HealthCare takes a hit .....

[Chief Bones]

Judge in Va. strikes down federal health care law
By LARRY O'DELL, Associated Press Larry O'dell, Associated Press

RICHMOND, Va. – A federal judge declared the foundation of President Barack Obama's health care law unconstitutional Monday, ruling that the government cannot require Americans to purchase insurance. The case is expected to end up at the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson wrote that no court had expanded the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to allow the government to regulate a person's decision not to buy a product.

"At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance — or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage — it's about an individual's right to choose to participate," Hudson wrote.

In his order, he said he will allow the law to remain in effect while appeals are heard, meaning there is unlikely to be any immediate impact on other provisions that have already taken effect. The insurance coverage mandate is not scheduled to begin until 2014.

"The outcome of this case has significant public policy implications," Hudson wrote. "And the final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court."

Even so, Republicans in Congress celebrated the ruling as validation of the arguments they had made for months while the law was pending. Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., issued a statement urging the White House to agree to expedite a final ruling by appealing directly to the Supreme Court without first stopping at an appeals court.

For more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul_virginia

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

Round one goes to the forces that want to do away with the HealthCare Bill (mainly Republicans and the insurance industry).

On the other hand .....

Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down a key part of the law, which had been upheld by fellow federal judges in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and still others are pending, including one filed in Florida by 20 states.

White House health reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle said the administration is encouraged by the two other judges who have upheld the law. She said the Justice Department is reviewing Hudson's ruling.

While this one judge has ruled against the HealthCare Bill, resolution of this issue, will probably reside with SCOTUS.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I have no doubt that it will go to the Supreme Court. Shame the bill doesn't make health insurance congruent across state lines. Then it *would* be a matter of interstate commerce.

Interesting that the judge in question has substantial financial ties to the official pushing the lawsuit.

But, of course, this is from the Huffington Post, so Chukpike will just dismiss it as more liberal tripe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/henry-hudson-judge-in-hea_n_665240.html

... But I'm going to post it anyway.

 

[HokieMSG]

Rob,
The reason that I am against the Healthcare bill is only because I do not feel that the government has the right to tell me that I have to purchase insurance. If this is allowed, will it require us to buy certain types of vehicles, or mandate child care for children? I worry that the government is trying to make the general public buy things that they might not need or want.

According to the article the judge has disclosed everything. Not sure that there is much more that can be done about it.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Rob,
The reason that I am against the Healthcare bill is only because I do not feel that the government has the right to tell me that I have to purchase insurance. If this is allowed, will it require us to buy certain types of vehicles, or mandate child care for children? I worry that the government is trying to make the general public buy things that they might not need or want.

According to the article the judge has disclosed everything. Not sure that there is much more that can be done about it.

And that's the only portion of the bill I have a problem with, as well. I don't think health insurance should be mandated, either. I think if someone wants to go without purchasing health insurance then there should be a very basic governmental supplement in case of emergencies that does not cost anything. No one should ever be forced to buy anything.

However, to say that the general public does not *need* health insurance is quite untrue. Everyone needs some sort of health insurance. No one is invincible, therefore, everyone *needs* some coverage. Now, my mother hasn't missed a day of work for illness in 27 years. She still has health insurance, just in case.

I would think that a lot of the people who do not "want" health insurance are simply those who are unable to afford it. They can't obtain it, so they try and justify their inability to pay for it by saying, "Well, I don't want it anyway." Either that, or they *think* they're invincible, when we all know they're not.

All in all, universal coverage should be available, but it should not cost those who cannot afford it. If the only barrier between a person and some decent medical care is money, how can we honestly turn them away? Are we not all human beings with at least some measurable compassion for others?

 

[HokieMSG]

We already have an emergency healthcare system in the US. No hospital can turn you away. They will stabilize you and discharge you. Then try to get you to pay. What we NEED is preventative care for everyone. Preventative care will go a long way to reducing costs long term. Problem is there is really no money in that that is why the insurance companies are against it.
If people choose not to purchase insurance, then the government should NOT be required to foot the bill in emergencies. These are typically the most expensive. If they cannot afford it then make some coverage available subsidized by the government. But make them pay for it. If it is free they will abuse it. Make them pay something.

