26 states prevail: Obamacare ruled unconstitutional by Fed judge

[Little-Acorn]

A Federal District Court judge in Florida has ruled that the insurance mandate in Obamacare is an unconstitutional extension of power to the Federal government; and, since the mandate is not severable, the entire Obamacare scheme is struck down.

This is the case brought be 26 states, and is the largest case brought against Obamacare. The ruling is similar to one brought in a District court in Virginia in December 2010.

It's not looking good for the big-government liberal fanatics, who want to make the country "better" by making laws forcing it to be so, against the clear will of the people.

The cases against Obamacare will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court.

---------------------------------------

http://www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/article/29270/Florida_Judge_Rules_Obamacare_Unconstitutional.htm l

Florida Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional

by: Benjamin Domenech
Publication date: 01/31/2011
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

A Florida judge ruled today on the primary multi-state case against President Obama's health law, finding in favor of two individual plaintiffs, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and 26 plaintiff states -- including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming -- in their challenge to the individual mandate.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void," Judge Roger Vinson concluded.

Given the advancement of this case, following on Virginia's separate challenge, it is almost certain the this matter will ultimately be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court regardless what comes at the appellate level.

Full text of the ruling can be found here:
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/29270.pdf

[Kathianne]

A Federal District Court judge in Florida has ruled that the insurance mandate in Obamacare is an unconstitutional extension of power to the Federal government; and, since the mandate is not severable, the entire Obamacare scheme is struck down.

This is the case brought be 26 states, and is the largest case brought against Obamacare. The ruling is similar to one brought in a District court in Virginia in December 2010.

It's not looking good for the big-government liberal fanatics, who want to make the country "better" by making laws forcing it to be so, against the clear will of the people.

The cases against Obamacare will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court.

---------------------------------------

http://www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/article/29270/Florida_Judge_Rules_Obamacare_Unconstitutional.htm l

Florida Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional

by: Benjamin Domenech
Publication date: 01/31/2011
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

A Florida judge ruled today on the primary multi-state case against President Obama's health law, finding in favor of two individual plaintiffs, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and 26 plaintiff states -- including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming -- in their challenge to the individual mandate.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void," Judge Roger Vinson concluded.

Given the advancement of this case, following on Virginia's separate challenge, it is almost certain the this matter will ultimately be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court regardless what comes at the appellate level.

Full text of the ruling can be found here:
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/29270.pdf

I wonder if this now sends it to SCOTUS? I bolded my favorite line there.

[Little-Acorn]

I wonder if this now sends it to SCOTUS? I bolded my favorite line there.

Eventually.

First I believe it has to go to the Circuit Courts of Appeal.

But whatever they decide, it will almost certainly be appealed to the Supremes.

Question is, will it get to the Supreme Court before the next Republican President (elected 2012) appoints more conservative (i.e. law-abiding) justices and the Repub majority Senate (elected 2012) confirms them?

[Psychoblues]

That's all we need. More reichwing activist judges. We have a legislature to make law. Judges are supposed to interpret and enforce those laws. Is this concept, as has been expected and embraced since our county's beginnings, so difficult to understand?

I will maintain my support for the Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act as it reduces our federal deficit by a quarter trillion in the short run and 1.3 trillion in 20 years. And it provides better and more available healthcare to almost all Americans at the same time. What's to not like about that?

This is just one more reason why I despise the shortsightedness of the reichwingers. They are detrimental to the well being my beloved country and me.

Psychoblues

[Little-Acorn]

Q: How do you know whan little psycho is calling names, making up false smears, reciting tired debunked propaganda, and telling lies?

A: A post appears with his name at the top.

:lol:

BTW, a poster on another board pointed out that Sonia Sotomayor would probably have to recuse herself from any case challengine Obamacare that comes to the Supreme Court, since she helped defend it as a member of the Obama administration.

So any decision on it, would likely be 5-3 in support of finding it unconstitutional.

[Thunderknuckles]

That's all we need. More reichwing activist judges. We have a legislature to make law. Judges are supposed to interpret and enforce those laws. Is this concept, as has been expected and embraced since our county's beginnings, so difficult to understand?

