchase it is unconstitutional may actually bring us closer to universal health care for all, the gold standard in almost every other industrialized nation on earth.


Ocala Mike

What until "every other industrialized nation on earth" discovers the standard to have been fools' gold.

Boxcar

[slewis]

What I ask, not being an attorney, is why should I be forced to buy Car insurance either? Is it because I'm putting others at risk if I hit them and I would be liable?
If so, the argument can be (and will be in some facimile) made that someone forced to go to the ER for emergency care who cant afford it is a financial burden to the people of the US. Just like the auto accident, there is financial liability. In the case of health care, that burden is placed upon the taxpayers as whole.

If I cant be forced to have health insurance, they cant force auto insurance.

Where, in turn, society runs the risk of having every 17 yr old with a license who would normally go into assigned risk and pay very high premiums, driving without insurance altogether.

He run a stop sign, hits your car, and now what?

There is a lot to debate here.

[DJofSD]

Owning an automobile and driving is not manditory. It's optional. If you opt to own a car and drive you are required to provide a means to compensate others in the event of an accident. Compensation can be in the form of insurance, a bond or self-insurance. Health insurance is not the same as car insurance because the underlying situation, being alive, is not the same. Being alive is not a choice.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Owning an automobile and driving is not manditory. It's optional. If you opt to own a car and drive you are required to provide a means to compensate others in the event of an accident. Compensation can be in the form of insurance, a bond or self-insurance. Health insurance is not the same as car insurance because the underlying situation, being alive, is not the same. Being alive is not a choice.

Exactly right! Very well stated!

Being born ("alive" as you put) is not OUR choice. It's the choice of our sovereign Creator. Since we don't have a right to be alive (born), then neither do we have any right to acquire those things necessary to sustain life.

Boxcar