 

[Rob Henderson]

We already have an emergency healthcare system in the US. No hospital can turn you away. They will stabilize you and discharge you. Then try to get you to pay. What we NEED is preventative care for everyone. Preventative care will go a long way to reducing costs long term. Problem is there is really no money in that that is why the insurance companies are against it.

Stabilization is a long way away from being able to work, go to school, etc. Emergency rooms are only required to attend to you if it is "a matter of life or limb." Pneumonia is not an emergency, strep throat is not an emergency. A gunshot wound to the chest is an "emergency."

If people choose not to purchase insurance, then the government should NOT be required to foot the bill in emergencies. These are typically the most expensive. If they cannot afford it then make some coverage available subsidized by the government. But make them pay for it. If it is free they will abuse it. Make them pay something.

Put a maximum income on it and give it to anyone below the line. We do not have a GOOD emergency health care system. We have the bare minimum when it comes to emergency services provided for no charge.


Surely you knew all of this.

 

[George]

My big concern with the Judge that OKed ObamaCare is use of the Commerce Clause. The Writers said the Fed. Govt had power to regulate interstate commerce. They would have said commerce w/o mentioning Interstate if they wanted all commerce to be regulated by the Feds. 1st we have the twisting/perversion of the meaning when the SCOTUS said the Clause could be construed to cover not only goods not in interstates commerce, but goods produced for self use on the preposterous basis that self use goods "affect" Interstate Commerce. Now it is further perverted to say that the decision not to buy something affects interstate commerce & can be "regulated"(another twisting of definition) saying the Fed Govt can force you to buy something. If this precident is allowed to Stand, will the Govt force you to buy a new car to bailout the car companies during the next recession because the decision not to buy a new car negativly affected intestate commerce?

 

[mmarsh]

Ruling doesn't mean much heres why:

1 judge, in Virginia, struck it down but he actually didn't order it stopped he just said it was unconstitutional. And by the way, this particular judge was a George W. Bush appointee, (many of the very far-right judges appointed by Bush) so it wasn't very hard to figure out where he was going to rule.

2 other Federal Judges, one also in Virginia, the other in Michigan, have already UPHELD the law.

So the score is 2-1 in support of the Healthcare law.

And By the way there is precedent for the obligation to buy healthcare. During the Whiskey Rebellion, Congress passed a law requiring that every male citizen purchase a firearm and other military equipment at his own expense.

Second Militia Act of 1792

"[E]very citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder;

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

interesting to follow the health care reform Obama intend to implement in the US, and the debate. Both here and in media. It is a major policy change in the US.

take care

Ghostrider

 

[mmarsh]

interesting to follow the health care reform Obama intend to implement in the US, and the debate. Both here and in media. It is a major policy change in the US.

take care

Ghostrider

Well I think its a crap law that doesnt do very much but fix a few loopholes while giving big bucks to the insurence industry, but Ill give credit to Obama for at least getting the ball rolling. We haven't had a serious discussion on healthcare in 70 years.

The real hero will be the guy Democrat or Republican (but probably a Democrat) who introduces what we really need -what most other countries already have...

SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. Its the only system that affordable to the taxpayer and covers everyone. It would also break up the little monopoly the insurency industry has in America, which is why they are fighting it tooth and nail.

With the grip big business has..I wont hold my breath.

 

[George]

Ruling doesn't mean much heres why:

1 judge, in Virginia, struck it down but he actually didn't order it stopped he just said it was unconstitutional. And by the way, this particular judge was a George W. Bush appointee, (many of the very far-right judges appointed by Bush) so it wasn't very hard to figure out where he was going to rule.



And By the way there is precedent for the obligation to buy healthcare. During the Whiskey Rebellion, Congress passed a law requiring that every male citizen purchase a firearm and other military equipment at his own expense.

Second Militia Act of 1792

"[E]very citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder;

"very far right", ha! Anyone very far right wouldn't have a chance with Dems on record Borking Bork & attempting to lynch Thomas & hounding Bush's Hispanic nominee out of contention.
Militia Act of 1792 Attempted National Defence on the cheap. 200 yrs later we got the Assault Weapons Law to prevent compliance with the Act. Interesting angle though.hmmm. Wasn't done through the Commerce Clause.

