Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    US judge may escalate battle over healthcare reform

    US judge may escalate battle over healthcare reform

    * Judge would be second to rule law unconstitutional
    * Ruling marks major challenge to federal authority
    * Judge may seek to invalidate law, order injunction

    By Tom Brown

    MIAMI, Jan 31 (Reuters) - A Florida judge could on Monday become the second U.S. judge to declare President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law unconstitutional, in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.

    The judge, Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola, Florida, was expected to rule on a lawsuit brought by governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans. Obama is a Democrat.

    The plaintiffs represent more than half the U.S. states, so the Pensacola case has more prominence than some two dozen lawsuits filed in federal courts over the healthcare law.

    No specific time has been given for Vinson's ruling, which was unlikely to end the legal wrangling over the contentious reform law, which could well reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

    But an aide said he was determined to issue his opinion in the course of Monday on the suit filed on March 23, 2010, just hours after Obama signed the reform into law.

    The healthcare overhaul, a cornerstone of Obama's presidency, aims to expand health insurance to cover millions of uninsured Americans while also curbing costs. Administration officials insist it is constitutional and needed to stem huge projected increases in healthcare costs.

    Two other district court judges have rejected challenges to the "individual mandate," the law's requirement that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.

    But a federal district judge in Richmond, Virginia, last month struck down that central provision of the law in a case in that state, saying it invited an "unbridled exercise of federal police powers."

    The provision is key to the law's mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured. Officials argue it is only by requiring healthy people to purchase policies that they can help pay for reforms, including a mandate that individuals with pre-existing medical conditions cannot be refused coverage.

    'WITHOUT PRIOR PRECEDENT'

    Vinson has suggested strongly that he too will rule the individual mandate oversteps constitutional limits on federal authority. He may also move to invalidate the entire law, by granting the plaintiff states' request for an injunction to halt its implementation.

    "The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent," Vinson wrote in an earlier opinion in October.

    Speaking during another hearing last month, he added that it would be "a giant leap" for the courts to encroach on the freedom of citizens to buy or not buy a commercial product.

    The 70-year-old appointee of President Ronald Reagan even noted that he himself had been uninsured, paying out of pocket when the first of his five children was born.

    Vinson's comments did not necessarily conclusively signal how he might rule on the full merits of the case.

    He has also shown little sympathy for the plaintiffs' secondary argument for striking down the reform law, on the grounds that it violates state sovereignty by imposing a vast expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides healthcare for the poor and disabled.

    But his ruling on the individual mandate could mark a major setback for Obama on an issue that will likely end up at the Supreme Court, the highest U.S. legal authority.

    If Vinson orders an injunction, the government would almost certainly appeal and seek an immediate stay of the ruling.

    Vinson's ruling will come after the U.S. House of Representatives voted earlier this month to repeal the healthcare reform law. The repeal is unlikely to go any further as the Democratic-controlled Senate is expected to drop it.

    Since a full legislative repeal seems like a non-starter in the current Congress, legal experts all agree the real battle over reform is destined for the Supreme Court. (Editing by Pascal Fletcher and Todd Eastham)

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/ ... 3020110131
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    I hope he strikes down the entire law on the basis that the individual mandate is of course unconstitutional and without it, the rest of the bill has no purpose, no funding, no merit.

    If people want to expand MediCaid, I totally support that, then when we fix our economy and get these people the jobs they need, want and deserve, then the number of people on MediCaid drastically reduces and with it the cost to the federal government and the states. Everything good that we want in our country that's part of both our liberty and prosperity will be served when we take and complete the following 5 steps to fix the US economy, including the opportunity for Americans to have the incomes to purchase their own insurance or work for a company or employer who provides it as part of their compensation:

    1. stop illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration
    2. pass the FairTax
    3. protect our trade
    4. legalize/regulate/tax under 2. the illegal drug trade
    5. drill baby drill

    It's not complicated. It's very simple.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member ReformUSA2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,305
    I think Medicaid is actually part of the bigger problem and needs to be taken out in its current form. Medical costs have skyrocketed IMO because of having a Government Payer system and legal tort. In a private industry one cannot expect costs to stay down with a government payment system.

    The US really will need to choose eventually... either healthcare is fully private where you pay for your own services and have your own insurance or tough crap. Or having a social healthcare system paid by the government WITH public hospitals it is used at. But you really can't mix socialism and capitalism into the same industry and expect a good outcome.

  4. #4
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266
    Federal judge strikes down healthcare law
    By Jason Millman - 01/31/11 03:11 PM ET

    A federal judge in Florida struck down the entire healthcare reform law Monday afternoon, ruling that the requirement for individuals to purchase insurance is unconstitutional and is too central to making the law function.


    In the most high-profile challenge to the reform law yet, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the so-called individual mandate exceeds congressional power. Further, he said the whole law cannot stand because the law depends on the mandate to work.


    "I must conclude that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit,â€

  5. #5
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266
    hmmm is there any wonder with crap like this going one!!!! His corruption shows no bounds.



    Obama Administration Has Given Obamacare Waivers to 28 Food Workers Union Locals--Union’s PAC Spent $673,309 to Get Obama Elected
    Monday, January 31, 2011
    By Fred Lucas

    President Barack Obama

    President Barack Obama. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

    (CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration has granted one-year waivers to 28 separate local chapters of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), exempting them from a requirement under the new health care law that bans annual limits on what insurance plans will pay for medical coverage.

    The UFCW’s political action committee spent $673,309 in independent expenditures promoting the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

    That PAC--the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Active Ballot Club--also contributed $1.8 million to Democratic federal candidates in 2008 and $1.7 million to Democratic congressional candidates in 2010.

    The HHS waivers to 28 separate UFCW health insurance plans affect 83,563 enrollees.

    The health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, bans annual caps on medical coverage beginning in 2014. The ban prohibits an insurance plan from limiting how much it will spend on a policy holder’s medical coverage each year. Under the law, the Department of Health and Human Services is phasing the coverage limits out. In 2011, yearly caps can be no less than $750,000; in 2012, they can be no less than $1.25 million; and in 2013, they can be no less than $2 million in 2013.

    In September, the HHS announced it would grant waivers to some employers to prevent workers from losing their benefits if that employers’ insurer could not meet the health care law’s requirements on annual limits. HHS says grants the waivers if it determines “compliance in the interim final regulations would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums,â€

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •