History in the making --

[houselive.gov]

LOL- as Steve Tyler sings: "Dream on!"

There's this catchy little Schoolhouse Rock episode called, "How a Bill Becomes a Law." I had assumed everyone's seen it, but . . . .

Great News for Health Freedom Fighters!

Federal Judge Strikes Down Entire Health Law

[db.tt]

Read the 78 Page Ruling by Judge Vinson on the Unconstitutional Health Care Law

[is.gd]

********************

BOTTOM LINE: Federal judge declares entire Obama health reform act unconstitutional, not just individual mandate

Vinson: "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void"

Judge Vinson: "Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate"

*******************

Florida Judge Strikes Down Health Overhaul

[www.washingtonpost.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2011 08:22PM by KidRaw.

This means nothing. See my previous post about the legislation process, please.

Does the legislation process actually apply here? I mean, considering the way it was illegally ram-rodded through...

I didn't see any true legislative process...just a one-sided bullying maneuver...

Oh...but I heard in a recent speech that they now want to listen to what the other side has to say..they want to work together...funny...it wasn't that way in the beginning...

sorry, feel free to ignore my mindless ramblings, lol...

Not sure what you mean by the Legislative Process relating to this, unless you mean that it still has to go to the Supreme Court. I did watch the video on how a bill becomes a law.

Here's a good explanation of the Judge's Ruling by a Cornell Law School Professor --

Florida Judge Rules Against Obamacare, Injunction Denied As Unnecessary Since Entire Law Unconstitutional

[legalinsurrection.blogspot.com]

KidRaw and jk,

There was nothing illegal about the way this was done. That's just something that is said to discredit the process. The bill was available online and to all members, it was put to a vote, and it passed. What is the difficulty with understanding this? Further, the Florida judge is, as did the one in Virginia, hinging the ruling on an ambiguity in the Commerce Clause in a way that is arguable; that Vinson is denying injuctive relief--allowed by the Virgina ruling--creates a problem, as they must be consistent with one another. Vinson evinces a belief that interpretation of the clause must be pursuant to the current SC's interpretation, a shakey foundation on which to base an argument as it directly opposes the interpretation of the legal scholars involved in the drafting of the individual mandate section of the bill. IMO, an time you rely on a Scalia argument for anything in the 21st Century you are in trouble; the justice is a rigid originalist and this makes his rulings controversial.

The thing that amuses me about this is that this legislation was drafted by trained lawyers who worried the implications to the Commerce Clause like a bulldog over a bone, as I recall. Vinson does not appear to do this in the judgment, but to presume that these experts wouldn't have anticipated these challenges is strange.

I don't get it. What do you guys have against health care? You know the REST OF THE WORLD does this, right? Is this like you and your weird aversion to the metric system? Why would you Not want to improve this in your country? Did you guys watch Sicko? It was pretty accurate...

only issue I have with the health care bill, is from what I read in it, it didnt seem to improve things much at all, it threw tons of money at a system that was already hemorrhaging cash without any real reform of the underlying problems that make it so difficult and expensive to provide medical care to the population to begin with.

Personally I would love to see a new health care bill that does this, I would also love to see ANYTHING put through in my life that doesn't have billions and billions of "pork" added to it (funding for pet projects and things that literally have nothing to do with health care, often crazy things such as money for studying the effects the smell of pig manure could have on a community, things that should be addressed separately, and on their merits, instead of sneaking it through attached to something important.)

Also, I enjoy the metric system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't get it. What do you guys have against
> health care?


I like healthcare fine -- I just don't like the Government (who I don't trust) FORCING everybody to buy Health Insurance, which is also Unconstitutional. And we are a Constitutional Republic.

It's called taxes in our country. Yes, we pay more than you but if you accidentally cut your thumb off here it gets sewn back on free of charge.