 

[Chukpike]

I have no doubt that it will go to the Supreme Court. Shame the bill doesn't make health insurance congruent across state lines. Then it *would* be a matter of interstate commerce.

Interesting that the judge in question has substantial financial ties to the official pushing the lawsuit.

Since you feel a need to bait me, I will play.

"Interesting that the judge in question has substantial financial ties to the official pushing the lawsuit." quote Rob Henderson

Nothing like a little dishonesty here is there.
Why would you make a false accusation based on a source, that proves your accusation is False?:shoothea:
Do you read your own sources?

From Rob's Huffington Post source.

The "official pushing the lawsuit" is the Virginia Attorney General.

Here is what Rob claims as "substantial financial ties" .
1. Judge Hudson owns stock in a company: "Campaign Solutions Inc., among other investments." (From Huffington Post article)
2. "Judge Hudson has owned stock in Campaign Solutions going back 13 years to the founding of the company or well before he became a federal judge. Since joining the federal bench, he has fully disclosed his stock ownership in the company. He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company." (quote Huffington Post)
3. "Another firm(Campaign Solutions Inc.) client is Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia and the man who is bringing the lawsuit in front of Hudson's court. In 2010, records show, Cuccinelli spent nearly $9,000 for Campaign Solutions services." (quote Huffington Post)

So the Attorney General paid Campaign Services Inc. $9,000 for help with a campaign.
Judge Hudson got a dividend from Campaign Services Inc. stock.

Where are the "substantial financial ties". :roll:

That is like you owning stock in Standard oil and somebody buys gas from the company.:roll:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/henry-hudson-judge-in-hea_n_665240.html[/URL]

... But I'm going to post it anyway.

Thanks for supplying the source to sink your false statement.:lol:

PS: I find the Huffington Post accurate in their reporting of the financial ties. Did not see it as "more liberal tripe" afterall. :thumb:

Have a nice day, Robbie.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Since you feel a need to bait me, I will play.

"Interesting that the judge in question has substantial financial ties to the official pushing the lawsuit." quote Rob Henderson

Nothing like a little dishonesty here is there.
Why would you make a false accusation based on a source, that proves your accusation is False?:shoothea:
Do you read your own sources?

From Rob's Huffington Post source.

The "official pushing the lawsuit" is the Virginia Attorney General.

Here is what Rob claims as "substantial financial ties" .
1. Judge Hudson owns stock in a company: "Campaign Solutions Inc., among other investments." (From Huffington Post article)
2. "Judge Hudson has owned stock in Campaign Solutions going back 13 years to the founding of the company or well before he became a federal judge. Since joining the federal bench, he has fully disclosed his stock ownership in the company. He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company." (quote Huffington Post)
3. "Another firm(Campaign Solutions Inc.) client is Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia and the man who is bringing the lawsuit in front of Hudson's court. In 2010, records show, Cuccinelli spent nearly $9,000 for Campaign Solutions services." (quote Huffington Post)

So the Attorney General paid Campaign Services Inc. $9,000 for help with a campaign.
Judge Hudson got a dividend from Campaign Services Inc. stock.

Where are the "substantial financial ties". :roll:

That is like you owning stock in Standard oil and somebody buys gas from the company.:roll:

You believe the statement that says he has no idea of the happenings of the company?

You're a bigger idiot than I thought.

 

[Chukpike]

Interesting that the judge in question has substantial financial ties to the official pushing the lawsuit.

But, of course, this is from the Huffington Post, so Chukpike will just dismiss it as more liberal tripe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/henry-hudson-judge-in-hea_n_665240.html

... But I'm going to post it anyway.

You believe the statement that says he has no idea of the happenings of the company?

You're a bigger idiot than I thought.

Why would he have knowledge? He is not employed by or an officer of the company?
You probably don't own stock, but maybe you have a savings account. Do you know how your savings is invested by your savings institution?

So everyone is dishonest but you? :lol:
Your source posted the statement that:
"He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company." from the Huffington Post

So your source is dishonest? Are you now saying the Huffington Post is just "more liberal tripe"? :lol::roll:
Which is it? Did you supply an unreliable source, or should we trust you to supply honest sources?

What ever Robbie.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Why would he have knowledge? He is not employed by or an officer of the company?
You probably don't own stock, but maybe you have a savings account. Do you know how your savings is invested by your savings institution?

