Obamacare Ruling

The first step in getting the Obamacare law trashed has been won. The mandatory insurance clause has been ruled unconstitutional. Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled that the clause exceeded the authority Congress can wield under the commerce and general welfare clauses of the constitution. The obvious good news here is that opting not to participate means nobody will be getting fined and potentially being thrown in jail for not paying the fines.

I'm no legal scholar, but I can't help but think that striking down the mandatory health coverage portion of the law might just lead to the dismantling of equally oppressive state mandatory auto insurance laws as well since they're all based on the same principle. Insuring one's vehicle is certainly wise, as is having health coverage, but having to face fines, jail time, or vehicle impound for not having it when you can't afford to pay for it is utterly immoral.

Though the Virginia case is likely to be appealed by the Obama administration, we've scored a major victory here today and hopefully with the Supreme Court still in the hands of constitutional conservatives we'll eventually win the fight all together.

Here's to hoping the 20 state lawsuit meets with similar victories when their case begins on Thursday.
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

       
« Wikileaks and Cyberterrorism
FCC Power Grab »

Posted on Dec 13, 2010 12:19 pm by Samson in: | 87 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
Vladaar [Anon] said:
Comment #1 Dec 13, 2010 1:50 pm
The repeal or defunding of Obama Care would be awesome, but is it too little too late? Things do appear better with Tax cuts getting through and this latest judge ruling. I hope we still have time to turn things around. See the earmark they spent on ethanol with tax cuts? Taking corn for that purpose, is going to raise price of groceries likely.

       
I can't argue Vladaar's assessment, but I can certainly cheer Judge Hudson's ruling. Whether or not it holds, it's a clear step in the right direction that's going to be a hard fought issue because, despite the Obama administration's deepest desires the constitution really doesn't support his original position.

       
Well there's some buzz going around that the Obamacare law does not contain a severability clause. What that basically means is that if one portion of the law is found unconstitutional, the entire law has to be thrown out. So assuming they find there's no severability in the law, we might just have scored the biggest victory of all with this ruling.

The administration is going to appeal this though, you know they will. So it'll still end up before SCOTUS at some point.

       
That would be awesome,but only if it can stand up to the appeals process because I definitely agree that Obama's people are not going to let it drop without a fight.

       
I can't believe Samson agrees with me on something! :shock: I'm not a fan of 'mandatory' anything, espescially when government and insurance come up in the same sentence. Of course, they'll just re-write Obamacare to avoid the unconstitutional part?
BTW-Why are we calling it ObamaCare it's really BushSr/Clinton/BushJrCare?

       
We're calling it Obamacare because it's the plan Obama drew up, submitted to Congress, got passed, and signed into law. Bush and Clinton had little if anything to do with it.

The Clinton attempt was known as Hillarycare because his wife was the major driving force behind it back in the 1990s. The bills share a lot in common but Obama's went a lot farther by including the coverage mandate. Not to mention the stealth takeover of the entire student loan industry.

       
Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #7 Dec 20, 2010 3:20 pm
Hey sammy, wtf is up wit mudbytes man? why ur letting it go to hell with spam?

       
Wow, talk about off-topic... Hey Anonymous, weren't you aware that Samson ceased being associated with MudBytes over a year ago? Check out MudBytes Backstabbers and, just for fun, MudBytes Resignation, if that's not enough light reading for you, even just on the topic of Samson and MudBytes, try clicking here too for even more fun with Dick and Jane, or Samson & Kayle & Davion & Kiasyn & Cratylus... in this case. ;)

       
I think Conner covered that pretty well.

It's sort of sad to see the place degenerating into a spam heap though. Hindsight being what it is, I never should have given up ownership of the domain name. Maybe you'll all get lucky and someone will forget to renew the domain and it can just die peacefully instead of being kept alive as a corpse?

       
I do try. :lol:

:shrug: I don't think it's quite become a spam-fest because of the buzzards just yet, but I suppose it does seem to be heading that way. ..on the other hand, you never know, mudstandards was looking like Jeremy had completely forgotten it existed and was just letting the spambots have their fun for awhile there, but about a week or so ago he showed back up on day and deleted the primary spambot account along with all the extraneous posts it had made and appears to have blocked/banned the beast so the site's back to basically just sitting dead instead of infested with porn spammers now. Maybe Davion and Kiasyn will suddenly rekindle their interest in MudBytes sometime soonish and manage to purge the spammers and drum business back up to lively levels again. One never can tell. ;)

       
Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #11 Dec 21, 2010 12:19 am
the hell? kayle said sammy was still in charge! oh well, site aint worth shit with all the spammers. cant tell them from asshats like cratyfuck so fuck it.

       
What a happy nice place the Oblivion community seems in comparison.

       
You have no idea.

       
Um, no, Kayle might've said that Samson was still in charge over at The SmaugFUSS Project, and that would've been true (though even there Samson's mostly handed the reins off already to Kayle and and couple of others too), but Samson's been out of MB for a long while now.

Yes, Oblivion has a much nicer community overall, despite being vastly larger. :shrug:

       
I can't see any reason why Kayle would have said such a thing re: MB.

As for SmaugMuds, most of the day to day stuff is in Kayle's court. I still handle the underlying server stuff and still poke my head out for AFKMud issues since I'm probably one of the few, if any, who even know the codebase :P There aren't any other people handling administrative tasks though.

Most of the gaming communities I've visited are all far nicer and happier places despite all being much larger.

       
GanoesParan [Anon] said:
Comment #16 Dec 22, 2010 8:30 am
Hey Arthmoor and folks.

Just stumbled across your wee blog (actually stumbled across the anti giskard blog and LOLed) andwent to the home page and noticed this. And I assume from this and other blog posts that you are a Republican.

I have somewhat paid attention to the whole Universal Healthcare arguements and I am yet to see any one anti arguement that outweighs the benefits of universal healthcare.

We in the UK already have universal healthcare - have had it since the end of the War (WW2) - and its not destroyed us. In fact its something that vastly benefits us - everyone has access to it when they need the help. Having grown up with the NHS I really can not fathom why anyone could be so gung ho against it as some Americans seem to be.

It really boggles my mind. What is so wrong with wanting EVERYONE to be able to go to hospital and get an operation they need rather than dying because they cant afford it. That to my mind is whats immoral; allowing that when it can be prevented.

Unless I am missing some key difference between what is being proposed for the Universal Healthcare bill and what we have in Britain...

       
Yup, Samson's a Republican.

:shrug: I can't really say that I've seen any super-compelling arguments in favor of universal healthcare either. I suppose it's mostly a matter of perspective.

In our country, GanoesParan, without universal healthcare, we already have systems in place that allow for anyone to go to the hospital and receive whatever treatments are necessary. The difference is that currently we get billed for such treatments/operations/etc after the fact and without insurance things get really expensive and sticky. Oddly, with the passage of Obamacare hospitals in my area have recently started turning away patients who are uninsured and unable to pay up front at the ER which is something they had said they weren't legally allowed to do for the last decade or so prior to Obamacare. Guess Americans have really benefited from Obamacare already... :sigh:

Does that help illuminate part of what you might be missing? Perhaps the issue of the part of Obamacare that says if you choose not to enroll in an approved health insurance plan by such-n-such date you'll be fined heavily and should you have made that decision because you couldn't afford it and thus you also can't afford said heavy fines you'll receive free medical coverage as part of your vacation package in the penal system might also be noteworthy. Or, perhaps the fact that Obamacare somehow involves the educational funding community... or, perhaps it's the fact that Obamacare doesn't actually grant anyone access to medical treatment or coverage for medical care but merely guarantees that everyone will have health insurance by mandating that you must pay your premiums or go to jail. Unless those are already all factors in what you've got over there too?

       
Heh, what gave my Republicanism away? :) I'd actually classify myself as a Libertarian though. I'm only registered as a Republican because being able to vote in the primaries is somewhat important.

The major problem with Obamacare is that it's being regulated by the government and is designed to completely replace the private insurance industry. The system we have in place now where medical benefits are provided by your job has done us pretty well so far and the quality of care in the US is second to none. Those of us who can't afford insurance are not cut out of the system entirely. We can either pay for what we need if it's minor or deal with the financial fallout if we can't. Either way, by law they cannot (or at least could not) deny treatment.

Having a mandatory insurance mandate is wholly unconstitutional. This was the major thing we as Republicans/Libertarians (or as Larry Elder once called us, Republitarians) opposed because it violates the authority Congress has to regulate interstate commerce. There can be no possible justification even on moral grounds for forcing someone to pay for something they don't want/can't afford, and then tossing them in jail for refusing to comply. The big hint as to how the government was treating the whole thing should come from the fact that the IRS was charged with enforcement of the mandate. The IRS is a tax agency, not a medical agency.

The fact also remains that the government would be able to ration care, and in some cases already is. There are things even in your NHS that get rationed. People also get put on waiting lists. Nevermind the documented stories of people dying of thirst in NHS run facilities, or resorting to drinking water from planters. This to me suggests a pretty low quality of care which is not something we want to see happen here. Sarah Palin was not delusional when she warned of "death panels".

