6th Circuit Upholds Obamacare

A 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued its decision today in the case of Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, ruling that “the minimum coverage provision [of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] is a valid legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause.” The decision was 2-1, with Judge Boyce Martin writing for the majority. This is the first federal appellate court ruling on the health care law. The 4th Circuit and 11th Circuit will each be issuing their own decisions in the near future, with an ultimate decision most likely in the hands of the Supreme Court. Here’s a key portion of Judge Martin’s ruling today:

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. 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.

In dissent, Judge James Graham strongly rejected the majority’s interpretation:

If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause authority would be. What aspect of human activity would escape federal power? The ultimate issue in this case is this: Does the notion of federalism still have vitality? To approve the exercise of power would arm Congress with the authority to force individuals to do whatever it sees fit (within boundaries like the First Amendment and Due Process Clause), as long as the regulation concerns an activity or decision that, when aggregated, can be said to have some loose, but-for type of economic connection, which nearly all human activity does.... Such a power feels very much like the general police power that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and the people. A structural shift of that magnitude can be accomplished legitimately only through constitutional amendment.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/29/6t...olds-obamacare

"If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause authority would be." Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

The losing team often scores a few runs. This line from the dissent will be the defining issue for the Supremes -- which is the only opinion that counts in this show.

With regard to this ruling, the news was recounting this old story. I went to look it up online, and found the article interesting and a bit alarming.

Wickard v. Filburn will stand -- a marker of the incremental erosion of the constitutional limits on federal power.

I guess I am confused, I thought that the whole "public Option" thing that was shot down was about people opting in for health insurance? So this obamacare is basically everyone must buy this type of insurance from this type of provider, and no one gets a choice?

No you must maintain a minimum level of insurance if you cant afford it the government will give you a credit to help purchase it. People are in a uproar over it saying that the gov shouldn't make you have health insurance, which to me seems a bit silly since that same gov forces private hospitals to treat you in the case of an emergency regardless of your ability to pay. I for one am totally in favor of not letting these people not have insurance and when something happens leave them right where they are weather it be on the side of the road or in their bath tub. Because once something does happen to you it like trying to buy car insurance after a wreck it just don't happen

It really doesn't matter what the circuit court appeals does. This is going to the supreme court and will be struck down.

Interesting that we now have the first judicial vote to cross party lines. This panel was two Republican judges and one Democratic judge. So we now have one Republican judge who has broken ranks and found the plan Constitutional. Fairly interesting.

No you must maintain a minimum level of insurance if you cant afford it the government will give you a credit to help purchase it. People are in a uproar over it saying that the gov shouldn't make you have health insurance, which to me seems a bit silly since that same gov forces private hospitals to treat you in the case of an emergency regardless of your ability to pay. I for one am totally in favor of not letting these people not have insurance and when something happens leave them right where they are weather it be on the side of the road or in their bath tub. Because once something does happen to you it like trying to buy car insurance after a wreck it just don't happen Originally Posted by jhende3

No, the government has no right to tell me what to buy and what not to buy unless it is a controlled substance or an RPG or some such thing. It is in no way like auto insurance. You don't have to drive a car. Driving is a privilege; breathing is not.

Actually where the government subsidy of private insurance cuts off is $14,400 for individuals. I can't remember what it is for a family of four, but suffice it to say if they consider $14,000 for an individual above the poverty line, it's another ridiculously low number for families. What's even more insulting is during the debate Congress toyed with the idea of raising the high end amount where individuals and families would have to pay a surcharge. I think it's $250k for individuals and $750k for families.

So say you make $14,400.01 a year. Excuse me, but where are you going to get the extra $300 a month for insurance. That's what I pay. And speaking of what I pay. Obama care says I don't have enough insurance. I have a $20 co-pay on doctor visits. I have a $10, $20 and $30 co-pay on drugs. I have a $5,000 deductible and I pay 80/20% until I've paid an additional $2,500. The most I'm ever out is $7,500 and my coverage is up to $2mn. To me, that's pretty good insurance. It's better insurance than I had when I worked for Halliburton, and I was above the line at Halliburton.

There are plenty of things we could be doing right now to help the lower working classes get access to healthcare, but we're not. Noooo, we had to have an all or nothing system that really no one wants. Say the Supreme Court upholds this travesty. How long do you think it will take to get the agency set up to manage this monstrosity. And speaking of the agency how much of ever tax dollar earmarked for socialized medicine do you think will go to the management of the agency and how much will go to the American people in need?

Typical. You only want the government to step in when it's convenient? Like keeping women from having abortions? Making sure immigrants don't have rights? Enforcing limited gun laws? I have a life unlike IBH and Whirlaway so I don't spew links everywhere, but I do have real world knowledge with people I deal with everyday. Veterans without insurance, hard working Americans with no light at the end of tunnel to provide health care, dental for their families. I had posted awhile back about a friend that served in our military but falls under the 10% coverage line. He recently got back from Mexico to get a few procedures done. This is a norm. I recently met a family that is braving the border violence to get dental done. So yeah, think of yourself as most conservatives do, but try getting out of your bubble into the real world and you'll see there are a lot of 'real' Americans, Military, sole-proprietorship business owners who are dying-some literally- for this bill to take effect.

Link for the link hounds:http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellnes...ry?id=13887040

No, the government has no right to tell me what to buy and what not to buy unless it is a controlled substance or an RPG or some such thing. It is in no way like auto insurance. You don't have to drive a car. Driving is a privilege; breathing is not. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

It absolutely is like being required to purchase car insurance. As i pointed out in another thread, car insurance is not required to protect you from financial loss, it's required to protect someone else from financial loss. Which is exactly the reason you should be required to have health insurance, since hospitals are required (thank you, Ronnie Reagan) to treat you if you have an emergency.

On another topic, do tell us, Olivia, who did you support in the last Presidential cycle?

It absolutely is like being required to purchase car insurance. As i pointed out in another thread, car insurance is not required to protect you from financial loss, it's required to protect someone else from financial loss. Which is exactly the reason you should be required to have health insurance, since hospitals are required (thank you, Ronnie Reagan) to treat you if you have an emergency.

On another topic, do tell us, Olivia, who did you support in the last Presidential cycle? Originally Posted by Doove

Ah, Doovie my little libeskind. Where HAVE you been? I’ve missed you. Kisses aside, no, car ownership is optional breathing isn’t. I do have health insurance. I have a lot of it. Some people cannot afford it. Probably the same people that cannot afford cars. If the government wants to require health insurance, then they need to pay for it for anyone that makes a marginal income. $14,400 a year IS NOT MARGINAL. It’s a starvation wage. The way the law is now, if you make more than $14,400.01 and you don’t buy health insurance then you will be fined (I think) $2,500. That’s absolute bullshit. Penalizing someone for being too poor to provide a basic necessity of life.

I’m not against socialized healthcare. At all. I just don’t think it’s right to pillage the poor to pay for it. I also think it’s ridiculous for a family to four to make up to $750k a year before they have to pay a surcharge. And I damn sure don’t think we need a crazy law that will create a whole new agency. Why can’t we do something like this?

1. Stop pandering to the insurance companies.
2. Eliminate pre-existing conditions.
3. Eliminate insurance rationed access to advanced health care and sometimes even well-baby programs.
4. Allow tax breaks for health care providers to offer doc in the boxes all over America.
5. Staff those doc in the boxes and other health care institutions with limited hours, state mandated pro bono work by all licensed health care providers.
6. Enlist school nurses as the first line of defense for school age health care and required inoculations.
7. Provide preventative healthcare by testing for tobacco use and establishing a reasonable BMI index and charging a surcharge for tobacco use and obesity.
8. Fine the shit out anyone that uses the ER as a primary care physician.

We could get started on these right away.

To answer your question, I haven’t voted for a winner since Ronald Regan (His second term). I’m not a Republican Doovie no matter how hard you try to make me one.

To answer your question, I haven’t voted for a winner since Ronald Regan (His second term). I’m not a Republican Doovie no matter how hard you try to make me one. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Hot damn, you voted for:

Dukakis,
Clinton/Perot
Dole
Gore/Buchanan
Kerry
McCain????????????????

Hot damn, you on a roll girlfriend!

Hot damn, you voted for:

Dukakis,
Clinton/Perot
Dole
Gore/Buchanan
Kerry
McCain????????????????

Hot damn, you on a roll girlfriend! Originally Posted by WTF

Close:

Regan
Perot
Perot
Dole
Gore
Kerry
McCain

I was wrong to vote for Perot the second time. It was a protest vote purely and simply, but it was wrong. I should not have registered a vote like that. I should have held my nose and voted. Because the vote I would have cast would have been for Clinton. I liked him a great deal; I just thought Clinton was a backwater hick. I was wrong. I didn’t vote for him the second time because he perjured himself. I knew he’d win so I didn’t feel bad voting for the bitter and vile Dole.

The one vote I wish had really counted was for McCain. I feel he is a good man, a moral man, and a valiant leader. His ridiculous running mate choice cost him so much.

Close:

Regan
Perot Perot did not run in 1988, Bush and Dukakis
Perot 1992
Dole 1996
Gore 2000
Kerry 2004
McCain 2008

. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Perot ran again in 1996. Would have been impossible to vote for Perot twice and Bob Dole. Either way, they both lost!


Who you voting for in 2012? I know it ain't Obama! Maybe you can vote that mythical person in from the GOP that can cut taxes and spending and bring down the national debt. So far that person has only existed in the minds of voters since before time!

This ruling means the government is essentially all powerful with no check on it's powers. Case law overrules the words of the Constitution. Get ready for ten times the mandates on behavior, because this case will be cited in the future when the government orders you to buy a certain brand of product to control the market place or to help out a favored business concern. Or prohibits you from buying a product because your BMI is above 28.

This is bad bad bad, and ensures this will end in violent revolution, because someone somewhere will be pushed too far. This is the same crap the English government pulled between 1765 and 1775.