But he is in direct contact with CLIENTS of the company. Eg the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA..... You're really trying far too hard to make this more difficult than it actually is, honey.

So everyone is dishonest but you? :lol:
Your source posted the statement that:
"He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company." from the Huffington Post

So your source is dishonest? Are you now saying the Huffington Post is just "more liberal tripe"? :lol::roll:
Which is it? Did you supply an unreliable source, or should we trust you to supply honest sources?

What ever Robbie.

MY SOURCE quoted the statement that was sent to them FROM CAMPAIGN SOLUTIONS. If you read the article and comprehended it correctly, you would have seen that the Huffington Post article clearly states "UPDATE: Campaign Solutions, Inc. sent over the following statement detailing Hudson's investment in the firm."

Then proceeded to show the statement: "Judge Hudson has owned stock in Campaign Solutions going back 13 years to the founding of the company or well before he became a federal judge. Since joining the federal bench, he has fully disclosed his stock ownership in the company. He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company."


That is NOT a statement from Huffington Post. That is a statement DIRECTLY FROM CAMPAIGN SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED.

So you are either deliberately misquoting the article (AKA lying) or you truly are that incompetent. Which is it, CHUKIE?

 

[Chukpike]

But he is in direct contact with CLIENTS of the company. Eg the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA..... You're really trying far too hard to make this more difficult than it actually is, honey.

And your point is what?
The Attorney General of Virginia goes before a Judge? Aah, that is what they do.

That is NOT a statement from Huffington Post. That is a statement DIRECTLY FROM CAMPAIGN SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED.

Learn to read, I said:
So everyone is dishonest but you? :lol:
Your source posted the statement that:
"He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company." from the Huffington Post

Are you saying your source would insert the information if it was false?
You did not answer my questions:
"So your source is dishonest? Are you now saying the Huffington Post is just "more liberal tripe"? :lol::roll:
Which is it? Did you supply an unreliable source, or should we trust you to supply honest sources?"

Nothing to see here folks, move along, just Robbie trying to cover his own a**, again.:rock:

 

[Partisan]

Having done a bit of research (I heard this nugget on NPR and am following up on it), the Healthcare Reform plan is actually mainly a Republican plan from 15 years ago, dusted of and spit shined up - how politics and time change perspective!

 

[George]

Having done a bit of research (I heard this nugget on NPR and am following up on it), the Healthcare Reform plan is actually mainly a Republican plan from 15 years ago, dusted of and spit shined up - how politics and time change perspective!

IF true, sounds like it may have been some half baked alternative to ClintonCare, but it went nowhere obviously. Doesn't make it any better now.

 

[Rob Henderson]

And your point is what?
The Attorney General of Virginia goes before a Judge? Aah, that is what they do.

My point is that an investor in the company and a client of the company are in cahoots. If you'll forgive my vernacular.

Learn to read, I said:
So everyone is dishonest but you? :lol:
Your source posted the statement that:
"He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company." from the Huffington Post

Are you saying your source would insert the information if it was false?
You did not answer my questions:
"So your source is dishonest? Are you now saying the Huffington Post is just "more liberal tripe"? :lol::roll:
Which is it? Did you supply an unreliable source, or should we trust you to supply honest sources?"

Nothing to see here folks, move along, just Robbie trying to cover his own a**, again.:rock:

You made it seem like Huffington Post is what printed that, when it was actually a statement from the very company that wants to avoid the spotlight. I doubt very highly if Campaign Solutions would've admitted it if they'd had any sort of less than honorable communication or contact with Judge Hudson.

Of course, you answered your own question when you said that this article proved the Huffington Post was NOT "just more liberal tripe," so that question is completely moot.

 

[Chukpike]

My point is that an investor in the company and a client of the company are in cahoots. If you'll forgive my vernacular.

So they are in cahoots today based on the information provided from your source?

In your earlier post they were:
""Interesting that the judge in question has substantial financial ties to the official pushing the lawsuit." quote Rob Henderson

Based on the same source.

And tomorrow they will probably be plotting to shred the Constitution, once again based on your source. :lol::lol:

It is time to just let others follow the link to your source and see for themselves what to believe. :wink:

Sorry, Robbie you have no point. :lol: