HC: States filing suit: Q. Can they win?

:thumbs: :thumbs:

 

Here's what Obama had to say about health insurance mandates when he was campaigning for office...

"When Senator Clinton says a mandate, it's not a mandate on government to provide health insurance. It's a mandate on individuals to purchase it. Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have exempted 20% of the uninsured because they've concluded that that 20% can't afford it. In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can't afford it so now they're worse off than they were. They don't have health insurance and they're paying a fine. (applause) In order for you to force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh, stiff penalty."

 

If the Supremes are smart they will refuse to hear the case. They could send it to the 9th Circuit Court. <G>

 

What do you mean by "if the Supremes are smart"?

Why would or should they wish to avoid the issue?

 

Like me, maybe he is in favor of this law.

 

Looks like someone needs a tranquilizer! Do you often have anger management problems?

I think you mispelled "axx." :laugh:

 

Do you even know what the heart of this law is?

If you don't have medical insurance then you must either buy it or pay a fine.

Obama was critical of the individual mandate when he was debating Hillary Clinton and now it is his plan.

If you can't afford to buy medical insurance before the bill - how do you magically afford to buy it after the bill?

And if you still can't afford to buy it now - and then pay the fine - you are even further behind than you were before.

 

The problem is that this isn't interstate commerce. In fact, the law specifically forbids customers from purchasing insurance from other states.

Congress alredy regulated them. The issue with Congress regulating insurance companies, but with Congress regulating the choices and behavior of consumers.

Yes, Congress has the authority to levy taxes and fines. However, it does not have the authority to force someone to purchase a product under the threat of a fine.

Honestly, this guy sounds like an idiot. I find it hard to believe he's actually a law professor.

But, anyway, to answer the question in your OP, certain parts will definitely be overturned, but probably not all.

 

Liberal law professors and judges have been ignoring the 10TH Amendment for years, and inventing rights using the 14TH amendment as the back door to subverting the rest of the Constitution.

 

As I, and several others also, have said, basically all of this could have been foreseen prior to '08 if a little common sense had been in vogue!

The swiftness DOES surprise me, but not the goal. Given the "0"s history (or lack there-of:smilewinkgrin: ), his associations, and his campaign rhetoric, none of this should come as a shock. It's simply a snake behaving like a snake.

However to some sheeple here, it would be fine if he commanded all Christians to be executed if it came from his mouth! Such is the result of blind allegiance.

 

I'd like to ask those that support this health care law to explain why.

As near as I can tell, it does NOT provide new health care facilities; it doesn't provide additional doctors and nurses; I can't find where it increases access to care. In other words, it doesn't seem to provide any additional health care benefits.

What I do see is that it requires you and I to pay more money out of our paychecks each month, just like we do for the "privilege" of driving automobiles.

Except that I didn't think healthcare was a privilege.

Granted, I do believe the advent of HMOs and the like were a *bad* thing for the American people...but forcing us to buy insurance, simply to insure someone gets paid?

 

I am not in favor of the law but it can be corrected by the next congress. If there is a suit and the Supremes OK the law then the congress will have supreme power.