I will maintain my support for the Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act as it reduces our federal deficit by a quarter trillion in the short run and 1.3 trillion in 20 years. And it provides better and more available healthcare to almost all Americans at the same time. What's to not like about that?

This is just one more reason why I despise the shortsightedness of the reichwingers. They are detrimental to the well being my beloved country and me.

Psychoblues
The courts do not enforce laws. Amongst other things, they interpret law and review government conduct for compliance with the Constitution. No matter how well intentioned a law created by Congress may be, if the courts, specifically the Supreme Court, deems it unconstitutional, they can declare it null and void. That's essentially what is happening here although I do question the objectivity of the courts as their rulings seem to be falling down party lines.

You maintain your support for the Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act. Nothing wrong with that, but it may be that Congress will have to devise a new plan that does not include the unconstitutional individual mandate. How they do it, I do not know.

[Psychoblues]

Q: How do you know whan little psycho is calling names, making up false smears, reciting tired debunked propaganda, and telling lies?

A: A post appears with his name at the top.

:lol:

WTF? Is this your Sara Palin moment, la? I've done no such thing as described by YOU.

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

Psychoblues


BTW, a poster on another board pointed out that Sonia Sotomayor would probably have to recuse herself from any case challengine Obamacare that comes to the Supreme Court, since she helped defend it as a member of the Obama administration.

So any decision on it, would likely be 5-3 in support of finding it unconstitutional.

First off, there is no such thing as Obamacare except in the small minds of typical reichwingers. Do you think the word "Obamacare" will be used for anything in any legal brief at any time? Howz them smears, namecalling, etc. working out for you, la?

The Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act now shows in popularity at about 62% in recent polls. It would poll higher but there are many liberals, myself included, that give it poor marks because we want a single payer or universal coverage or public option consideration and subsequent passage into law by the congress of the United States of America.

And I would strongly disagree with you as to the constitutionally protected rights of Americans to expect reasonable healthcare in a society that produces so much pollution, food poisons, contaminations of all kinds, disease spreading and vaccinations etc., etc., etc., I could go on and on. All of this will come up in any Supreme Court case and will be of great benefit to the protectors of the Rights of American citizens. Right now, the reichwingers are making deliberate fools of themselves much the same as they are in the Right of Choice argument. BTW, howz that one working out for you? What's it been now, 40 years?

Psychoblues


The courts do not enforce laws. Amongst other things, they interpret law and review government conduct for compliance with the Constitution. No matter how well intentioned a law created by Congress may be, if the courts, specifically the Supreme Court, deems it unconstitutional, they can declare it null and void. That's essentially what is happening here although I do question the objectivity of the courts as their rulings seem to be falling down party lines.

You maintain your support for the Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act. Nothing wrong with that, but it may be that Congress will have to devise a new plan that does not include the unconstitutional individual mandate. How they do it, I do not know.

The mandate is also my primary worry, Tk. I have other worries as well including how Medicare, Medicaid and similar state sponsored healthcare considerations will be handled through the transition process. Thanks for your interest and civility in this subject. The dittoheads here just repeat each others insults to me and think they sound clever. Ain't that a damned hoot?!?!?!?!?!?


Pschoblues

[Little-Acorn]

(Little psycho's usual namecalling and Nazi references deleted)

the constitutionally protected rights of Americans to expect reasonable healthcare

:lol:

Aw, c'mon, stop it, man! Yer killing me here....!!! :laugh2:

[NightTrain]

the constitutionally protected rights of Americans to expect reasonable healthcare



:lol:

Aw, c'mon, stop it, man! Yer killing me here....!!! :laugh2:

I guess I missed that part. Is it before or after the constitutionally protected rights to Natural Ice being on sale in case lot quantities?

[MtnBiker]

That's all we need. More reichwing activist judges. We have a legislature to make law.


Right now, the reichwingers are making deliberate fools of themselves much the same as they are in the Right of Choice argument. BTW, howz that one working out for you? What's it been now, 40 years?

Psychoblues

The point of this story is; judges are reichwing activists if Pyschoblues disagrees with the opinion, but they are ok if agrees with the opinion.

You tell it brutha! Your credibility increases with every post!