A quote I read somewhere that always stuck with me

"Drugs taught an entire generation of kids the metric system."

uh coco, thats not it either, in your country people cant sue Doctors for insane amounts of money (there is almost no limit here in the U.S., and the cost of the malpractice insurance in the U.S. is one of the largest costs incurred by Doctors)

In canada, the government says "this is how much your getting payed to do x procedure, and that is it, you have no choice, and you cannot turn anyone that needs it away."

In the U.S. Doctors make huuuuuuge salaries, and hospitals charge massive prices to pay for the salaries, the new equipment, and the insurance, there is no where else in the world in which a Doctor can make more money, thats why the vast majority of the best Doctors in the world, move to the U.S. to start a practice (not all do this, but most.)

then on top of that, Canada's medical system is also hemorrhaging money, im sorry to say but it is costing far far far more than is being brought in tax wise, last time I checked, Canada's budget wasn't in the black either, although not in nearly as bad of shape as the U.S. of course...

as far as the quality of the doctors goes, My friend laylas supposed degenerative brain condition, was not even able to be diagnosed in canada, after all the doctors she went to, and specialists(at one point they even diagnosed her with anemia and where giving her iron supplements, which did nothing good for her) then they come to the U.S., and bam, first Doc they go to, had a definitive diagnosis. or so her mom said, im still debating on whether or not to ask what the diagnosis is since they have not volunteered that info, and I feel awkward asking...

throwing more money at a broken system wont do jack to help anyone, in every state here, the truly poor can easily get free medical already, its the middle class that get screwed, cause they cant afford it, but aren't poor enough to get any benefits, and this bill did nothing to help that, it just threw more money to the poor (which im poor enough to be considered a member of, and would have benefited from) and then it forces middle class people who dont meet the requirements to receive free medical under this bill, to PAY for medical insurance or get penalized... This is nothing at all like the system in canada...

If they want to have a good socialized medicine program in this country, first it has to start at reform, drastically reduce the ceiling for the cash people can sue a Doctor for, reduce the reasons they can sue for (like they have done in canada) impose mandatory salary restrictions on medical professionals that work for the state(like is done in every place in the world with socialized medicine)

Then abolish all taxes in the U.S. in their current form, and put a straight across the board 20-25% sales tax (combined state and federal, and also a 20-25% tariff on any imported goods to keep things balanced with domestically produced products) and according to most major economists out there, that alone would end up paying off our debts eventually, while still leaving us the ability to fund socialized medicine, and possibly even a completely socialized higher education system... and the average joe blow would actually be paying far less taxes over all then they usually end up losing between state, federal income tax, and sales tax, and all that crap, while rich trust fund babies, and criminals, who normally wouldn't be taxed, will be, on everything they purchase.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Yes, well Canada is what I call a parliamentary Democracy[a true civilized representative system], whereas we are sort of a modified plutocratic oligarchy. Sorry, but we ceased being a Democratic Republic about thirty years ago. Also, tricorn hats and breeches went out beofre the Jackson administration

What I mention in my previous post is that Vinson deviates from the previous Virginia ruling in that he does not compartmentalize the individual mandate. This isn't apparently legally supportible.

Curator,

Ah, you are a visionary. Like John the Baptist, screaming Truth into the void, and only the desert birds answering back . . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2011 06:35PM by Tamukha.

For those interested in the Legal Constitutionality of the Healthcare Law, rather than the Feel-Good Aspect ("Healthcare is a Right" "What about the poor" ) --

[goldwaterinstitute.org]

"The Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation has a pending request for a federal court injunction against a different part of the law that creates the Independent Payment Advisory Board. This new agency is charged with sweeping authority related to government payment for health care services. The lawsuit challenges the agency as unconstitutional because Congress and the federal courts have almost no oversight of the board’s decisions, and the health care law makes it nearly impossible for Congress to repeal the agency, Mr. Bolick said."

*****************

Tamukha said:

"The bill was available online and to all members, "

Yes, but that's another reason for it to be repealed -- it wasn't read by all the members of Congress who voted for it -

- because it's a 2000-page monstrosity loaded with landmines of schemes and scams and duplicity, creating paperwork and red tape and bureaucracy, rife with opportunity for fraud, abuse and a waste of time, money, and resources, meant to enrich the elite and not help 'the people'.

It's not giving us any healthcare for free, but bogging us down with rules, regulations and penalties that takes away our health freedom, and ends up with us paying more money for healthcare.

So far, most people have had an increase in their Health Insurance premiums.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2011 06:55PM by KidRaw.

Well...this "desert bird" with 26 + other states feel it is wrong, I guess. Sorry I can't put it as eloquently as "John the Baptist", but I ain't got it in me to talk like that. Not today, anyway.

Must be all those years of eating meat, dairy & cooked foods that has clogged up my analytical thinking processes causing me not to see the greatness of this bill & to understand the wondrous musings of our master prophet, BO...

I think she meant it as a compliment jk, sort of like its another one of my Don Quixote things... fixing the system would be best, but none of the people that could are interested in truly doing so, so it is like yelling out truth to the desert, but it it does no good, because the only ones who will listen, are those who already know... I could be interpreting that completely wrong in my half asleep state however,LOL...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Here are some articles explaining the legal details of the ruling --

*******************


Don't miss "Judge Vinson's Greatest Hits,"

[www.cato-at-liberty.org]

*****************

-If gov't follows precedent, a declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction:

[www.cato-at-liberty.org]

***************

Healthcare Ruling A Win for Federalism and Individual Victory -

[www.cato-at-liberty.org]

****************

Florida Ruling Requires Government to Stop Implementing Obamacare

[www.cato-at-liberty.org]

**************

No severability plus de facto injunction means Federal Government must stop implementing Obamacare immediately.

[tinyurl.com]

***************

Federal Judge: Individual Mandate Unconstitutional, Health Care Overhaul "must be declared void"


[reason.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2011 08:05PM by KidRaw.

We should have had single payer. This is a disgrace. All it does is force us to make the insurance companies even richer. The objection is lame--"It's too complicated and would take too long to do something like that." It's really very simple: MEDICARE FOR ALL! No need to create a new system; just enroll everyone in Medicare! The other problem is that the cost of medical supplies, hospital stays, etc. is very bloated. It's immoral how much is charged for a simple pill or overnight stay in a hospital. And it must be a relatively recent phenomenon because when women used to give birth, they didn't get released right away. They got a chance to rest. Same with other surgeries. But we also need coverage for dental and eyes. It's just a hot mess.

Oh, we pay for dental here. There is a program that covers kids if you don't make a lot of money though.

Ironic, dental is free for me >.< LOL...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

KidRaw,

First, it is neither illegal nor unconstitutional that the bill may not have been read by every member. It is, however, pro forma. Welcome to our legislative process. Second, The [Barry]Goldwater Institute--are you kidding me? Am going to assume you don't know who he was. Third, the individual mandate is a sticky wicket, and I don't deny this, but it is a legal misstep to hinge an argument for illegality on this alone, as we are seeing.

That a preponderance of State Attorneys General(26 states) threw their hats into the ring to enact a repeal, but not to argue for the public option[humane and constitutional] is, I suspect, why many of them failed to be re-elected or re-appointed, and does not indicate a sound legal argument necessarily. Lemmings, meet cliff, if you get what I mean.

Yes, Curator, I meant it as a compliment. Like most Americans who opposed this legislation, I disliked it because, having read it, I realized the Affordable Care Act did not go far enough. But what we got is better than nothing, and better what the opposition was offering, which was basically status quo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2011 12:05AM by Tamukha.

"But what we got is better than nothing, and better what the opposition was offering, which was basically status quo."

Maybe better than nothing if you're not a small business owner trying to cope with the headache of staying afloat through all of this...

"....I suspect, why many of them failed to be re-elected or re-appointed...."

Tam...are you drinking the kool-aid, lol...

