MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Sunday, August 31, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 61.0° F  Fog
Collapse Photo Bar

Court: Health Care is constitutional

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Court: Health Care is constitutional

Postby rabble » Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:36 pm

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., became the third federal judge to uphold the constitutionality of the health overhaul's individual mandate. The decision was issued Tuesday evening.

No word from Wisconsin's Attorney General on whether the law is still dead.

I believe this makes it three yays and two nays with a few cases tossed out for being too damn stupid.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6116
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Court: Health Care is constitutional

Postby fisticuffs » Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:44 pm

I believe this makes it three yays and two nays with a few cases tossed out for being too damn stupid.


C'mon now. We all know the only opinions that matter are the ones you agree with. That said I agree with the ones who tossed out the case.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7795
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: Court: Health Care is constitutional

Postby Huckleby » Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:55 pm

The Republicans have been pushing for an expedited presentation to the Supreme Court. (Not sure procedurally what this means, but some level of appeal gets bypassed.) The Republican motivation is to prevent the Dems from implementing any parts that might be popular or difficult to reverse.

Somewhat surprisingly, former Dem Governor Rendel of Pennsylvania has joined the call for the Supremes to take it up quickly. AFter thinking about it, I agree. Lets get it over with. Its not a game, the country needs to get on with the real problems, whatever way we go.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6467
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Court: Health Care is constitutional

Postby Carol » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:48 pm

What a rotting, steaming pile of sophistry and distortion! THIS is the bottom line, which that corrupt HARVARD-trained judge ignored:

The government already paid for about three-fourths of uncompensated health costs. Nothing prevented Congress from expanding those programs, which would have been entirely Constitutional. Furthemore, the CBO anticipates subsidies of $5800 per year to buy health insurance, when the health costs of the uninsured average less than $2000 a year (Kaiser).

But Judge Kessler proclaims: "The findings on this subject could not be clearer: the great majority of the millions of Americans who remain uninsured consume medical services they cannot pay for, often resulting in personal bankruptcy. In fact, the ACA’s findings state that "62% of all personal bankruptcies are caused in part by medical expenses."

What the hell? Since when is it the duty of the US government to protect people from bankruptcy due to this cause, but not from other financial problems? One might think from this that average people must have a lot of influence to have such unctuous concern bestowed upon them. But a more mature view would suspect that their existence has been invoked by those with REAL power, namely the insurance companies, to conceal their ulterior motives.

She blathers on, "Of even greater significance to the national economy is the fact that these uninsured individuals are, in fact, shifting the uncompensated costs of those services--which totaled $43 billion in 2008--onto other health care market participants, as well as federal and state governments and American taxpayers."

As I pointed out, three-quarters of those costs are already paid for by government programs, which could have been expanded without shredding the Constitution. And, "Even if all private funding for uncompensated care were recouped from private insurance payments, this would still amount to only 1.7% of private insurance premiums." (Covering the Uninsured in 2008: A Detailed Examination of Current Costs and Sources of Payment, and Incremental Costs of Expanding Coverage. J Hadley, J Holahan, T Coughlin, D Miller. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Aug. 2008, p. 56.) Also in this report, it says that full-year uninsured people on average received $1,686 in health care, compared with $3,915 for insured people, and paid for a larger proportion of it out of their own pockets, page 15.

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7809.pdf

And the "remedy" for this supposed $43 billion ripoff of the taxpayers and the insurance companies is to force everyone to buy private health insurance! The subsidies for those who can't afford to pay for it are predicted to cost $106 billion, with an average subsidy if $5800. (Reid Letter, Table 2, page 9.)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc113 ... HR3590.pdf

What "could not be clearer" is that people who are unable to pay for costs that average less than $2000 are even less capable of affording the cost of buying health insurance! Kessler's "reasoning" amounts to claiming that merely because people might become a financial burden to others, the government is therefore entitled to FORCE them to become a burden!

She blathers on, "Because of this cost-shifting effect, the individual decision to forgo health insurance, when considered in the aggregate, leads to substantially higher insurance premiums for those other individuals who do obtain coverage. According to Congress, the ncompensated costs of caring for the uninsured are passed on by health care providers to private insurers, which in turn pass on the cost to purchasers of health insurance. “This costshifting increases family premiums by on average over $1,000 a year.” ACA §1501(a)(2)(F), as amended by § 10106. Thus, the aggregate effect on interstate commerce of the decisions of individuals to forgo insurance is very substantial."10

And then rubs her obnoxious attitude in with a smarmily self-righteous footnote:

"To put it less analytically, and less charitably, those who choose--and Plaintiffs have made such a deliberate choice--not to purchase health insurance will benefit greatly when they become ill, as they surely will, from the free health care which must be provided by emergency rooms and hospitals to the sick and dying who show up on their doorstep. In short, those who choose not to purchase health insurance will ultimately get a “free ride” on the backs of those Americans who have made responsible choices to provide for the illness we all must face at some point in our lives."

But those with employer-paid health insurance "who have made responsible choices" are the beneficiaries of a $246 billion tax subsidy, due to exemption of their costs of health insurance from federal income taxes. These lost revenues must be made up for by everyone, including the uninsured. The free ride they receive is far more than costs of those who are supposedly getting a "free ride" at their expense.

These people obviously think that we're all too dumb to count, and their mass media propaganda machine can drown out the few who aren't. And they think that they can bully and intimidate us into submission with the sheer gall of their ATTITUDE!

And the issue that nobody has raised is, WHY DIDN'T THEY DO IT RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE? It's clear from reading the bill that the real reason is so that they can shove their Nazi pseudo-science of "wellness" down everyone's throat. The "wellness" garbage would be a required part of every approved health insurance plan. It includes government grants for employers to institute wellness programs, which rewards believers in health fascist pseudo-science with premium discounts of up to 50%. Deployed under the phony pretext of "prohibiting discrimination," it financially coerces people to submit to health fascist charlatanism and discriminates against those who refuse!

It proves that this law is both unnecessary and improper - an unconstitutional means to an unconstitutional end! And Judge Kessler is clearly in ideology cahoots with the corrupt Harvard economists who devised this plan, and with the corrupt Harvard economists who pull numbers out of their rear ends to rationalize the health fascism created at the Harvard School of Public Health!

Kessler opinion (Margaret Peggy Lee Mead, et al. v. Eric H. Holder Jr., et al., No. 10-950, D. D.C.).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49359380/Judg ... titutional
Carol
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Court: Health Care is constitutional

Postby Huckleby » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:26 am

FloraL wrote:I do question why would Congress write a bill that was unconstitutional in the first place?

Most constitutional experts reassured the Dem politicians that the mandate was constititutional, and the Dems evidently ignored the fact that the opinion of most constitutional experts is irrelevant. All that counts is what the conservative U.S. Supreme Court thinks.

They could have easily avoided the question with minor changes in language. The mandate is already administered by the IRS, they just needed to more explicitly say that the penalty for not having insurance is a tax. But they were too chicken-shit to use the "T" word. I doubt they gained any support with this strategy, and now it has blown-up in their face.

The idea of a personal mandate is historically a right-wing idea. Liberals have traditionally wanted an employer mandate, conservatives have pushed for personal responsibility. A presonal mandate was first proposed by Richard Nixon back in the early 70's. The mandate promoted by Mitt Romney in Massachusettes was designed by the right wing Heritage Foundation. The conservative roots of the mandate idea probably lulled Dems into a false sense of security.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6467
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Court: Health Care is constitutional

Postby Carol » Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:44 am

Huckleby wrote:
FloraL wrote:I do question why would Congress write a bill that was unconstitutional in the first place?

Most constitutional experts reassured the Dem politicians that the mandate was constititutional, and the Dems evidently ignored the fact that the opinion of most constitutional experts is irrelevant. All that counts is what the conservative U.S. Supreme Court thinks.

They could have easily avoided the question with minor changes in language. The mandate is already administered by the IRS, they just needed to more explicitly say that the penalty for not having insurance is a tax. But they were too chicken-shit to use the "T" word. I doubt they gained any support with this strategy, and now it has blown-up in their face.

The idea of a personal mandate is historically a right-wing idea. Liberals have traditionally wanted an employer mandate, conservatives have pushed for personal responsibility. A presonal mandate was first proposed by Richard Nixon back in the early 70's. The mandate promoted by Mitt Romney in Massachusettes was designed by the right wing Heritage Foundation. The conservative roots of the mandate idea probably lulled Dems into a false sense of security.


What do you mean, "most constitutional experts"? Are you pretending they even cared what "most" of them think, as opposed to the Harvard clique of pettifoggers who've been cheerleading for it?

This whole thing is a conspiracy by the health fascists at Harvard, to turn this country into a totalitarian dictatorship over the details of our personal lives, in the name of the Unitarian dogma of "improving" [sic] humanity, as THEY see fit, of course. They've committed scientific fraud for the last seven decades by using studies that ignore the role of infection so they can falsely blame peoples' lifestyles. It's Calvin's doctrine of the "elect," that the rich people must be paragons of virtue in the eyes of god because he supposedly shows his favor by making them rich, or healthy, as the case may be.

Their mass media propaganda machine has systematically brainwashed the public with these lies, while censoring dissent. And Nixon was nothing but their puppet, just as much as Obama. He's the one that signed the National Cancer Act of 1971, whose leading promoter was Mary Woodard Lasker, the head of the American Cancer Society and the most powerful health lobbyist in history. Nixon also created the Environmental Protection Agency, where they perpetrate the same scientific fraud to work the public into hysterics over trace amounts of chemicals and tiny specks of dust (also while ignoring the role of infection). It means that they're shoving a compulsory state religion of hogwash down our throats, under false pretenses that it's "science," and the supposed religious exemptions are meaningless because they are merely for those religions which are exempted from taxation! Those exemptions have nothing to do with respecting peoples' rights not to be forced to subsidize or be indoctrinated by corrupt, religion-based pseudo-science.
Carol
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Court: Health Care is constitutional

Postby Carol » Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:29 am

And do know the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Sellers Collins, is a religious loony? Don't imagine that he's some kind of fundamentalist just because he's from Virginia and was home-schooled. Presumably they did it so he wouldn't be contaminated by any ideas from the rabble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

The Strange Case of Francis Collins
Posted: August 5, 2009
By Sam Harris

http://www.project-reason.org/archive/i ... _collins2/

His father, Fletcher Collins Jr., an English professor, graduated from Yale in 1928. His family was "prominently identified with the iron and steel industry in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania." Those earlier ancestors listed include Yale grads of 1718, 1758, 1760, and 1786. His great-great grandfather, Henry Eaton Collins, was married in St. Louis by Unitarian Rev. William G. Eliot (a cousin of Harvard President Charles W. Eliot, and an admirer of German philosophers such as Fichte and Goethe, whose ideology that the individual exists to serve the state is the foundation of modern totalitarianism).

http://books.google.com/books?id=hfoMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA309

Fletcher Collins Sr. was the western sales agent for James Pierpont & Company, which handled pig iron, coal and Coke. (Connellsville Weekly Courier, Jan. 16, 1913.) his brother, Henry Lafayette Collins, married an heiress of William Thaw of the Coke Trust.
Carol
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Court: Health Care is constitutional

Postby fennel » Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:10 am

Appeals Court Dismisses Challenge To Health Care Reform Law
(Dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no standing.)
fennel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3156
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison


Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar