A Virginia federal judge on Monday found a key part of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care reform law unconstitutional -- setting the stage for a protracted legal struggle likely to wind up in the Supreme Court.
U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson struck down the "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014. The Justice Department is expected to challenge the judge's findings in a federal appeals court.
Hudson's opinion contradicts other court rulings finding the mandate constitutionally permissible.
"An individual's personal decision to purchase -- or decline purchase -- (of) health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach" of the U.S. Constitution," Hudson wrote. "No specifically constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html?hpt=T2
Somebody read the constitution? WTF?
It'll never stand on appeal. Hell, Kagan would rule the feds have the authority to outlaw voting third party if it came up.
If it does stand, or if the Supreme Court ends up striking it down, you all realize of course this means that most of the past two years of Obama's Presidency has been a gigantic waste of time.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 13, 2010, 06:17:56 PM
If it does stand, or if the Supreme Court ends up striking it down, you all realize of course this means that most of the past two years of Obama's Presidency has been a gigantic waste of time.
The individual mandate IS bullshit, and SHOULD be struck down.
Also there is no provision in the bill that if one part is voided that the rest of the document remains valid. This could potentially by default cancel all of the health bill.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 13, 2010, 06:21:55 PM
Also there is no provision in the bill that if one part is voided that the rest of the document remains valid. This could potentially by default cancel all of the health bill.
Could.
The bill is a fucking abortion, it's a clear description of everything that's wrong with Obama's administration. Maybe next time around, someone will have some balls.
Not holding my breath, though.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 13, 2010, 06:23:29 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 13, 2010, 06:21:55 PM
Also there is no provision in the bill that if one part is voided that the rest of the document remains valid. This could potentially by default cancel all of the health bill.
Could.
The bill is a fucking abortion, it's a clear description of everything that's wrong with Obama's administration. Maybe next time around, someone will have some balls.
Not holding my breath, though.
Yeah, unless you just look good in blue I don't advise holding your breath.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 13, 2010, 06:20:26 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 13, 2010, 06:17:56 PM
If it does stand, or if the Supreme Court ends up striking it down, you all realize of course this means that most of the past two years of Obama's Presidency has been a gigantic waste of time.
The individual mandate IS bullshit, and SHOULD be struck down.
I agree. Just observing that this POS took so much time, pretty much put the Tea Party on the map, and in the end, is going to amount in a hill of beans.
It really is funny that a bunch of lawyers forgot the severability clause.
Severability
If any provision in this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be fully severable, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision had never been a part of this Agreement. The remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance from this Agreement.
Contract law 101.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 13, 2010, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 13, 2010, 06:20:26 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 13, 2010, 06:17:56 PM
If it does stand, or if the Supreme Court ends up striking it down, you all realize of course this means that most of the past two years of Obama's Presidency has been a gigantic waste of time.
The individual mandate IS bullshit, and SHOULD be struck down.
I agree. Just observing that this POS took so much time, pretty much put the Tea Party on the map, and in the end, is going to amount in a hill of beans.
And that about wraps up the entire presidency, when you think about it.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 13, 2010, 06:36:06 PM
It really is funny that a bunch of lawyers forgot the severability clause.
Severability
If any provision in this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be fully severable, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision had never been a part of this Agreement. The remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance from this Agreement.
Contract law 101.
the problem is that without EVERYBODY paying premiums, the other parts of the bill are completely unworkable.
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 13, 2010, 06:50:56 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 13, 2010, 06:36:06 PM
It really is funny that a bunch of lawyers forgot the severability clause.
Severability
If any provision in this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be fully severable, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision had never been a part of this Agreement. The remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance from this Agreement.
Contract law 101.
the problem is that without EVERYBODY paying premiums, the other parts of the bill are completely unworkable.
Was it ever really going to work as written?
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 13, 2010, 06:50:56 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 13, 2010, 06:36:06 PM
It really is funny that a bunch of lawyers forgot the severability clause.
