Discussion: Health And Healthcare II

[Paradoxium]

I’m supersizing to be the world’s fattest woman, says 52st mother of two

The 52-stone bombshell aims to reach a whopping 115 stone, or 1,600lb, by guzzling at least 20,000 calories a day.

Susanne, 32, from Arizona, USA, hopes to pass the half-way milestone of 57 stones by the end of the year.

Guess who is forking her health bill?

The unemployed mother - who cannot work because of her weight - claims she stays active by doing simple exercises and having regular health checks.

Num num num

LOL you of course suuucckkaaaah

 

[dnno1]

I'm really thinking that this is going to get thrown out by the Supreme Court. And I think that it will happen before the 2012 election. I'd love to see Obama react on the campaign trail to that. The Obama Administration loves to point out how they won in some court cases, but those were completely frivolous and unnecessary lawsuits. They have lost every time so far when they have gone up against the states.

The Supreme Court has to take this because there are differing opinions from different courts.

 

[dnno1]

I’m supersizing to be the world’s fattest woman, says 52st mother of twoGuess who is forking her health bill?

Num num num

LOL you of course suuucckkaaaah

The article also says that she is a model (presumably being paid by the Sun). I saw another article that say she has a website. More than likely paying her bills on her own.

 

[Victarion]

She degrades herself by doing what other people request of her, provided they pay for her services. Stuff like putting on leather dog collars and freaky stuff.

I'm not one to go aggressive about combating obesity, but how about a law stating that once a person reaches the weight at which they're considered obese, they loose their healthcare or our funding that pays their medical bills?

 

[hippie_hunter]

The Supreme Court has to take this because there are differing opinions from different courts.

There are reports out there that are saying that the Obama Administration is going to try and drag it out so that it will reach the Supreme Court until after the 2012 election so that he doesn't have to deal with having to face the embarrassment of the individual mandate getting overturned (and in effect ruining the law) or have to defend an unpopular law on the campaign trail if it stays in effect.

Keeping it out of the Supreme Court during the election will at least lessen the impact Obamacare will have during the campaign season. The Supreme Court taking it on will make it more of an issue.

 

[dnno1]

She degrades herself by doing what other people request of her, provided they pay for her services. Stuff like putting on leather dog collars and freaky stuff.

I'm not one to go aggressive about combating obesity, but how about a law stating that once a person reaches the weight at which they're considered obese, they loose their healthcare or our funding that pays their medical bills?

Might be cheaper to just pay for her lap band procedure.

 

[Marx]

I just saw a clip of President Obama at some kind of a rally on the local news tonight. He was talking about healthcare and those who have "done the responsible thing and HAVE health insurance". Is he really saying that those who do not have health insurance are irresponsible? While I certainly agree that it isn't ideal to not have health insurance, it seems to me that he still fails to understand WHY a lot of people do not have health insurance.

 

[dnno1]

I just saw a clip of President Obama at some kind of a rally on the local news tonight. He was talking about healthcare and those who have "done the responsible thing and HAVE health insurance". Is he really saying that those who do not have health insurance are irresponsible? While I certainly agree that it isn't ideal to not have health insurance, it seems to me that he still fails to understand WHY a lot of people do not have health insurance.

Certainly, those who can afford to have health insurance, but choose not to are irresponsible.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Certainly, those who can afford to have health insurance, but choose not to are irresponsible.

I really can't argue with that.

 

[dnno1]

There are reports out there that are saying that the Obama Administration is going to try and drag it out so that it will reach the Supreme Court until after the 2012 election so that he doesn't have to deal with having to face the embarrassment of the individual mandate getting overturned (and in effect ruining the law) or have to defend an unpopular law on the campaign trail if it stays in effect.

Keeping it out of the Supreme Court during the election will at least lessen the impact Obamacare will have during the campaign season. The Supreme Court taking it on will make it more of an issue.

I am sure that will happen (or at least the White House will make that attempt) but the SCOTUS will certainly not throw this one out.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I am sure that will happen (or at least the White House will make that attempt) but the SCOTUS will certainly not throw this one out.

Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. I think that the political pundits such as Howard Fineman, David Ignatius, Dan Rather, and Andrea Mitchell, and Charlie Cook, are absolutely right that Obamacare is one of the biggest modern political mistakes ever.

I really do hope that the Supreme Court takes this up before the election. This is something that Obama needs to be held accountable for on the campaign trail. Whether or not it holds, it should not be pushed to the sidelines like Obama wants.

 

[Marx]

Certainly, those who can afford to have health insurance, but choose not to are irresponsible.

I can agree with that but his words could have been chosen more wisely. To me, it came across like he was insulting EVERYONE without health insurance.

 

[DBryan]

I wish I could find the clip of Rick Perry in which he said that it was a "blessing" that a woman was paying 200 dollars a month for necessary medication for her cancer. He really had this totally out of touch "so what? big deal? 200 dollars is nothing" attitude about it.

 

[redhawk23]

She degrades herself by doing what other people request of her, provided they pay for her services. Stuff like putting on leather dog collars and freaky stuff.

I'm not one to go aggressive about combating obesity, but how about a law stating that once a person reaches the weight at which they're considered obese, they loose their healthcare or our funding that pays their medical bills?

Would you have other disqualifiers then? No coverage if you smoke? No coverage if you don't wear sunscreen?

 

[dnno1]

Appeals Court Dismisses Virginia's Challenge to Obamacare

 

[Marx]

That's interesting.

 

[dnno1]

Yeah, they said that the state had lacked the standing to bring the action, since they (the State) had no obligation to the individual mandate (since it only applies to individuals and not states -- states, just like corporations are not people). Now that being said, the court also stated in the ammicus brief that since the state had no standing, they could not address the question of the individual mandate in this case. This is going to the SCOTUS.

 

[StorminNorman]

They are the only court to agree with the Obama Administration on classifying the mandate as a tax.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Appeals Court Dismisses Virginia's Challenge to Obamacare

For once the Obama Administration has won in a court case that actually matters as opposed to those pointless frivolous ones that they won against. It also makes me wonder why Virginia didn't join the Florida lawsuit which would have spared the state this embarrassment.

Also that reasoning is total ********. Way to totally avoid the question of whether or not the individual mandate is valid or not. Which is something the Obama Administration probably would have preferred instead of simply saying that the states do not have the right to sue. The state is representing the people after all and the majority of Virginia's residents do not like Obamacare. It's not like a corporation where they are representing the corporation's interests, the state is representing the people's interests.

 

[dnno1]

They are the only court to agree with the Obama Administration on classifying the mandate as a tax.

Actually they didn't rule on the mandate. Because the Commonwealth of Virginia had no standing to file suit, then couldn't give a ruling on that.

 

[StorminNorman]

This was the Liberty University ruling.

In the case of Liberty University, the court said the legal challenge had come too soon: “Because this suit constitutes a pre-enforcement action seeking to restrain the assessment of a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act strips us of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we must vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”
The 4th Circuit is the first court to side with the administration’s legal argument that the mandate’s penalty is a tax.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62992.html#ixzz1XOqgPlg5​

​

 

[dnno1]

This was the Liberty University ruling.

In the case of Liberty University, the court said the legal challenge had come too soon: “Because this suit constitutes a pre-enforcement action seeking to restrain the assessment of a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act strips us of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we must vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”
The 4th Circuit is the first court to side with the administration’s legal argument that the mandate’s penalty is a tax.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62992.html#ixzz1XOqgPlg5

The court never said that. It was the Feds that argued that the penalty was a tax and that they could legally assess a tax under the definitions in the Anti Injunction Act. The court indicated that there was a distinction between a tax and a penalty and that the exactions imposed by the violations of the employer and individual mandate were regulatory penalties.

 

[StorminNorman]

The court never said that. It was the Feds that argued that the penalty was a tax and that they could legally assess a tax under the definitions in the Anti Injunction Act. The court indicated that there was a distinction between a tax and a penalty and that the exactions imposed by the violations of the employer and individual mandate were regulatory penalties.

The Court’s broad interpretation of the AIA to bar interference with the assessment of any exaction imposed by the Code entirely accords with, and indeed seems to be mandated by, other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The AIA does not use the term “tax” in a vacuum; rather, it protects from judicial interference the “assessment . . . of any tax.” I.R.C. § 7421(a) (emphasis added). The Secretary’s authority to make such an “assessment . . . of any tax” derives directly from another provision in the Code, which charges the Secretary with making “assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title.” § 6201(a) (emphases added); see also § 6202 (“assessment of any internal revenue tax” includes assessment of “penalties”). Thus, for purposes of the very assessment authority that the AIA protects, Congress made clear that “penalties” (as well as “interest, additional amounts, [and] additions to the tax”) count as “taxes.”

Page 19-20

 

[dnno1]

The Court’s broad interpretation of the AIA to bar interference with the assessment of any exaction imposed by the Code entirely accords with, and indeed seems to be mandated by, other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The AIA does not use the term “tax” in a vacuum; rather, it protects from judicial interference the “assessment . . . of any tax.” I.R.C. § 7421(a) (emphasis added). The Secretary’s authority to make such an “assessment . . . of any tax” derives directly from another provision in the Code, which charges the Secretary with making “assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title.” § 6201(a) (emphases added); see also § 6202 (“assessment of any internal revenue tax” includes assessment of “penalties&#8221. Thus, for purposes of the very assessment authority that the AIA protects, Congress made clear that “penalties” (as well as “interest, additional amounts, [and] additions to the tax&#8221 count as “taxes.”

Page 19-20

I don't know where you got that paragraph from, but the actual memorandum opinion says this on page 20:

After considering the prevailing case law, I conclude that the better characterization of the exactions imposed under the Act for violations of the employer and individual coverage provisions is that of regulatory penalties, not taxes.

 

[Marx]

UPDATE: NEARLY 50 MILLION PEOPLE IN US DO NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insurance/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

Holy crap!