Discussion: Health And Healthcare II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fried foods are bad for you. Soda is bad for you. Marijuana (which you advocate for the legalization of) is bad for you. Perhaps not as bad as tobacco, but still bad. At what point does personal responsibility come into play? Anyone who doesn't know that tobacco causes cancer is a moron. They choose to do it anyway. Big brother government shouldn't tell us what we can or cannot do with our own bodies.

If I'm not mistaken Schlosser, you are pro-choice. It is really no different. My body, I should be allowed to do as I'd like.
 
Bring me some nationalized healthcare!! It will be the awesomest!! :awesome:

NHS told to avoid 'slash and burn cuts'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13907633

My favorite part:

Health budgets have been largely protected by ministers across the UK, although once inflation and the impact of factors like the ageing population and cost of new drugs are taken into account, significant savings are having to be made. During the debates on Monday delegates voiced concerns about signs waiting times rising, staff shortages, cuts to services and tighter restrictions on a range of treatments.
Sounds like a peach!

But wait . . . there's more!!

Kings Fund: Waiting times in England at three-year high


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13130678

The Kings Fund says statistics for February show 15% of patients waited over 18 weeks for treatment, the longest time since April 2008.
It argues the shift is due to the financial pressures on the NHS.
:awesome:

As the BBC recently found, some parts of the NHS in England have introduced new restrictions on treatment or put routine operations on hold for several months.
I don't know about you folks, but I love the idea of longer waiting times . . . gives me the warm and fuzzies.
 
Last edited:
Am I missing something with the link? It is a sentence (less than?) long.
 
Am I missing something with the link? It is a sentence (less than?) long.

Nope, you didn't miss anything. Just as it says, the Federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld President Barack Obama's health care law. That's petty informative in itself. The remarkable thing about that is that this is coming form conservative judges.
 
Cincy Appeals Court: Individual Mandate is Constitutional

The district court in Michigan was one of three lower federal courts to rule the mandate as constitutional, while two other lower federal courts have ruled it unconstitutional. The ruling is the first appellate court decision on aspects of the reform law, with decisions expected soon from federal appeals courts in Atlanta and Richmond, Va., before the issues fall in the lap of the Supreme Court.

The Thomas More Law Center and four individuals appealed the Michigan ruling, arguing that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which regulates activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

In its ruling, the Appeals Court in Cincinnati noted that the Supreme Court previously has held that Congress has broad authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause. The court, citing legal precedent, further noted that, "The minimum coverage provision, like all congressional enactments, is entitled to a 'presumption of constitutionality' and will be invalidated only upon a 'plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds.'"

To demonstrate its belief that the Commerce Clause gives Congress broad authority, the Appeals Court asserted that it has long been established that Congress may regulate economic activity, even if wholly intrastate, if it substantially affects interstate commerce, and secondly "may regulate even non-economic intrastate activity if doing so is essential to a larger scheme that regulates economic activity."

"By regulating the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care delivery, the minimum coverage provision is facially constitutional under the Commerce Clause for two independent reasons," the Appeals Court ruled. First, the provision regulates economic activity that Congress had a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce. In addition, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme reforming the interstate markets in health care and health insurance."

According to the Los Angeles Times, Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush appointed the three judges in Cincinnati.
The Appeals Court in Cincinnati's ruling in Thomas More Law Center, et al. v. Obama, et al. is available here.
 
Last edited:
Read it an believe it. A Federal Appeals court made up of mostly Regan and Bush appointees basically said that the Federal mandate in HCR is constitutional. "We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause and therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court." is what the actually said.
 
Last edited:
Then there should be no waivers.

So why are unions and Nancy Pelosi district businesses getting them???
 
Then there should be no waivers.

So why are unions and Nancy Pelosi district businesses getting them???

That's on a year to year basis and will be going away in 2014. The reason why they did that was so that they wouldn't bankrupt those institutions (mostly in the restaurant industry) who offer mini-med plans right away. As of December of last year there were about 222 such waivers that allowed companies like McDonlads, Jack in the Box and Ruby Tuesday, and some unions to ignore the requirement to comply whit annual limits. They are getting the waiver on having to offer better benefits on a year to year basis and that will be going away in 2014. HCR is being implemented in phases and the Federal mandate will not kick in until then. Why are you so hard up on having everything apply now?
 
Read it an believe it. A Federal Appeals court made up of mostly Regan and Bush appointees basically said that the Federal mandate in HCR is constitutional. "We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause and therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court." is what the actually said.

The political breakdown of the court is irrelevant, the logic followed here is as offensive as it is faulty. This court essentially ruled that any economic activity is subject to Federal jurisdiction. That is an indefensible Constitutional position.

Luckily this opinion is practically irrelevant, as is everyone one until the Supreme Court weighs in.

And if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the law, I hope State legislatures move to nullify it.
 
I'm very surprised that a federal APPEALS court found the mandate to be constitutional...
 
Last edited:
The political breakdown of the court is irrelevant, the logic followed here is as offensive as it is faulty. This court essentially ruled that any economic activity is subject to Federal jurisdiction. That is an indefensible Constitutional position.

Luckily this opinion is practically irrelevant, as is everyone one until the Supreme Court weighs in.

And if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the law, I hope State legislatures move to nullify it.

The only way the States can do that is if they can prove that they have their own health care program that ensures that it's residents have adequate coverage. That's what the state of Vermont is doing and I think Massachusetts already qualifies for. Outside of that nullification or interposition is not legal.
 
I'm very surprised that a federal court found the mandate to be constitutional...

I am sure you meant a Federal Appeals Court. There have been lower Federal courts that have ruled in favor of HCR (Michigan being one).
 
I am sure you meant a Federal Appeals Court. There have been lower Federal courts that have ruled in favor of HCR (Michigan being one).

Yeah, I meant appeals.
icon11.gif
 
That's on a year to year basis and will be going away in 2014. The reason why they did that was so that they wouldn't bankrupt those institutions (mostly in the restaurant industry) who offer mini-med plans right away. As of December of last year there were about 222 such waivers that allowed companies like McDonlads, Jack in the Box and Ruby Tuesday, and some unions to ignore the requirement to comply whit annual limits. They are getting the waiver on having to offer better benefits on a year to year basis and that will be going away in 2014. HCR is being implemented in phases and the Federal mandate will not kick in until then. Why are you so hard up on having everything apply now?


Oh ok so it's needed to lower the cost of healthcare but businesses can get a waiver to opt out. I get it. An oxymoron!
 
Yeah, I meant appeals.
icon11.gif

I'll let you in on a little secret. If this is going to go to the SCOTUS an appeals court will have to uphold the Federal Mandate and/or the other controversial arguments of the law that favor government regulation. If it is struck down the Supremes will just refuse to hear the case and revert to the Federal Appeals court ruling.
 
Last edited:
Oh ok so it's needed to lower the cost of healthcare but businesses can get a waiver to opt out. I get it. An oxymoron!

It's needed to ensure that employees are getting the minimum level of health care coverage and not every business is getting the waiver. Remember, there are about 222 that applied for waivers. That's a relatively small number compared to the thousands of businesses that do offer plans to their employees and even then, those who apply for the waiver are under pending review. Of course, this is not to mention that the law also excludes small businesses with under 50 employees. One other thing that I should mention is that there is no correlation with the waiver and political favors as well. In fact the majority of the businesses that are getting the waiver (the restaurant industry) were against HCR to begin with.
 
Last edited:
The only way the States can do that is if they can prove that they have their own health care program that ensures that it's residents have adequate coverage. That's what the state of Vermont is doing and I think Massachusetts already qualifies for. Outside of that nullification or interposition is not legal.

You can argue that nullification is illegal (you would be wrong, but you could argue it), but the health care program of the States would be irrelevant to that point.
 
You can argue that nullification is illegal (you would be wrong, but you could argue it), but the health care program of the States would be irrelevant to that point.

I guess you could try, but the fact remains that States can't do that while remaining a member of the United States. It is not legal.
 
Read it an believe it. A Federal Appeals court made up of mostly Regan and Bush appointees basically said that the Federal mandate in HCR is constitutional. "We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause and therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court." is what the actually said.

I'm actually surprised that a Bush appointee sided with the Obama Administration on this one. Oh well, I'm starting to think that the Roberts Supreme Court is going to overturn it unless one of the conservative judges dies out.

My biggest problem with all these lawsuits against Obamacare is that there are so many of them to the point that most of them are just wastes of time, effort, and taxpayer money. There is no need for Virginia to sue separately from the other 26 states that are suing the federal government. And there is no need for all of these interest groups to sue the federal government when there is already one big lawsuit underway doing it for them. Virginia and the various other groups should have just joined the 26 state lawsuit, have one court case to deal with the issue instead of multiple and saved a lot of time, effort, and money that was unnecessarily spent.
 
It's needed to ensure that employees are getting the minimum level of health care coverage and not every business is getting the waiver. Remember, there are about 222 that applied for waivers. That's a relatively small number compared to the thousands of businesses that do offer plans to their employees and even then, those who apply for the waiver are under pending review. Of course, this is not to mention that the law also excludes small businesses with under 50 employees. One other thing that I should mention is that there is no correlation with the waiver and political favors as well. In fact the majority of the businesses that are getting the waiver (the restaurant industry) were against HCR to begin with.

You're behind on your research. There were over 1,000 as of March. And that's approved, not applied for. And the number is closer to 1,400 (along with seven states) as of the time the waiver program was announced to be discontinued.

And no correlation? There are 435 districts in the United States (for each congressman). Nancy Pelosi has a single district (0.23% of the districts). Yet, of the 204 waivers approved in April, 38 (or 8.74%) of them are in her district.

.23% of the districts, 8.74% of the April waivers granted in the most powerful House Democrat's district. Yet, there is NO correlation between approvals/political favors? You remind me of Lt. Frank Drebin (Leslie Nielsen) at the end of this clip:

[YT]rSjK2Oqrgic[/YT]
 
Oh ok so it's needed to lower the cost of healthcare but businesses can get a waiver to opt out. I get it. An oxymoron!

Just like how we HAD to pass Obamacare because people were being denied care and killed by those evil insurance companies . . .

. . . but it won't fully kick in until 2014.

Another oxymoron!
 
I guess you could try, but the fact remains that States can't do that while remaining a member of the United States. It is not legal.

It is legal. It is a part of the original intention of the Constitution.

The Federal Government would resist, but it is legal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,286
Messages
22,079,296
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"