Severability
If any provision in this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be fully severable, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision had never been a part of this Agreement. The remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance from this Agreement.
Contract law 101.
the problem is that without EVERYBODY paying premiums, the other parts of the bill are completely unworkable.
Naw, the "good 3" provisions would still be usefull.
1. You can insure your kids until they're 26.
2. Pre-existing conditions can't be used to deny coverage.
3. Removal of catastophic caps.
Hmmmm. I wonder if TPA has a severability clause.........
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 13, 2010, 06:53:09 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 13, 2010, 06:50:56 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 13, 2010, 06:36:06 PM
It really is funny that a bunch of lawyers forgot the severability clause.
Severability
If any provision in this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be fully severable, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision had never been a part of this Agreement. The remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance from this Agreement.
Contract law 101.
the problem is that without EVERYBODY paying premiums, the other parts of the bill are completely unworkable.
Naw, the "good 3" provisions would still be usefull.
1. You can insure your kids until they're 26.
2. Pre-existing conditions can't be used to deny coverage.
3. Removal of catastophic caps.
Nope. Without everybody's money in the pool, #2 goes down the tubes. Bet money on it.
Yeah, for insurance to work, we need premiums from healthy people to subsidize payouts for sick people. If we have coverage for pre-existing conditions, but coverage isn't mandatory, then how do we avoid a situation where all the healthy people wait until they get sick to buy insurance?
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/12/13/exp.nr.deparle.health.care.cnn?hpt=T1
This talks about this exact issue.
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 13, 2010, 07:07:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 13, 2010, 06:53:09 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 13, 2010, 06:50:56 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 13, 2010, 06:36:06 PM
It really is funny that a bunch of lawyers forgot the severability clause.
Severability
If any provision in this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be fully severable, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision had never been a part of this Agreement. The remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance from this Agreement.
Contract law 101.
the problem is that without EVERYBODY paying premiums, the other parts of the bill are completely unworkable.
Naw, the "good 3" provisions would still be usefull.
1. You can insure your kids until they're 26.
2. Pre-existing conditions can't be used to deny coverage.
3. Removal of catastophic caps.
Nope. Without everybody's money in the pool, #2 goes down the tubes. Bet money on it.
No, you and PMZ are missing one crucial point.
Coverage can't be DENIED for pre-existing conditions. There is nothing saying how much they can CHARGE for it.
pdf of the decision.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/12/13/va.healthcare.ruling.pdf?hpt=T1
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 13, 2010, 06:53:09 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 13, 2010, 06:50:56 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 13, 2010, 06:36:06 PM
It really is funny that a bunch of lawyers forgot the severability clause.
Severability
If any provision in this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be fully severable, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision had never been a part of this Agreement. The remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance from this Agreement.
Contract law 101.
the problem is that without EVERYBODY paying premiums, the other parts of the bill are completely unworkable.
Naw, the "good 3" provisions would still be usefull.
1. You can insure your kids until they're 26.
2. Pre-existing conditions can't be used to deny coverage.
3. Removal of catastophic caps.
#3 in particular would have been a huge help when I was at Teleperformance. The lifetime payout cap with the employee health plan was 15,000$ :argh!:
Of course, TP probably just dropped the health plan altogether in response to the bill, god forbid they actually cover their employees.
$15,000 wouldn't cover shit.
The Pre-existing conditions bit was already broken and worthless. They could still charge them more then most people could afford to pay, even with the law. Healthy people not buying insurance, then getting only when they are sick is not going to be the issue. The reason young (and usually healthy) people are less likely to have insurance is because heir jobs are less likely to provide it, and they are less likely to be able to afford it on there own.
I'm think this ruling is probably going to stand. Not because it isn't unconstitutional, because most of the justice's couldn't care less about that. As Requia said Kagan would let the government do anything, and Roberts and the conservative judges will do what ever the Repubs really want. With that they have to choices, throw out the law they all say they hate, or uphold it and give the Repubs something more to run against, I'd bet on the latter (though I'm more willing to bet this ruling get overturned before that, and the Supreme's refuse to take it up.)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 13, 2010, 07:21:52 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 13, 2010, 07:07:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 13, 2010, 06:53:09 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 13, 2010, 06:50:56 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 13, 2010, 06:36:06 PM
It really is funny that a bunch of lawyers forgot the severability clause.
Severability
If any provision in this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be fully severable, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision had never been a part of this Agreement. The remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance from this Agreement.
Contract law 101.
the problem is that without EVERYBODY paying premiums, the other parts of the bill are completely unworkable.
Naw, the "good 3" provisions would still be usefull.
1. You can insure your kids until they're 26.
2. Pre-existing conditions can't be used to deny coverage.
3. Removal of catastophic caps.
Nope. Without everybody's money in the pool, #2 goes down the tubes. Bet money on it.
No, you and PMZ are missing one crucial point.
Coverage can't be DENIED for pre-existing conditions. There is nothing saying how much they can CHARGE for it.
Semantics. Charging something nobody could ever possibly pay is effectively the same as denying coverage.
It's not like it was that hard to find people who would let you in with a pre existing condition before (covering it was trickier, but not impossible). Unless maybe there were ultra cheap employer plans that were refusing to cover employees with pre existings.
It would have been so much easier to simply allow for more options for health care purchasing. Hell, sell health care at WalMart, have co-op's for communities to get deals on healthcare equal to what businesses with the same number of employees get etc etc... If we're not gonna have universal healthcare then we need to go with expanding options for private healthcare. This bill just took the worst of both sides and smushed them together.
I wonder if the mandatory bit wasn't put in there specifically so it could be knocked over. It seemed obvious to me that it wasn't gonna pass a court case.
Wal-Mart already has a Rx plan...so you're not far off, Rata. In fact, I think some free clinics have started offering "plans" in places where poor and middle class come together. Like my husband's clinics.
Is it that different from mandatory car insurance? I suppose there the argument can be made that if you really don't want to buy car insurance, driving is a privilege.
From a strict constitutional point of view - yeah, it definitely isn't explicitly in the constitution that the Feds can require everyone to buy Product X.
I don't think requiring people to have car insurance is a federal law, just something every state got talked into.
Though, generally driving rules and the like are considered to be under federal authority because so much driving is on the interstates, which are federal property.
Right, car insurance ONLY applies to people that have cars and its a law that is set by the State, not by the Federal Government.
Not only is there nothing explicit that says the Feds can make you go purchase a product... but there is nothing implicit or even hinted at. That's why I think it was a kill pill.
Jenne, it wasn't my idea... McCain was arguing that the feds should remove the laws that limit insurance plans by state which would allow WalMart and other national chains to offer insurance at a deep discount since they would have large masses of people (physically and numerically) signing up. I'm not a fan of WalMart, but that idea seems far better/easier to implement/less unconstitutional than what Obama gave us.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 13, 2010, 06:17:56 PM
If it does stand, or if the Supreme Court ends up striking it down, you all realize of course this means that most of the past two years of Obama's Presidency has been a gigantic waste of time.
Fixed.
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2010, 11:15:30 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 13, 2010, 06:17:56 PM
If it does stand, or if the Supreme Court ends up striking it down, you all realize of course this means that most of the past two years of Obama's Presidency has been a gigantic waste of time.
Fixed.
:mittens:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 14, 2010, 03:18:48 AM
It's not like it was that hard to find people who would let you in with a pre existing condition before (covering it was trickier, but not impossible). Unless maybe there were ultra cheap employer plans that were refusing to cover employees with pre existings.
Oh you are SO full of shit.
Yes, cause in no way did the very first insurance plan I looked at when I started shopping around let people with pre existing conditions in.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 14, 2010, 11:35:31 PM
Yes, cause in no way did the very first insurance plan I looked at when I started shopping around let people with pre existing conditions in.
I bet it was totally affordable and didn't have any treatment exclusion clauses or ridiculously low caps, too! :lulz:
Basically, you're being gullible and naive if you just looked at the promotional materials and believed it was that simple. Plus, you're telling people who actually know better
how it really is. It would be hilarious if it weren't so irritating.
Actually, it's pretty hilarious anyway.
Quote
I bet it was totally affordable and didn't have any treatment exclusion clauses or ridiculously low caps, too!
It wouldn't cover the pre existing condition. I only ever saw one plan that would do that, and then only after 6 months.
Is the contract on the insurance companies website somehow a 'promotional material'? I suppose I can see them telling you you'll sign one thing then giving you something completely different.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 14, 2010, 11:50:30 PM
Is the contract on the insurance companies website somehow a 'promotional material'? I suppose I can see them telling you you'll sign one thing then giving you something completely different.
Coverage for pre-existing conditions is the issue, not health insurance for people who have pre-existing conditions. If you have a medical condition and you get insurance that excludes treatment for that medical condition, it's virtually useless.
What you see on the insurance company's website is not a contract, it's a package. And yes, the website is promotional material, just like a brochure. They are not legally bound to offer every individual the package at the premium shown; they can and will customize it based on your individual statistics. Once you have paid for a package and they have access to your medical history, they can (and often do) deny coverage for almost anything based on a "pre-existing condition" that may or may not actually exist. This is a real and serious issue, as you may have been able to guess by the amount of discussion and political friction happening around it; it's not just that all the adults in the US, and on this forum, are a bunch of morons arguing about nothing important.
If this goes through...I am totally going to the hospital for something and sending the bill to my conservatard Teabagger family members.
"Thanks."
Quote from: Nigel on December 15, 2010, 02:15:56 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 14, 2010, 11:50:30 PM
Is the contract on the insurance companies website somehow a 'promotional material'? I suppose I can see them telling you you'll sign one thing then giving you something completely different.
Coverage for pre-existing conditions is the issue, not health insurance for people who have pre-existing conditions. If you have a medical condition and you get insurance that excludes treatment for that medical condition, it's virtually useless.
What you see on the insurance company's website is not a contract, it's a package. And yes, the website is promotional material, just like a brochure. They are not legally bound to offer every individual the package at the premium shown; they can and will customize it based on your individual statistics. Once you have paid for a package and they have access to your medical history, they can (and often do) deny coverage for almost anything based on a "pre-existing condition" that may or may not actually exist. This is a real and serious issue, as you may have been able to guess by the amount of discussion and political friction happening around it; it's not just that all the adults in the US, and on this forum, are a bunch of morons arguing about nothing important.
Right... but nothing in the health bill changes that substantially that I'm aware of*. I think you may have missed my point, the pre existing 'reforms' have too many loopholes, they can still deny coverage for that condition for up to a year (by which point a person may well be dead, and as I pointed out above, that was an option already if you looked hard enough). The only substantial change is that the coverage gap needs to be just over two months (63 days iirc) before they can do that. Most of whats been touted as good (IE, not being able to keep you from getting insurance altogether) is something that you could do before, just not with every company.
The good things the healthcare bill does is mandate what your employer gives you, and I'm not aware of major problems with pre existing conditions from employer negotiated healthcare (the few people who bothered to sign up for the healthcare at TP did so specifically because of problems with pre existing conditions, which TPs healthcare did cover) If you're getting healthcare direct from the insurance companies, then market forces already provided you with the options to have anything the healthcare bill mandates.
*More is slated to take effect over the next few years, and I'm not as familiar with those changes, so maybe it really will do what people think eventually.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 15, 2010, 03:05:22 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 15, 2010, 02:15:56 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 14, 2010, 11:50:30 PM
Is the contract on the insurance companies website somehow a 'promotional material'? I suppose I can see them telling you you'll sign one thing then giving you something completely different.
Coverage for pre-existing conditions is the issue, not health insurance for people who have pre-existing conditions. If you have a medical condition and you get insurance that excludes treatment for that medical condition, it's virtually useless.
What you see on the insurance company's website is not a contract, it's a package. And yes, the website is promotional material, just like a brochure. They are not legally bound to offer every individual the package at the premium shown; they can and will customize it based on your individual statistics. Once you have paid for a package and they have access to your medical history, they can (and often do) deny coverage for almost anything based on a "pre-existing condition" that may or may not actually exist. This is a real and serious issue, as you may have been able to guess by the amount of discussion and political friction happening around it; it's not just that all the adults in the US, and on this forum, are a bunch of morons arguing about nothing important.
Right... but nothing in the health bill changes that substantially that I'm aware of*. I think you may have missed my point, the pre existing 'reforms' have too many loopholes, they can still deny coverage for that condition for up to a year (by which point a person may well be dead, and as I pointed out above, that was an option already if you looked hard enough). The only substantial change is that the coverage gap needs to be just over two months (63 days iirc) before they can do that. Most of whats been touted as good (IE, not being able to keep you from getting insurance altogether) is something that you could do before, just not with every company.
The good things the healthcare bill does is mandate what your employer gives you, and I'm not aware of major problems with pre existing conditions from employer negotiated healthcare (the few people who bothered to sign up for the healthcare at TP did so specifically because of problems with pre existing conditions, which TPs healthcare did cover) If you're getting healthcare direct from the insurance companies, then market forces already provided you with the options to have anything the healthcare bill mandates.
*More is slated to take effect over the next few years, and I'm not as familiar with those changes, so maybe it really will do what people think eventually.
Uhhhhh in what way was any reasoning human being supposed to get all that out of:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 14, 2010, 03:18:48 AM
It's not like it was that hard to find people who would let you in with a pre existing condition before (covering it was trickier, but not impossible). Unless maybe there were ultra cheap employer plans that were refusing to cover employees with pre existings.
:?
I call bullshit on that being your original "point". You said something completely, humiliatingly stupid and now you're backpedaling to save face. You'd do a better job of not embarrassing yourself by just admitting you said something stupid, and moving on.
What the hell did you think my point was?
It appeared, and on further consideration still appears, to be yet another glibly smug irrelevancy.
Protip: try actually MAKING a point when you interject statements into conversations. Use your words. Try to follow the conversation so that your point at least appears to tie in to it.
(http://holycrapthatsfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/pre-existing-condition.jpg)
heh
Quote from: Nigel on December 15, 2010, 04:06:06 AM
Protip: try actually MAKING a point when you interject statements into conversations. Use your words. Try to follow the conversation so that your point at least appears to tie in to it.
Sadly, using my words is somewhat difficult without you there to declare what they really really for real mean.
Besides I thought you said I wasn't trying to convey a point in the first place?
I was momentarily weakened by charity and decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.
short version: Requia, what you said was retarded.
TGRR...
This thread makes me like you...
OH GOD WHAT'S HAPPENING TO ME?
Quote from: Telarus on December 15, 2010, 04:30:49 AM
(http://holycrapthatsfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/pre-existing-condition.jpg)
the hotlinked picture replacement was funnier.
Quote from: geekdad on December 15, 2010, 11:52:37 AM
TGRR...
This thread makes me like you...
OH GOD WHAT'S HAPPENING TO ME?
Welcome to the Post-American Century, Sparky.
The health insurance plan I have and the previous two I had, cover pre-existing conditions after six months. When I got married, my wife had juvenile onset diabetes. Six months after we were married, the insurance plan payed for an insulin pump, and sent regular supplies (lancets, needles, alcohol wipes, new test kit every six months etc). It cost me no more than it costs everyone else here.
However, I have no illusions that this is, by far, the exception rather than the rule.