I don't think I even need to go into what a travesty it was that we were never told that a health care bill also meant we were ceding all authority over the student loan industry to the government. Nobody has yet put forth an argument for why the two are even related.

Not all aspects of the law were bad though. There are provisions in there to end the practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions, and there were provisions in there to allow for interstate competition in the insurance market.

So from where I stand, the negatives far outweigh the positives. With the insurance mandate now struck down, and no severability clause, perhaps we'll be able to get a better version of health care reform rather than a cloaked health care takeover. Assuming the courts are intelligent enough to strike down the entire law and spare us the necessity of having it repealed in the next Congressional session.

       
GanoesParan [Anon] said:
Comment #19 Dec 22, 2010 2:02 pm
Right I see.

Thats COMPLETELY different from the UK then lol. But then the whole Tax and Insurance system in the UK is quite different also.

Taxes for example are automatically deducted as we go. At point of sale for VAT, prior to being paid by your employers etc. We also pay into a national insurance pot, this too comes off automatically from our wages.

The NHS operates 90% of hospitals and GP surgeries, and probably about 50 to 60 percent of dental practices. Its free at point of use most of hte time. We pay for prescriptions, glasses, and dental treatement (not if we unemployed tho).

What we pay to the government its proportional to your earnings. So if you earn minimum wages then you are in the lowest bracket for tax and national insurance contributions so you pay a relatively low amount. Not sure exactly how much off the top of my head. As its just done automatically it isnt on the person to do it its the employer so no one is likely to go to jail. And if you dont pay your national insurance contributions you wouldnt be prosecuted for it; it just means you wouldnt be able to access the NHS or its services for free.

I still dont really get the whole gung-ho anti universal health care viewpoint. Like i said maybe its cos I am used to the NHS here in the UK. Maybe its cos as a country the UK suffers from a major case of Liberal Guilt.

Its the humane choice; I mean for myself I know that if i had the extra bit of money to contribute into a pot so that people who are poor who often are poor through no fault of their own (especially in the current economic climate) can access needed health services (like GP or hospital) so that they wont die if they fall seriously ill and cant afford the insurance. I dont understand how any modern 1st world society can condone that state of affairs where people continue to die of poverty in that 1st world society.
That also makes it the moral choice; coming together to help your fellow man. To better yourselves and everyone else. Jesus would approve im certain.

Yes it costs but given the sheer population of the USA you lot would pay less per head for a National Health System than we Brits do; it would probably work out at a few extra dollars tax a year which is a pittance to most peoples wages in the modern western world.

Everything I have heard of the anti universal health care arguement amounts to a turn of the century (20th not 21st) old conservative kick a poor person up the ass and tell him to get a job and stop being so poor Scrooge-esque attitude. The whole Tea Party thing seems to me to be an entire crosssection of the US populace collectively saying "Bah! Humbug!"
At least thats how it seems to me.

Thanks for the attempt Conner but I really am no closer to understanding the other side as it were.

       
GanoesParan [Anon] said:
Comment #20 Dec 22, 2010 2:17 pm
Sorry i began posting before you posted Samson.

Firstly can I say that I am actually thoroughly insulted that you called our health service has a low quality of care. You dont actually know if it does. Many of the horror stories you will have heard of I can assure you are exceptionally rare. Mistakes happen even in your private hospitals. I bet if I searched I could turn up DOZENS of examples of appalling examples of care in US hospitals.
No one died of thirst while waiting in NHS hospitals. Thats just ridiculous.
Secondly the NHSs mandate is mandatory. So what? It serves us just fine and 99% of the time delivers a high standard of care.

The NHS doesnt sideline private insurance; there are several large companies that operate entire hospitals privately in the UK. I dont know if this would be the case with "Obamacare" as I am not 100% on it so I can really only draw the parallels to what I do know and make an educated supposition.

You say that the Government would need to ration care. Well isnt care already rationed?
The poor dont have access to the care because they cant afford the insurance or the after the fact costs; therefore already rationed! So that arguement just holds no water whatsoever.
At least under a universal health care system they would be able to access treatement that could potentially save their lives without having it denied to them because they cant afford it.

Also the cost arguement doesnt really hold water either. At least not logically. I might be wrong here but I am sure the IRS would use a sliding scale similar to what we use (but not the same percentages) - the richer would pay more into the pot, and the poor would pay the least. At least thats how I would envisage it. I couldnt see the government trying to charge everyone the same amount regardless of affordability; that would defeat the purpose and WOULD mean forcing people who cant afford it to cough up exorbitant amounts.
If this is the case then cost isnt really a very good arguement to make.

Sorry but your arguement just seems to amount to "make me spend money? how dare you! BAH HUMBUG!"

       
You've already got a government insurance mandate then if it's being deducted from your wages and you have no control over that happening.

Nobody is going to die if they can't afford to pay for the insurance. We have laws against that sort of thing here. At the same time, paying for non-essential care for 40 million illegal aliens who flat out refuse to pay for simple stuff is not right either. In fact, you'll probably find that in an honest appraisal of attitudes toward health care, Americans are borderline hypochondriacs. Rushing off to the ER for every last little thing, putting a huge strain on the system in general that no amount of government reform can fix.

I wouldn't be so quick to fall into the trap of thinking all conservatives are bad and that we hate the poor. A lot of that kind of rhetoric is biased spin generated by the media. Personal responsibility plays a big part in Libertarian thinking though.

Also:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=71a_1267830855
http://www.theclaimsconnection.co.uk/news/staff-to-blame-for-man-dying-of-thirst.html

       
Edited by Samson on Dec 22, 2010 2:24 pm
GanoesParan [Anon] said:
Comment #22 Dec 22, 2010 2:32 pm
Well in the UK we have National Insurance numbers and cards. You simply can not get treatment on the NHS without one. Or with an equivalent granting you treatment if you are a member of an EU state.

So really "illegal aliens" wouldnt get treatment in this case.

As near as you I can tell the problem seems to be more the fear of Federal control; and that federal control will mean massive beaucracy and general incompetence. Which is a problem with ANY large organisation be they public or private. So its not really something that I buy.

I never said that i thought thats how conservatives think; I am saying that so far all of the arguements I have heard against Obamacare so far harken back to that olden days attitude that should have been long since died.

Maybe it is just cos I am a Brit that I just dont understand.

       
Yes, the fear of federal control and the resultant massive beaurocracy/incompetence are definitely factors in our disapproval of Obamacare, but they're actually not the main issues. The fact that control of student loans is somehow tied into this and the fact that the government's not talking about doing anything to the health care system itself but just making it mandatory to carry health care insurance with a prison penalty if you can't afford it are pretty significant factors too. And, yes, the fact that Obamacare does allow for illegal immigrants to receive full free health care at the expense of citizens has not gone unnoticed either. But, ultimately, the really big deal is that we're not really talking about universal health care like Canada or the UK have, we're talking about mandatory insurance coverage. This creates a huge problem for the states who individually have to fun their medicaid/medicare programs and potentially puts thousands of our citizens in prison solely because they cant afford insurance which still may not provide them actual health care should they need it if the individual policy that person was forced to pay for doesn't happen to cover whatever procedure they need. Prior to Obamacare our system had flaws but didn't allow for hospitals to refuse treatment to anyone who needed it regardless of ability to pay for it, so it's not like we're saying if you're too poor just go die.

       
GanoesParan [Anon] said:
Comment #24 Dec 22, 2010 5:11 pm
Ah.

Thank you. Now I see.

Well then thats just misleading. Thats not universal health care thats mandatory health insurance. What a misnomer. Thank you for explaining that. That makes much more sense to me now.

I should say that for the record I am a liberal. Which in the UK is slightly left of centre. It comes with being gay I suppose lol. And being as liberal minded as I am I feel very strongly (in case you couldnt tell) that there is no real arguement against proper universal health care; yes it costs a lot, and yes it requires a lot oversight (thus a large nightmarish beauracracy), and yes there are occassionally isolated incidents that besmirch the honour of the health system (like the dying of thirst one which only make the national/internaitonal headlines because of just how rare and isolated they are!) but at the end of the day they do a good job and serve a very important function.

Its my feeling that the arguement that can possibly be made against REAL universal health care is financial; that is the arguement of wether to put money before real human lives. And if you can do that; if you would rather hold onto that extra 10 pounds/dollars/euros a month or whatever than potentially replace the hip of a doddering old lady who desperately needs it but cant afford to pay for it privately (with insurance or not) as an example; then I feel that you are an appalling human being who is mind bogglingly selfish and greedy.

       
The other utterly misleading thing about all this is that we already have what could be called "universal health care" in the form of medicare. The doddering old lady who needs a new hip can get one by using it. The system already more or less exists, it just needs some tweaking to eliminate the fraud and abuse that currently goes with it.

       
<< prev 1, 2, 3, 4 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31