Fed. Judge Invalidates Key Part of Healthcare

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
So question: How can the states mandate auto insurance (without which you would get a fine) but can’t mandate health insurance. (I don’t care either way, I have insurance)[/quote]

10th amendment for one, and also you are driving on roads owned by the state. Unless someone is going to claim that we are owned by the government then their is no comparison.

For instance, if you are driving on your own property(people with farms do this all the time) you don’t need insurance on the truck.

I would argue that there is a reasonable expectation that a person will fall ill and seek treatment sometime in their life.

My guess is you hold the same assumption and have (or want to have) health insurance seeing as you probably value your health and health care is prohibitively expensive.

I understand that you object to being forced and view that as unconstitutional.

Given that this legislation is modeled on the health care system in Massachusetts what would be the ramifications in the case of massachusetts specifically of the provision being ruled unconstitutional in the supreme court?

Are state laws a different realm then federal ones? Do supreme court rulings on federal laws apply to individual state laws?

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
So question: How can the states mandate auto insurance (without which you would get a fine) but can’t mandate health insurance. (I don’t care either way, I have insurance)[/quote]

Adding to what DD said. The states could ( I think) say you have to buy health ins. It is the federal govt that can not. It all has to do with the 10th admendment of states rights. The constitution gave very few powers to the federal govt. In my opinion about half of what the federal govt does is unconstitutional.[/quote]

LOL, why don’t you take a history class and read up on how the gov’t got to how powerful it is today. It surely wasn’t through them just like saying LA DE DA FUCK U WE DO WHAT WE WANT. It is all from of the American People wanting assurances and a better quality of life. Sure there are downsides no doubt but to act like the Federal Gov’t getting to were its at buy itself is just flat out wrong at the end of the day it was the American people.

I mean do you think that in the 1960’s the Federal Gov’t MANDATING states to integrate schools with black and white students is wrong? That they should have just leave however the states wanted it?

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:
The same provisions were also upheld by two other judges so it really doesn’t mean much at this point … from what I understand.[/quote]

Just another step to the USSC.[/quote]

Exactly. This doesn’t mean anything at all as far as constitutionality goes. Only the Supreme Court holds the power of judicial review so until THEY declare it unconstitutional this is only a small step.

[quote]Eli B wrote:
I would argue that there is a reasonable expectation that a person will fall ill and seek treatment sometime in their life.

My guess is you hold the same assumption and have (or want to have) health insurance seeing as you probably value your health and health care is prohibitively expensive.

I understand that you object to being forced and view that as unconstitutional.

Given that this legislation is modeled on the health care system in Massachusetts what would be the ramifications in the case of massachusetts specifically of the provision being ruled unconstitutional in the supreme court?

Are state laws a different realm then federal ones? Do supreme court rulings on federal laws apply to individual state laws?[/quote]

Massachusetts is able to do it because of the 10th amendment. That is what the constitution is set up to do.

The Federal law being declared unconstitutional has no affect on the one in Massachusetts

Basically, the only way this could actually be constitutional would be if they were to have an amendment granting the federal government power to do that. Same with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc- but since ratifying an amendment is terribly difficult, the gov’t has been just ignoring it for years and implementing unconstitutional programs because it’s easier to do that, and now that it’s there, well, we can’t back out and recognize that it’s unconstitutional because it’s already in force!

Right?

[quote]optheta wrote:
I mean do you think that in the 1960’s the Federal Gov’t MANDATING states to integrate schools with black and white students is wrong? That they should have just leave however the states wanted it?[/quote]

Well technically speaking, the original supreme court decision (plessy v. ferguson) was not incorrect nor ‘racist’ it was based in the constitution and the premise of separate but equal would have been fine if that was the case. unfortunately states seemed unable to create that situation which is what lead to it’s overturning in brown vs. board of edu.

More to the point, the judge didn’t even really do anything. He didn’t put an injunction on the act and he specifically severed the mandate from the rest of the bill, so if this case does keep going up, that is the only part that will be at hand. What will most likely happen is that the other two federal court cases brought about the act will be blended with this and then go up to SCOTUS.

[quote]optheta wrote:

I mean do you think that in the 1960’s the Federal Gov’t MANDATING states to integrate schools with black and white students is wrong? That they should have just leave however the states wanted it?[/quote]

Yeah, because not allowing governmental racism is just like forcing an individual to buy a product.

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
So question: How can the states mandate auto insurance (without which you would get a fine) but can’t mandate health insurance. (I don’t care either way, I have insurance)[/quote]

Adding to what DD said. The states could ( I think) say you have to buy health ins. It is the federal govt that can not. It all has to do with the 10th admendment of states rights. The constitution gave very few powers to the federal govt. In my opinion about half of what the federal govt does is unconstitutional.[/quote]

LOL, why don’t you take a history class and read up on how the gov’t got to how powerful it is today. It surely wasn’t through them just like saying LA DE DA FUCK U WE DO WHAT WE WANT. It is all from of the American People wanting assurances and a better quality of life. Sure there are downsides no doubt but to act like the Federal Gov’t getting to were its at buy itself is just flat out wrong at the end of the day it was the American people.

I mean do you think that in the 1960’s the Federal Gov’t MANDATING states to integrate schools with black and white students is wrong? That they should have just leave however the states wanted it?[/quote]

I am not sure what your argument is. We were talking about states mandating auto insurance, and you started ranting. To respond, it was the federal govt that came up with entitlement programs, and sold it to the masses as somrthing really good. I have taken history and know that in the early 1900s is when stuff started getting really bad. People wanted something for nothing and the federal govt was more than happy to provide it because they knew it meant more power.

The only argument for the mandate in Obamacare is that it is a legitimate Federal tax that is waived if a product is purchased.

This argument will not be made in public because it violates Obama’s campaign promises and reeks of corruption.