[Psychoblues]

Who am I to argue that healthcare is not a "right" when the entire US congress and the President just said it was? Is abortion a right? Yes, even though I resent it. Is this healthcare legislation a right? Yes, and it should have passed in 1996 when Bob Dole first introduced it. I am not at all completely happy with the final law but I'll take it for what it is and advocate for improvement as I can.

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

I will maintain my support for the Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act as it reduces our federal deficit by a quarter trillion in the short run and 1.3 trillion in 20 years.

They're spending a trillion dollars that might be used to pay down our debt in the first 10 years. And anyone who still believes that the new healthcare law is going to save the country money is as stupid as they are gullible. Here's a perfect example of just how deluded their fiscal claims are. They set aside 5 billion dollars to cover the new high risk pool expecting that 375,000 people would use it. They only had 8,000 people sign up and spent the whole 5 billion.

[Little-Acorn]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/

Judge uses Obama’s words against him

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

[Psychoblues]

The point of this story is; judges are reichwing activists if Pyschoblues disagrees with the opinion, but they are ok if agrees with the opinion.

You tell it brutha! Your credibility increases with every post!

WTF? I was responding to another poster that was advocating a reichwing legislature and President that would be certain to nominate and confirm reichwing activist judges. Did you not read the post? I would consider your ignorance laughable if I weren't so concerned for your mental well being, MB.

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/

Judge uses Obama’s words against him

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

He also used the government's attorney's own words against them when they argued that the whole law hinges on the mandate...the judge took their word for it and voided the whole thing because none of it can stand without the mandate. Too funny.

[MtnBiker]

WTF? I was responding to another poster that was advocating a reichwing legislature and President that would be certain to nominate and confirm reichwing activist judges. Did you not read the post? I would consider your ignorance laughable if I weren't so concerned for your mental well being, MB.

Psychoblues

Wow! again with the credibilty increase! You go brutha, shout it!

[Psychoblues]

Judge Vinson Adopts Teabagger Rhetoric In Overturning Health Reform

Source: Think Progress
By: Igor Volsky

.................................................. .................................................. ..............................

It’s the kind of over-reach that will do more to harm the Republican crusade against the law than help it. At one point, Vinson even embraces the entire Tea Party rationale against the Act and suggests that it could lead to total government domination:

If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only.

But the “activity” vs. “inactivity” distinction is hard to swallow since the actual text of the Constitution makes no mention of such a difference. The clause as written gives Congress the power to regulate economic decisions, and there is a long line of Supreme Court cases that reinforce Congress’ broad power to enact laws that substantially affect prices, marketplaces, or other economic transactions. Health care comprises some 17 percent of the national economy and the failure to purchase health insurance — the very passivity that Vinson is referring to — is having a significant impact on national health care spending and growing costs............................................. .................................................. ...........................

Much, much, much more: http://thinkprogress.org/

[fj1200]

But the “activity” vs. “inactivity” distinction is hard to swallow since the actual text of the Constitution makes no mention of such a difference. The clause as written gives Congress the power to regulate economic decisions, and there is a long line of Supreme Court cases that reinforce Congress’ broad power to enact laws that substantially affect prices, marketplaces, or other economic transactions. Health care comprises some 17 percent of the national economy and the failure to purchase health insurance — the very passivity that Vinson is referring to — is having a significant impact on national health care spending and growing costs............................................. .................................................. ...........................

Much, much, much more: http://thinkprogress.org/

The power to regulate, not compel.

Also, how does he back his assertion that the failure to purchase is having a significant impact? Those that fail to purchase should not be rewarded for their inaction which is precisely what the new regulations do.

[Psychoblues]

The power to regulate, not compel.

Also, how does he back his assertion that the failure to purchase is having a significant impact? Those that fail to purchase should not be rewarded for their inaction which is precisely what the new regulations do.

Yeah. Kinda like a 55 mph speed limit regulates but does not compel anyone to abide the law? Tell that to the guy writing you the ticket!!!!

I think this debate, well, not this particular one you and me, will expose plenty in the very near future and I don't think it's going to place the reichwingers pushing this crap in any good light. I hope they yell and yell loudly about it. The American people have wanted and needed this legislation for more than a century now. We don't have exactly what will ultimately be needed to fix the system but it beats what we had by a long long way.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Yeah. Kinda like a 55 mph speed limit regulates but does not compel anyone to abide the law? Tell that to the guy writing you the ticket!!!!

I'm sorry, what did speed limit laws compel me to buy?


I think this debate, well, not this particular one you and me, will expose plenty in the very near future and I don't think it's going to place the reichwingers pushing this crap in any good light. I hope they yell and yell loudly about it. The American people have wanted and needed this legislation for more than a century now. We don't have exactly what will ultimately be needed to fix the system but it beats what we had by a long long way.

It just made the system far worse.

It's too bad that Nazis ;) like you don't see the fascism that you're forcing on the country.

[BoogyMan]

You expect ANYTHING that is taken from ThinkProgress to be viewed as honest, objective, or not agenda driven? Credibility is not a priority for you I see.


Judge Vinson Adopts Teabagger Rhetoric In Overturning Health Reform

Source: Think Progress
By: Igor Volsky

.................................................. .................................................. ..............................

It’s the kind of over-reach that will do more to harm the Republican crusade against the law than help it. At one point, Vinson even embraces the entire Tea Party rationale against the Act and suggests that it could lead to total government domination:

If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only.

But the “activity” vs. “inactivity” distinction is hard to swallow since the actual text of the Constitution makes no mention of such a difference. The clause as written gives Congress the power to regulate economic decisions, and there is a long line of Supreme Court cases that reinforce Congress’ broad power to enact laws that substantially affect prices, marketplaces, or other economic transactions. Health care comprises some 17 percent of the national economy and the failure to purchase health insurance — the very passivity that Vinson is referring to — is having a significant impact on national health care spending and growing costs............................................. .................................................. ...........................

Much, much, much more: http://thinkprogress.org/


Yeah. Kinda like a 55 mph speed limit regulates but does not compel anyone to abide the law? Tell that to the guy writing you the ticket!!!!

What exactly does a 55MPH speed limit COMPEL you to purchase?

[NightTrain]

You expect ANYTHING that is taken from ThinkProgress to be viewed as honest, objective, or not agenda driven? Credibility is not a priority for you I see.


His shamelessness is hilarious.

Behold! PsychoBabble has returned bearing gifts from the Land of Moonbats.

[Little-Acorn]

It's too bad that Nazis ;) like you don't see the fascism that you're forcing on the country.

Little psycho isn't a Nazi. He's merely in ignorant, blinders-on fool.

BTW, many Nazis were also ignorant, blinders-on fools.

Many leftists share those characteristics. But that doesn't make them Nazis.

[Kathianne]

Little psycho isn't a Nazi. He's merely in ignorant, blinders-on fool.

BTW, many Nazis were also ignorant, blinders-on fools.

Many leftists share those characteristics. But that doesn't make them Nazis.

Nor are conservatives as a whole. So where is the condemnation of his use of reichwingers? I wouldn't have thanked that post if not for his constant use of such.

[fj1200]

Little psycho isn't a Nazi. He's merely in ignorant, blinders-on fool.

BTW, many Nazis were also ignorant, blinders-on fools.

Many leftists share those characteristics. But that doesn't make them Nazis.

Shh, there was a wink.


Nor are conservatives as a whole. So where is the condemnation of his use of reichwingers? I wouldn't have thanked that post if not for his constant use of such.

Exactly, I was getting tired of his sanctimonious BS.

[Little-Acorn]

So where is the condemnation of his use of reichwingers?

We have to pay attention to his ignorant, blinders-on, foolish namecalling? Why?

Life's to short to bother with trivial people.

[Kathianne]

We have to pay attention to his ignorant, blinders-on, foolish namecalling? Why?

Life's to short to bother with trivial people.

Then ignore those of others and their name calling.

[Little-Acorn]

Then ignore those of others and their name calling.

You're no fun. :dance:

[Kathianne]

You're no fun. :dance:

I know, it's been pointed out before. :laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

I'm just glad I could contribute to an otherwise delightful thread!! What a bunch of hogwash and hate from some of you!!!! You don't like namecalling? I never namecalled when I first came here but I soon learned it was modem operandi on this board and the other. I reserve the right to respond in kind to idiots that choose to call me or others names. It may piss you off, and it certainly does from what I've heard before and what I'm seeing here but that's tuff shit. You need to quit whining, grow up and be adults or at least stop your own namecalling and I will agree to end my own.