It would seem that what happened in Nov. was largely the fallout of the (illegal, IMO) passage of this bill.

jk,

No Kool-Aid here, just knowledge

As for my AG--he lost to a more moderate candidate partly, according to polls, and this was true in many states, because he threw his support behind repeal in campaigning. See, here, most of the law's provisions are very popular, including those that take the medical insurance burden off of small employers. Had we had truly comprehensive reform, small business employees would have been covered by all of us, rather than by their employers[people like you]; the voucher system is an attempt to offset the absence of this, btw. As we all recall, there was a strong push to mischaracterize the bill as fascist or other anti-definitions, and public opinion turned against the bill as an abstract idea. In poll after poll, though, the vast majority of cross sections of Americans like most of the individual provisions of the bill! No one likes the individual mandate to purchase, but, again, it can be easily excluded without rolling back popular provisions, thus saving this country a couple hundred billion dollars, ahem.

Regarding this contradiction of people who dislike the individual mandate but like the law's other provisions: that people still don't understand that the individual purchase mandate was, and still is, a feint designed to return the public option to the table, which has thus far failed because of obstructionists in both parties, is very depressing. It means that many Americans don't know how this law was originally structured and don't understand how it came to its present form. For example, people seem to have forgotten that the individual purchase mandate was an R idea from back in the days of Clinton health care reform debates. Funny how things turn, huh?

It's a hard pill to swallow, but if we weren't agitating for universal health care, or at least the public option, what sort of reform could we expect? Not much. And the way things were was unsupportible. The other side, to this day, do not have an alternative plan. Except to repeal and then reinstall favored provisions. This is the grossest incompetence, and illustrates how we have to take care of ourselves, and of one another, if this civilization is to survive.

Thank goodness for these Forums, or many of us would be out in the cold!

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
The other side, to this day, do
> not have an alternative plan. Except to repeal
> and then reinstall favored provisions.

That is a talking point of those in power and is not true. "The Other Side" had at least 30 alternative healthcare reform bills, which did not see the light of day because the MSM is biased, and "The Other Side" was not allowed in any of the closed door meetings and were not allowed to participate in the writing of the Healthcare Bill.

Democrats Stifle Republican Health Care Plans

[washingtonexaminer.com]


"Rep. Tom Price, the Georgia Republican who heads the House GOP Study Committee, came to President Obama's speech Wednesday night itching to make a point. Price, who also happens to be an orthopedic surgeon, has often heard the president accuse Republicans of criticizing Democratic health care proposals while having no plans of their own. He expected Obama to do the same Wednesday night.

"We knew the president would at some point say something like, 'and the other side has no ideas,' " Price says. So Price and his Republican colleagues brought with them copies of the more than 30 health care reform bills they have proposed in the House this year."

(Also, from the same article)


"The virtual embargo on reporting Republican legislation has allowed Democrats and their allies in the media to keep up the "Republicans have no plan" attack. Just hours after the president's speech, for example, the Democratic National Committee released a new commercial claiming that Republicans "refuse to offer a plan" to reform the health care system.

Just for the record, in case you want to check them out, these are the bills proposed, so far, by Price and his allies in the House: H.R. 77; H.R. 109; H.R. 198; H.R. 270; H.R. 321; H.R. 464; H.R. 502; H.R. 544; H.R. 917; H.R. 1086; H.R. 1118; H.R. 1441; H.R. 1458; H.R. 1468; H.R. 1658; H.R. 1891; H.R. 2520; H.R. 2607; H.R. 2692; H.R. 2784; H.R. 2785; H.R. 2786; H.R. 2787; H.R. 3141; H.R. 3217; H.R. 3218; H.R. 3356; H.R. 3372; H.R. 3400; H.R. 3438; H.R. 3454; and H.R. 3478."


Read more at the Washington Examiner: [washingtonexaminer.com]

**************************

(So that was then, when the Healthcare Bill was written, and right now 'The Other Side' also has an Alternative Healthcare Plan, which I'll be posting after I research it further.)

And here are some further links that I ran across while looking up the truth to discredit this disinformation - that The Other Side never had and does not have an Alternative Healthcare Plan.

************************


[www.cnsnews.com]

[www.breitbart.com]

[online.wsj.com]

[www.google.com]

Here's an example of a provision in the Healthcare Bill that is a nightmare legislation for anyone conducting business of any kind.

Senate Moves Closer to Deal Repealing 1099 Provision in Healthcare Law


[thehill.com]

And that's just one of many questionable power grabs in this monster job-killing law.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2011 06:12PM by KidRaw.

KidRaw,

Wow, reading your post was like traveling back in time to when I first learned these things a couple years ago!

First, still with the CT?: the idea that there was an "embargo" on alternate plans is ludicrous--somehow I managed to access information about these plans and to look into them and I'm not even on the ins, gasp! That's a cop-out that the sources you site[not all of which are legit--Breitbart, e.g.] used and persist in using to conceal the paucity of real solutions in most of the other side's offerings. For example, I distinctly recall reading the few hundred page "official" rebuttal plan offered by the other side[one of your links shows it]at the drafting of HCR, which was lauded by certain still sitting members of that side. I was looking forward to seeing something simpler and more efficient, because the HCR bill really was a mess of good ideas and pork. I should have known better than to expect innovation from the other side--I laughed throughout my reading of their plan because it was was a tour de force of legal double speak that presented zero innovations. Zero. Unless you count purchasing insurance across state lines and tort reform, hardly novel concepts, as they have been bandied since the early 90s[I have already mentioned this], and which were considered for the final ACA bill. They stick to what they know, those guys. The president, I politely remind, doesn't make laws here, and did consider what the other side was offering. Over and over. I guess you missed C-span's coverage of the exhausting question-and-answer panels the president had with Congresspersons and which were broadcast for all citizens to see. I realize I have more free time than many posters here.

Second, that they had over 30 alternative plans, most of which mirrored one another(yes, they did), is the clearest evidence I can find of incompetence--how can this possibly be construed as having a series of cogent ideas that pass muster with every member and which can be feasibly implemented? It CAN'T be. 30 plans is not a plan; it's flailing about while drowning. It does explain why they currently wish to backpeddle and keep all of the popular provisions of the ACA, most of which they opposed during the HCR debates. I know, I tuned in. The other side is still not offering a true alternate plan. It's actually comical, in a tragic way, to see Mitt Romney walk his fairly novel plan for Massachusetts back. Like it's bad.

If you disagree with provisions of the bill or how health care is provided in the U.S. there are legitimate arguments to make that are policy or economy based, but regardless of which, are based on reality--what actually occurred and what actually happened. Resorting to imaginary or obsolete arguments, like that ludicrous meme that HCR "kills jobs"[prove it!]isn't beneficial to the discourse and is very tiring for everyone to have to read.

I am hereby done with this thread because I'm not, as it turns out, a masochist.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2011 06:44PM by Tamukha.

This is the latest Healthcare Proposal from The Other Side --

Barasso, Graham, Introduce "Third Front" Against Health Care Reform

[www.slate.com]

******************

Here are more --

GOP Healthcare Solution -

[www.gop.gov]

*********************

Republicans Announce New Health Care Bill That Would Allow States to Opt-Out


[blogs.abcnews.com]

********************

Republicans Plan Their Own Health Care Laws

After voting in the House to repeal health care overhaul, GOP starts offering its own proposals.

[www.statesman.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2011 07:35PM by KidRaw.

I have no problem with the Government forcing people to buy health insurance. Beats have them collapse in the emergency room and sticking taxpayers with the bill.

We have to buy auto insurance. What is so different about this? If people aren't forced to buy insurance, only the sick will purchase health insurance and the risk pool will collapse. That's the way insurance works. If enough healthy people don't balance the ill, the system will collapse of its own expense and futility.