Virginia lawsuit against Obamacare will go forward

[fossten]

Health Care: Go, Ken, Go

By Staff Reports


Judge Henry Hudson didn't rule on the merits of Ken Cuccinellis case against Obamacare. He simply declined to dismiss it.

Federal District Judge Henry Hudson's decision to let Ken Cuccinelli's lawsuit against Obamacare go forward comes as no surprise. Hudson didn't rule on the merits of the attorney general's case. He simply declined to dismiss it. The issue at the heart of the matter is hotly debated by constitutional scholars, and is generally expected to receive final adjudication in the Supreme Court. In short, it's hardly a frivolous suit.

The question is whether the federal government has the power to compel individuals to purchase a particular consumer good -- not as a prerequisite to some other privilege, such as driving, but merely because they live and breathe. Advocates of Obamacare say it does, thanks to the Commerce Clause. If they are correct, then there is pretty much nothing the federal government cannot do, and the notion enshrined in the Constitution that government is a limited entity confined to certain enumerated powers no longer obtains.

The high court might eventually reach that conclusion. After all, the federal government enjoys the power of military conscription. And the Supreme Court's 1946 ruling in Wickard v. Fillburn said Congress could tell a man how much wheat he could grow on his own land, on the grounds that his activity affected the national wheat market. It is not a huge leap from there to the conclusion that failure to buy insurance affects the insurance and health care markets, so Congress may regulate inactivity as well as activity.

We would hate to see such a ruling. It would leave all Americans at the mercy of congressional whim; the only thing standing between you and an individual mandate to buy a car, a handgun, or Glenn Beck's latest book would be the contingent forbearance of Congress. And Congress is not famous for its forbearance.

The courts, therefore, must supply it with some. And the suit brought by Cuccinelli is the vehicle with which to do so.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Republicans Hatched Idea for Obama's Health Insurance Mandate

Republicans were for President Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the Republican presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest Republican senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

Republicans say Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. More than a dozen Republican attorneys general are determined to challenge the requirement in federal court as unconstitutional.

Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program or by buying it directly. That same year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums.

AT&T Joins Growing List of Firms That Say Health Care Law Will Cut Into Their Profits A Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis Without End Uncle Sam Wants You to Have an Online ID What to Expect if Bush Tax Cuts Expire Those who continue to go without coverage will have to pay a penalty to federal tax authorities, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016.

Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans -- the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement program. Most experts agree some kind of requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance doesn't work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits -- two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received -- by the George H.W. Bush administration.

"It could have been the basis for a bipartisan compromise, but it wasn't," said Pauly. "Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it."

Obama rejected a key part of Pauly's proposal: doing away with the tax-free status of employer-sponsored health care and replacing it with a standard tax credit for all Americans. Labor strongly opposes that approach because union members usually have better-than-average coverage and suddenly would have to pay taxes on it. But many economists believe it's a rational solution to America's health care dilemma since it would raise enough money to cover the uninsured and nudge people with coverage into cost-conscious plans.

Romney's success in Massachusetts with a bipartisan health plan that featured a mandate put the idea on the table for the 2008 presidential candidates.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who failed in the 1990s to require employers to offer coverage, embraced the individual requirement, an idea advocated by her Republican opponents in the earlier health care debate.

"Hillary Clinton believed strongly in universal coverage," said Neera Tanden, her top health care adviser in the 2008 Democratic campaign. "I said to her, 'You are not going to be able to say it's universal coverage unless you have a mandate.' She said, 'I don't want to run unless it's universal coverage."'

Obama was not prepared to go that far. His health care proposal in the campaign required coverage for children, not adults. Clinton hammered him because his plan didn't guarantee coverage for all. He shot back that health insurance is too expensive to force people to buy it.

Obama remained cool to an individual requirement even once in office. But Tanden, who went on to serve in the Obama administration, said the first sign of a shift came in a letter to congressional leaders last summer in which Obama said he'd be open to the idea if it included a hardship waiver. Obama openly endorsed a mandate in his speech to a joint session of Congress in September.

It remains one of the most unpopular parts of his plan. Even the insurance industry is unhappy. Although the federal government will be requiring Americans to buy their products -- and providing subsidies worth billions -- insurers don't think the penalties are high enough.

Tanden, now at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, says she's confident the mandate will work. In Massachusetts, coverage has gone up and only a tiny fraction of residents have been hit with fines.

Brown, whose election to replace the late Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy almost led to the collapse of Obama's plan, said his opposition to the new law is over tax increases, Medicare cuts and federal overreach on a matter that should be left up to states. Not so much the requirement, which he voted for as a state lawmaker.

"In Massachusetts, it helped us deal with the very real problem of uncompensated care," Brown said.

Here's another example of Republican hipocricy on display. Is the only reason they flip-flopped on their support for the insurance mandate was because Obama adopted it into Health Care Reform?