I lost hope for most genuine objectivity on this board long ago. As jimnyc says, we come here for entertainment and that is what these type boards are for. I agree, otherwise why would anyone come here? I will not promise to not use the reichwinger moniker again because I believe it fits much more accurately with the lock step and ditto headed antics of typical right side politicos that frequent this board. I will commit to ending that practice if I detect a change in policy here to admonish those that use namecalling and insults to make their idiotic points. Sometimes I think I'm the only one here that isn't an evil, hateful, vile and fearmongering sonofabitch.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

I'm just glad I could contribute to an otherwise delightful thread!! What a bunch of hogwash and hate from some of you!!!! You don't like namecalling? I never namecalled when I first came here but I soon learned it was modem operandi on this board and the other. I reserve the right to respond in kind to idiots that choose to call me or others names. It may piss you off, and it certainly does from what I've heard before and what I'm seeing here but that's tuff shit. You need to quit whining, grow up and be adults or at least stop your own namecalling and I will agree to end my own.

I lost hope for most genuine objectivity on this board long ago. As jimnyc says, we come here for entertainment and that is what these type boards are for. I agree, otherwise why would anyone come here? I will not promise to not use the reichwinger moniker again because I believe it fits much more accurately with the lock step and ditto headed antics of typical right side politicos that frequent this board. I will commit to ending that practice if I detect a change in policy here to admonish those that use namecalling and insults to make their idiotic points. Sometimes I think I'm the only one here that isn't an evil, hateful, vile and fearmongering sonofabitch.

Psychoblues

'Tis your right. Then again, same with those that call the left Nazis. All's good if that is what mobility wants.

[Psychoblues]

'Tis your right. Then again, same with those that call the left Nazis. All's good if that is what mobility wants.

Thanks for agreeing with me, Kath! Somehow I thought you might get all weird on me!!!!

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Thanks for agreeing with me, Kath! Somehow I thought you might get all weird on me!!!!

Psychoblues

Wasn't me that went weird, it's those that use 'reichwingers' and 'nazis.' Neither of which is me in normal mode. Yet, I'm adaptable.

[Psychoblues]

Wasn't me that went weird, it's those that use 'reichwingers' and 'nazis.' Neither of which is me in normal mode. Yet, I'm adaptable.

If the shoe fits, wear it. And that ain't no joke.

Psychoblues

[Little-Acorn]

I never namecalled when I first came here but I soon learned it was modem operandi on this board and the other.

So all your namecalling, is my fault. And Kathianne's. And everyone else except you.

Got it. :laugh:

[Kathianne]

If the shoe fits, wear it. And that ain't no joke.

Psychoblues

Nazi.

[Psychoblues]

So all your namecalling, is my fault. And Kathianne's. And everyone else except you.

Got it. :laugh:

I have never seen Kath call any names at all, la. I disagree with her often but she doesn't call me any names and certainly at this stage of our relationship on this board I hope to never again make an unkind remark to her. I have in the past and I regret that to the bottom of my heart. You on the other hand, you're the piece of shit you represent yourself as.

Psychoblues


Nazi.

Wow, Kath. I was just defending you and saying I've never seen you call any names!!! It's a travesty I tell ya, a travesty!!!!!!! It's also not my shoe and it don't fit either, Kath. But you're entitiled to any opion you might draw in my case, don't you know? I don't cut much slack either!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

I have never seen Kath call any names at all, la. I disagree with her often but she doesn't call me any names and certainly at this stage of our relationship on this board I hope to never again make an unkind remark to her. I have in the past and I regret that to the bottom of my heart. You on the other hand, you're the piece of shit you represent yourself as.

Psychoblues


Wow, Kath. I was just defending you and saying I've never seen you call any names!!! It's a travesty I tell ya, a travesty!!!!!!! It's also not my shoe and it don't fit either, Kath. But you're entitiled to any opion you might draw in my case, don't you know? I don't cut much slack either!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

Nah, the point was that it fits as much as reichwinger does me. Two-way streets here. That's the problem with name calling, what might work in one post, at one time, doesn't work for all. You are far from a Nazi, but then again, so am I and nearly all here I can think of.

[Psychoblues]

Nah, the point was that it fits as much as reichwinger does me. Two-way streets here. That's the problem with name calling, what might work in one post, at one time, doesn't work for all. You are far from a Nazi, but then again, so am I and nearly all here I can think of.

As is the case with all broad brush painting, Kath, strokes often bleed into unintended areas. When I see someone calling what they might consider liberals or whoever "Nazi's" I know right off the bat they're not speaking to me or if indeed they are speaking to me I can play that game too as one new poster here has learned just today. Nonetheless I may read the post, ignore the namecalling and proceed from there. Or I might paint with that same brush the bastard tried to paint me with. It's a judgement call.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

As is the case with all broad brush painting, Kath, strokes often bleed into unintended areas. When I see someone calling what they might consider liberals or whoever "Nazi's" I know right off the bat they're not speaking to me or if indeed they are speaking to me I can play that game too as one new poster here has learned just today. Nonetheless I may read the post, ignore the namecalling and proceed from there. Or I might paint with that same brush the bastard tried to paint me with. It's a judgement call.

Psychoblues

True, it is a judgment call. In my judgment, calling names is for when one can't argue their points in a cogent manner. When it's offensive enough, I give back. Do I accept their tarring? Never.

[Psychoblues]

True, it is a judgment call. In my judgment, calling names is for when one can't argue their points in a cogent manner. When it's offensive enough, I give back. Do I accept their tarring? Never.

You've already testified that you aren't any fun and have been told that. Damn, Kath, you gotta loosen up!!!!!!!! This board just ain't that freakin' serious!!!

Another point that I want to make with you, rather off topic right now, is the posting information wherin the poster has personal knowledge or experience. If what I think you expect were enforced on this board then this board would not and could not exist. I can tell you all about small town politics in North Mississippi and West Tennessee but there is very little that I could link you up with. I can tell you plenty about Air Force combat missions allowing for classifications but I can't link you up with much of it. I can tell you gobs about power generation, flood control, the bringing of the south into the 20th century and the Tennessee Valley Authority and there's lots to link you up with but even more remains in my head. If I ever start repeating any of those stories over and over again please let me know, Kath. That doesn't mean I'll shut up and not continue telling it but at least you tried.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

You've already testified that you aren't any fun and have been told that. Damn, Kath, you gotta loosen up!!!!!!!! This board just ain't that freakin' serious!!!

Another point that I want to make with you, rather off topic right now, is the posting information wherin the poster has personal knowledge or experience. If what I think you expect were enforced on this board then this board would not and could not exist. I can tell you all about small town politics in North Mississippi and West Tennessee but there is very little that I could link you up with. I can tell you plenty about Air Force combat missions allowing for classifications but I can't link you up with much of it. I can tell you gobs about power generation, flood control, the bringing of the south into the 20th century and the Tennessee Valley Authority and there's lots to link you up with but even more remains in my head. If I ever start repeating any of those stories over and over again please let me know, Kath. That doesn't mean I'll shut up and not continue telling it but at least you tried.

Psychoblues

Fun as in frivolous? Never been real good at that, sometimes I try and usually fail.

Bringing personal experience and explaining how it relates, as in examples? That's cool. Just saying, "I've been in elected office 120 years and let me tell you, I know a lot." Not so much.

You and anyone else certainly have the right to post such. I on the other hand may choose not to respond and don't like insinuations I'm playing favorites for not responding to such. You'll note that I seldom respond to cartoons, one liners about 'liberals are just happy that...' and such. For the most part, posts like any of the above just don't interest me.

[Psychoblues]

Fun as in frivolous? Never been real good at that, sometimes I try and usually fail.

Bringing personal experience and explaining how it relates, as in examples? That's cool. Just saying, "I've been in elected office 120 years and let me tell you, I know a lot." Not so much.