"Whatever Obama is for, we are against, even if we were in support of it originally"

 

[fossten]

^^^ Complete red herring, considering the American people overhwhelmingly don't want this law.

It's not about who thought up the idea first, despite your efforts at a red herring. It's about the Constitution.

Oh, and your best examples of "many conservatives" are Romney (Masscare), Nixon (Watergate), and GHWB (Read My Lips)? :bowrofl: Give me a break. They don't speak for me, and I never supported it. What about Reagan, DeMint, Pence, Krauthammer, Kristol, Hannity, Limbaugh? AGAINST IT. You're cherrypicking. The exception does not prove the rule.

It's a classic logical flaw for a liberal to point out "hipocricy" (aka hypocrisy) when they have no foundation of principles themselves. Liberals - always living in the past. Never mind that the author doesn't bother to cite his sources for his 'facts.' Never mind that Nixon's bill didn't have sweetheart deals and bribes to get it passed, and never mind that Ted Kennedy killed the bill because it wasn't his party who originated it. Hypocrisy, indeed.

Your leftist AP Hack author is FAIL.

So let me ask you this, Johnny: Do you believe the Federal Government should be able to tell somebody that they must buy something? Yes or no. Drop the c/p nonsense - tell us what YOU think.

 

[Calabrio]

-using the argument "the Republicans did this..." doesn't really matter anymore, if you had been paying attention and not just playing defense, you'd have seen that the "conservatives," particularly all of the ones here, are highly critical of the Republican establishment.

Fossten has been very aggressive and vocally hostile to the party for quite some time. And everyone else has been highly critical.

The only thing bi-partisan thing you'll get here is when it's in the form of fair criticism of big-government Republicans.

 

[fossten]

The only thing bi-partisan thing you'll get here is when it's in the form of fair criticism of big-government Republicans.

Bingo - you won't see the lefties here smacking Obama around - instead you see drones (learnt that word from foxpaws) defending him.

 

[Calabrio]

The problem isn't purely Republican or Democrat,
it's about federalism, limited government, the constitution, and individual liberty.

Arguably, the national Republican party MIGHT be able to be reformed from the inside to broadly embrace these principles. There is a chance that this might happen.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like such a reformation can happen within the national Democrat party anymore.

 

[fossten]

The left is just now realizing that they've served themselves a crap sandwich in November and now they're trying to misdirect in order to get the Republicans to share it. No dice.

Read my lips, Democrats:

YOU OWN THIS ONE.

 

[shagdrum]

In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

This claim comes from a testimony given on March 10, 2003 before the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate. Here is the opening bit:

My name is Stuart Butler. I am Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.​

 

[fossten]

This claim comes from a testimony given on March 10, 2003 before the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate. Here is the opening bit:

My name is Stuart Butler. I am Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.​

*owned*

To paraphrase Johnny, it's easy to come in here spewing lies unless somebody challenges you with facts.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

To paraphrase Johnny, it's easy to come in here spewing lies unless somebody challenges you with facts.

You would know, I was referring to YOU when I said that.

^^^ Complete red herring, considering the American people overhwhelmingly don't want this law.

How telling this is about your intellectual honesty; decry a “red herring” while throwing your own “red herring” on the table in the form of an irrelevant popularity test in a state with an overwhelming republican turnout. Projection much?.

It's not about who thought up the idea first, despite your efforts at a red herring. It's about the Constitution.

If this is about the Constitution, why bring up the Missouri vote? The Constitution is not left up to a vote. Besides, where did I say anything about this NOT being about the Constitution? I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the GOP pulling their support for an idea hatched by their own. In fact, the presence of the individual mandate in the HCR bill is, at least in part, a response by pressure from Chuck Grassley (R) a year ago and a desire by the Democrats to create a bi-partisan bill.

Compare Grassley's statements Tuesday to what he said in June (2009) on Fox News Sunday:

"But when it comes to states requiring it for automobile insurance, the principle then ought to lie the same way for health insurance. Because everybody has some health insurance costs, and if you aren’t insured, there’s no free lunch. Somebody else is paying for it….I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates."

WRT the constitution question, good luck with that. I'm looking forward to watching the GOP squirm when the insurance lobby starts yanking their chain. Until then, this is all theatrics for the mid-term election. The GOP is as transparent as always.

So let me ask you this, Johnny: Do you believe the Federal Government should be able to tell somebody that they must buy something?

No. But I understand how this compromise was a necessary evil to keep the HCR bill in the black. I also believe there were better ways to write the HCR bill and keep the budget in the black. But I’m not going to fault the Dems for putting this in the bill when they thought they had support for it from across the aisle. I do fault them, and Obama for that matter, for trusting any of the republicans to stand by their word.

Now, considering that you also appear opposed to the individual mandate as well, will you admit that Obama was RIGHT for initially opposing it? I won’t hold my breath.

This claim comes from a testimony given on March 10, 2003 before the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate. Here is the opening bit:
My name is Stuart Butler. I am Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.

Typical disclaimer. Red herring much? This doesn’t change the fact that the idea of an individual mandate came from a republican. FAIL.

LIBERAL TROLL WARNING:​

The above post was made by a LvC member that has been branded a “LIBERAL TROLL” by the “Established Members” of the LvC Politics & Current Events Forum (P&CEF). The content of the above post is exclusively that of the “LIBERAL TROLL” and in no way reflects the opinions of the “Established Members” and in fact, is subject to the following actions by the “Established Members”: Ridicule, dismissal, ad hominem personal attacks, misconstrue, misdirection, projection, rejection, censorship, fact-free criticism, and flat-out talking bad about his mother.

Other LvC P&CEF members are free to, and are in fact encourage to establishing “street-cred” by joining the “Established Members” in their participation of the above actions. Your participation in piling on this and all other “LIBERAL TROLLS” will be rewarded with 24/7 online moral support by the “Established Members” and like-minded LvC P&CEF moderators. If you don’t agree with something that this, or any other “LIBERAL TROLL” posts regardless of factual basis used, merely notify one of the LvC P&CEF moderators and they will promptly edit or delete offending post as appropriate. We, the “Established Members” of the LvC P&CEF strive for political unity on this forum and will stop at nothing to purge all “LIBERAL TROLLs” to achieve that goal.

 

[shagdrum]

This doesn’t change the fact that the idea of an individual mandate came from a republican.

However, it does disprove the notion that the Heritage Foundation proposed this idea, or that Republican's as whole were supportive of it, which is what you are dishonestly implying. One single Republican does not indicate republican thought in general. Saying that "they flip-flopped on their support for the insurance mandate" (as you claimed in the second post of this thread) is dishonest distortion and hyperbole.

LIBERAL TROLL WARNING:​

The above post was made by a LvC member that has been branded a “LIBERAL TROLL” by the “Established Members” of the LvC Politics & Current Events Forum (P&CEF). The content of the above post is exclusively that of the “LIBERAL TROLL” and in no way reflects the opinions of the “Established Members” and in fact, is subject to the following actions by the “Established Members”: Ridicule, dismissal, ad hominem personal attacks, misconstrue, misdirection, projection, rejection, censorship, fact-free criticism, and flat-out talking bad about his mother.

Other LvC P&CEF members are free to, and are in fact encourage to establishing “street-cred” by joining the “Established Members” in their participation of the above actions. Your participation in piling on this and all other “LIBERAL TROLLS” will be rewarded with 24/7 online moral support by the “Established Members” and like-minded LvC P&CEF moderators. If you don’t agree with something that this, or any other “LIBERAL TROLL” posts regardless of factual basis used, merely notify one of the LvC P&CEF moderators and they will promptly edit or delete offending post as appropriate. We, the “Established Members” of the LvC P&CEF strive for political unity on this forum and will stop at nothing to purge all “LIBERAL TROLLs” to achieve that goal.

???

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

However, it does disprove the notion that the Heritage Foundation proposed this idea, or that Republican's as whole were supportive of it, which is what you are dishonestly implying. One single Republican does not indicate republican thought in general. Saying that "they flip-flopped on their support for the insurance mandate" (as you claimed in the second post of this thread) is dishonest distortion and hyperbole.

You are obviously are too lazy to bother reading the link I provided:

Grassley wasn't alone. His fellow Republican Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) recently told reporters that while he was conflicted on a mandate, it was "something I guess that I would take a look at. There -- there are good arguments on behalf of getting everybody in the -- in the pool," he said. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney made an individual mandate a staple of the health care overhaul he pursued for his state. "For the uninsured who can afford insurance but expect to be given free care at the hospital, require them to either pay for their own care or buy insurance," he wrote in Newsweek.

Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, himself a doctor, told Fox Business Network that consumers should "be responsible to paying for" their insurance. If they can't afford it, he added, "there are going to be taxes, excise taxes, user taxes on companies like Aetna, on individuals."

Meanwhile, six current Republican Senators - Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Bob Bennett (Utah), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) - all have sponsored legislation (Sen. Ron Wyden's 2009 "Healthy Americans Act") that includes an individual mandate.

Where did I state that the individual mandate was broadly supported by republicans? So much for your false and dishonest claim that only "one single republican" thought the individual mandate was a good idea. FAIL.

LIBERAL TROLL WARNING:​

The above post was made by a LvC member that has been branded a “LIBERAL TROLL” by the “Established Members” of the LvC Politics & Current Events Forum (P&CEF). The content of the above post is exclusively that of the “LIBERAL TROLL” and in no way reflects the opinions of the “Established Members” and in fact, is subject to the following actions by the “Established Members”: Ridicule, dismissal, ad hominem personal attacks, misconstrue, misdirection, projection, rejection, censorship, fact-free criticism, and flat-out talking bad about his mother.

Other LvC P&CEF members are free to, and are in fact encourage to establishing “street-cred” by joining the “Established Members” in their participation of the above actions. Your participation in piling on this and all other “LIBERAL TROLLS” will be rewarded with 24/7 online moral support by the “Established Members” and like-minded LvC P&CEF moderators. If you don’t agree with something that this, or any other “LIBERAL TROLL” posts regardless of factual basis used, merely notify one of the LvC P&CEF moderators and they will promptly edit or delete offending post as appropriate. We, the “Established Members” of the LvC P&CEF strive for political unity on this forum and will stop at nothing to purge all “LIBERAL TROLLs” to achieve that goal.

 

[shagdrum]

You are obviously are too lazy to bother reading the link I provided

Not really. The point still stands. It doesn't matter if it was one or a few, that is not what defines Republican thought or (more importantly) what defines conservative thought, which is what matters more and what is falsely implied in your misdirection. In fact, none of the people you cite could really be considered "conservative". Judd Greg was nominated for a position in the Obama administration and Lindsay Grahamnesty has demonstrated long ago that he holds no conservative principles, or any political principles beyond that of political expediency.

Where did I state that the individual mandate was broadly supported by republicans?

It was implied by your original statement and you know it. Otherwise, it is a totally irrelevant point as it is simply a demonstration of "hypocrisy" of a few politically opportunistic individuals on the right side of the isle and has no bearing on this thread whatsoever.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

It doesn't matter if it was one or a few, that is not what defines Republican thought or (more importantly) what defines conservative thought, which is what matters more and what is falsely implied in your misdirection. In fact, none of the people you cite could really be considered "conservative".

Move the goalposts much? You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Since foss is too much of a wuss to put his personal position in writing, I'll ask you: Considering that you also appear opposed to the individual mandate as well, will you admit that Obama was RIGHT for initially opposing it? I won’t hold my breath.

Since you seem obsessed w/ the original issue of this topic, DO YOU feel that the individual mandate is a "tax" as seems to be your opinion here on another thread on this topic?? If SO, then how do you expect this constitutional challenge to go forward since it would have no basis if this is a "tax"? You can't have it both ways.

LIBERAL TROLL WARNING:​

The above post was made by a LvC member that has been branded a “LIBERAL TROLL” by the “Established Members” of the LvC Politics & Current Events Forum (P&CEF). The content of the above post is exclusively that of the “LIBERAL TROLL” and in no way reflects the opinions of the “Established Members” and in fact, is subject to the following actions by the “Established Members”: Ridicule, dismissal, ad hominem personal attacks, misconstrue, misdirection, projection, rejection, censorship, fact-free criticism, and flat-out talking bad about his mother.

Other LvC P&CEF members are free to, and are in fact encourage to establishing “street-cred” by joining the “Established Members” in their participation of the above actions. Your participation in piling on this and all other “LIBERAL TROLLS” will be rewarded with 24/7 online moral support by the “Established Members” and like-minded LvC P&CEF moderators. If you don’t agree with something that this, or any other “LIBERAL TROLL” posts regardless of factual basis used, merely notify one of the LvC P&CEF moderators and they will promptly edit or delete offending post as appropriate. We, the “Established Members” of the LvC P&CEF strive for political unity on this forum and will stop at nothing to purge all “LIBERAL TROLLs” to achieve that goal.

 

[shagdrum]

Since foss is too much of a wuss to put his personal position in writing, I'll ask you: Considering that you also appear opposed to the individual mandate as well, will you admit that Obama was RIGHT for initially opposing it? I won’t hold my breath.

You will have to refresh my memory on this. When did Obama oppose the individual mandate; at what point in the debate? What was is reason for doing so? What was he supporting at that moment?

Since you seem obsessed w/ the original issue of this topic, DO YOU feel that the individual mandate is a "tax" as seems to be your opinion here on another thread on this topic?? If SO, then how do you expect this constitutional challenge to go forward since it would have no basis if this is a "tax"? You can't have it both ways.

It is a metaphorical tax on the populace because it imposes a cost on people against their will (which is the context conservatives were talking about on this).

However, since the government is not collecting the money but forcing people to engage in commerce this does not fall under the power of Congress to levy taxes.

If you truly care about context, you will recognize that distinction. If you are unconcerned about context, you will find some rationale to reject that distinction.

Anyway, back to Obama, do you think he was being disingenuous when he rejected the notion that the individual mandate serves as a tax on the people?

 

[fossten]

Obama said during his debates with Hillary that he didn't support the individual mandate - but then again, according to FIND, 'not supporting' something isn't the same as 'opposing.'