You and anyone else certainly have the right to post such. I on the other hand may choose not to respond and don't like insinuations I'm playing favorites for not responding to such. You'll note that I seldom respond to cartoons, one liners about 'liberals are just happy that...' and such. For the most part, posts like any of the above just don't interest me.

Well, not necessarilly frivolous, Kath, but a good nuanced and well timed response isn't that hard, is it?

As to your remark about the elected politics. That is aimed directly at me as I use that from time to time. My purpose in that instance is to inform the person with whom I am engaging that I'm not going to listen to any bullshit about what happens in political give and takes. Politics is an art more than anything else and there is no right or wrong way to do it but there are methods to the madness and any rookie catches on pretty quickly or disappears pretty quickly. I've never said "let me tell you, I know a lot". That would be out of character for me on the subject of politics.

And yes I have noticed that you avoid the one liners and cartoons. Have you noticed that I do as well?

Thanks for all you do, Kath.

Psychoblues

[Little-Acorn]

Excuse me for interrupting the new-age encounter session, but...

Back to the subject:
Judge Vinson said in his ruling that since Obamacare is unconstitutional, his ruling is an order to the government to stop implementing it.

If the govt appeals to a higher court (Circuit Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court)... AND if they apply for a stay of execution of the District court's ruling, AND if the higher court grants that stay, then the govt can keep implementing Obamacare until a final hearing.

I have heard no reports that the govt has appealed (though I'm sure they will), or that they have filed for a stay.

A poster on another board has pointed out that there is a Federal law saying that, if a court throws out a law, there is a two-week grace period in which the govt can keep enforcing the law. After that, they must stop, unless a court issues a stay or overrules the first ruling.

So, in two weeks, if any insurance company in those 26 states announces that 25-year-olds are not allowed on their parents' policy, they are acting legally, and the Fed govt can do nothing to force them to do otherwise.

Whether that situation continues, depends on what higher courts say in the future - either regarding a stay, or an appeal of the case itself.

----------------------

We now return your to your regularly scheduled thread-hijacking and important topics such as examination of little psycho's chronic namecalling and trolling.

[Psychoblues]

Excuse me for interrupting the new-age encounter session, but...

Back to the subject:
Judge Vinson said in his ruling that since Obamacare is unconstitutional, his ruling is an order to the government to stop implementing it.

If the govt appeals to a higher court (Circuit Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court)... AND if they apply for a stay of execution of the District court's ruling, AND if the higher court grants that stay, then the govt can keep implementing Obamacare until a final hearing.

I have heard no reports that the govt has appealed (though I'm sure they will), or that they have filed for a stay.

A poster on another board has pointed out that there is a Federal law saying that, if a court throws out a law, there is a two-week grace period in which the govt can keep enforcing the law. After that, they must stop, unless a court issues a stay or overrules the first ruling.

So, in two weeks, if any insurance company in those 26 states announces that 25-year-olds are not allowed on their parents' policy, they are acting legally, and the Fed govt can do nothing to force them to do otherwise.

Whether that situation continues, depends on what higher courts say in the future - either regarding a stay, or an appeal of the case itself.

----------------------

We now return your to your regularly scheduled thread-hijacking and important topics such as examination of little psycho's chronic namecalling and trolling.

You sound as if you would be delighted that insurance companies could refuse to cover 25 year old university students? Would you also be tickled to death to see an old man dying of cancer denied his health coverage because he once had a chronic bronchial condition in his twenty's that he failed to list as a previous ailment or simply because the insurance company decided that his condition was pre-existing? He would be dead before any resolution could be made for him and it happens thousands of times a day right here in the good ol' US of A. Would you be even more prone to have your rightwing wet dream if someone very close to you had a serious accident and passed away as the insurance company kept transferring them from one facility to another trying to find the cheapest one or one that would do a 180 day net? Do you need more examples? I have them.

Sometimes I don't know about you, la. And I apologize for interrupting your precious thread with a bit of "new-age encounter session". The next time I see you enter a thread only to whine, piss and moan about the posters or anything else off topic I'll expect the same and/or I'll remind you.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

You sound as if you would be delighted that insurance companies could refuse to cover 25 year old university students? Would you also be tickled to death to see an old man dying of cancer denied his health coverage because he once had a chronic bronchial condition in his twenty's that he failed to list as a previous ailment or simply because the insurance company decided that his condition was pre-existing? He would be dead before any resolution could be made for him and it happens thousands of times a day right here in the good ol' US of A. Would you be even more prone to have your rightwing wet dream if someone very close to you had a serious accident and passed away as the insurance company kept transferring them from one facility to another trying to find the cheapest one or one that would do a 180 day net? Do you need more examples? I have them.

Sometimes I don't know about you, la. And I apologize for interrupting your precious thread with a bit of "new-age encounter session". The next time I see you enter a thread only to whine, piss and moan about the posters or anything else off topic I'll expect the same and/or I'll remind you.

Psychoblues

As usual, when a liberal is unable to back up their "facts: they fall back on their best known debate tactic - attack

PB I have no idea what polls you have been looking at (perhaps a poll of the MSNBC Newsroom) but I have not seen any poll that shows a majority support Obamacare

Support for repeal is running about 55% to 60%

I read where one union (a union that ordered its members to support Obamacare) had to CUT coverage to its members due to the increased cost of "benefits" of Obamacare

It seems to me you are dismissing any opposition to Obamacare by saying those opposed are to stupid to grasp how good they will have it under Obamacare

Why would anyone be unhappy with a government program where taxes to "pay" for the program have already startyed - but the "benefits" do not start for another 3 to 4 years?

Would you buy a car PB where you make payments for several years but you do not take delivery of the car until you make about 36 to 48 payments?

That is what Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have told us to do. Of course this way they can say the cost of Obamacare dose not run a deficit for the first ten years

Of course they do not talk about the next ten years where Obamacare is a budget buster

[Psychoblues]

Just a point of clarification. I have never said or intimated that anyone opposed to the Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act is stupid in any way. Conversations about this issue can and do become contentious and hopefully thought provoking but I see others here just want to blather on about something I haven't said or that I might believe. Just to set the record straight.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Just a point of clarification. I have never said or intimated that anyone opposed to the Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act is stupid in any way. Conversations about this issue can and do become contentious and hopefully thought provoking but I see others here just want to blather on about something I haven't said or that I might believe. Just to set the record straight.

Psychoblues

You posted (perhaps not on this thread) something about how the man on the street did not know all the details about Obamacare thus they are uninformed

PB, why not admit the people do not want this?

I see you ignored how the Judge used Obama's own words against him, the increased cost that is being passed on to people, and the budget busting cost of Obamacare

Nothing new for you PB - you never let the facts get in the way while you plead your case

[red states rule]

BTW PB more facts for youto read. Please pull you head out from under the sand and try and learn why Obamacare is a disaster




Behind this week's ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson overturning ObamaCare on constitutional grounds, there is a deeper economic reality. The states can't afford it. That's a primary reason why 26 states joined in the Florida lawsuit to nullify the federal law. It also would be a good reason for the Supreme Court to uphold Judge Vinson's ruling.

For decades, the federal government has presumed increasingly to make policy in health, education, welfare, business regulation, law enforcement and other areas beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Up until recently, the courts have largely viewed this intrusion benignly, partly because the states have acquiesced, bargaining their sovereignty away in return for federal aid.

This once-happy marriage is on the rocks. While designing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Pelosi-Reid-Obama troika tried desperately to present a façade of federal fiscal prudence where none actually existed—so they off-loaded massive costs on the states. By opening Medicaid to applicants 33% above the poverty line in 2014, ObamaCare could expand Medicaid enrollment by as much as 25%, according to the plaintiffs in the Florida suit. Medicaid, also rife with fraud in part because of its hybrid federal-state management, is already one of the biggest items in state budgets.

Thanks to the recession and their own spending excesses, nearly all states are suffering budget shortfalls, some to the point where there is no clear idea where the money will come from to meet pension and bond obligations, let alone operating expenses. The prospect of adding a further huge burden down the line, even with Washington kicking in over half the cost, is appalling.

The 26 states party to the Florida suit were saying, in essence: enough! Washington can borrow from the Chinese or call on the Federal Reserve to buy its bonds. But states' only recourse in a budgetary bind is further painful cuts in services.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703439504576116612969105114.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop