Federal Judge says Health Care reform Unconstitutional

[kempo]

This will effect most of us here: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/31/fe ... itutional/

[NightMonkey]

Federal Judge Rules Health Law Violates ConstitutionBy KEVIN SACK
Published: January 31, 2011
A second federal judge ruled on Monday that it was unconstitutional for Congress to enact a health care law that requires all Americans to obtain commercial insurance, evening the score at two-to-two in the lower courts as the conflicting opinions begin their path to the Supreme Court.

Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensalcola, Fla., ruled that the law will remain effect until all appeals are concluded, a process that could take two years. However, Judge Vinson determined that the entire law should fall if appellate courts agree with his opinion that the insurance requirement if invalid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/us/01 ... ml?_r=1&hp

A long war still to be fought but this is a good win for our God-given right to freedom.

[kempo]

I don't like this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... 420960137/

[Kahfree]

I am not sure what this all means, and if the health care reform will undo the changes already implemented by health insurance agencies. My health coverage has a "Grandfathered" clause to it, but they did change some of my policy to reflect the current health care laws to make it compliant. I can only assume that if the reform goes forward, that at some point I will no longer be "grandfathered" and my entire policy will change.

[Slartybartfast]

Nancy Pelosi is on record as having said, in response to a question from a reporter about the Constitutional issue, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?"

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am."

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”


If that's the prevaling attitude in Congress, don't hold your breath, pardon the expression.

http://www.cnsnews.com/node/55971#

[Emilia]

This is the opinion of one very conservative (Reagan appointee) federal judge. The appeals will eventually end at the SCOTUS. I'd expect this to play out for another two years before a final ruling is reached.

[So Well]

I don't like this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... 420960137/

kempo, I hope you don't mind me posting from the Washington Times article. It is just one example of how horribly corrupt the Obama administration is.

By Dr. Milton R. Wolf
-
The Washington Times
7:21 p.m., Friday, January 28, 2011

If you would like to know what the White House really thinks of Obamacare, there’s an easy way. Look past its press releases. Ignore its promises. Forget its talking points. Instead, simply witness for yourself the outrageous way the White House protects its best friends from Obamacare.

Last year, we learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had granted 111 waivers to protect a lucky few from the onerous regulations of the new national health care overhaul. That number quickly and quietly climbed to 222, and last week we learned that the number of Obamacare privileged escapes has skyrocketed to 733.

Among the fortunate is a who’s who list of unions, businesses and even several cities and four states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee) but none of the friends of Barack feature as prominently as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

How can you get your own free pass from Obamacare? Maybe you can just donate $27 million to President Obama‘s campaign efforts. That’s what Andy Stern did as president of SEIU in 2008. He has been the most frequent guest at Mr. Obama‘s White House.

Backroom deals have become par for the course for proponents of Obamacare. Senators were greased with special favors, like Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and his Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary L. Landrieu and her Louisiana Purchase. Even the American Medical Association was brought in line under threat of losing its exclusive and lucrative medical coding contracts with the government.

Not only are the payoffs an affront to our democracy and an outright assault on our taxpayers, the timing itself of the latest release makes a mockery of this administration’s transparency promises. More than 500 of the 733 waivers, we now know, were granted in December but kept conveniently under wraps until the day after the president’s State of the Union address. HHS is no stranger to covering up bad news; in fact, this is becoming a disturbing pattern. Last year, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hid from Congress until after the Obamacare vote a damning report from the Medicare and Medicaid Office of the Actuary showing Obamacare would cost $311 billion more than promised and would displace 14 million Americans from their current insurance.

For this administration, transparency promises last only until the teleprompter is unplugged.

Backroom deals and cover-ups may be business as usual for Washington, but understanding why the Obama administration protects its friends from Obamacare offers special insight into what the purveyors of the mandate themselves think about their own law. This is key: The waivers aren’t meant to protect victims from unintended consequences of Obamacare; they are meant to exempt them from the very intentional increased costs of health insurance that the law causes. Under Section 2711 of the Public Health Service Act, Obamacare increases the annual cap of insurance benefits, which sounds great - as does everything else in big government - until the bill comes due, in this case, in the form of higher insurance premiums.

In short, the administration has decided that you will face increased health insurance premiums, but special friends in the unions will not. Look closely, and you’ll see not only the White House‘s duplicity but also what the Obama administration really thinks of its crown jewel, Obamacare. White House words say that the annual insurance benefit cap is a feature of the program, but its actions say that it’s a bug.

The question remains: If Obamacare is such a great law, why does the White House keep protecting its best friends from it?

Story Continues → http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... 37/?page=2

Dr. Milton R. Wolf is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist, medical director and cousin of President Obama. He blogs daily at miltonwolf.com.

[Slartybartfast]

I'm racking my formerly oxygen-deprived little pea-brain for an appropriate quote from Animal Farm, but other than the too-oft used "Some pigs are more equal than others," I'm drawing a blank.

[Janetlm]

Consider who is telling us we cannot have medical care: those elected or appointed US "royalty." They get 100% free platinum health care for their lifetimes.
We, the US serfs, are forced to pay for it. They get Socialism, we get Capitalism. Capitalism takes money, tries to give nothing in return; Socialism is a form
of economics which provides for life's necessities and misfortune.
Janet

[So Well]

Socialism: A form of Government that goes forth in the name of the people, but is truly an oligarchy. Meaning the few control the many, and the many are slaves to the state who happen to be the few.

Capitalism: A system of political, social, and economic organization, in which, physical force is barred from human relationships. To the extent that it has been tried, its results have been amazing. I am typing this on a computer made by the capitalist system, for instance. Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of abject poverty. While there has been no example of pure capitalism, America at certain times in history was close, and Hong Kong has been close to pure capitalism. Notice the level of economic development of these places is the highest in history.

[montana]

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/ ... e-in-1798/

[bradb]

Gee, such rhetoric for a forum about therapy and healing.

A week ago, this wouldn't have affected me. On Friday, I got fired from my job. Now, health care reform will affect me. Only little bits here and there, since my mom doesn't have health insurance that could cover me, but more and more by 2014. And by 2014, hopefully I should be able to purchase my own individual insurance for an actually-affordable rate, and not have to worry about pre-existing conditions and stuff like that. And, hopefully, transparency, honesty, and reasonable costs will spread throughout healthcare.

For all of this fuss, most of you with insurance through your employer won't even be affected by healthcare. Why not settle down and let it play out? Ugh.

[ResmedUser]

Ive already written the government off like I have written health insurance off. Health insurance is only good for major medical, acute hospitalisations, heart attacks, strokes, broken bones, car accidents, etc. Insurance is not good for handling ongoing, chronic medical conditions such as sleep apnea IMO.

I have just decided to take matters into my own hands and pay for most of my own equipment and to heck with the insurance companies...bypass them. I lucked up the first time around with my original Resmed CPAP/APAP machine, I had a pretty good insurance plan at that time. And got lucky and got hooked up with a good DME local. But unfortunately, that is not all that typical. So you just have to take matters into your own hands and get the prescription from your sleep doctor and just pay out of pocket...it makes it soooooo much easier in my opinion. No arguing with your insurance or DME over which equipment you are going to get, no arguing or hassling whether you are going to get used equipment or not, you can buy what you want and need as long as your doctor is willing to write you an rx.

Simple as you pay, you get.

Mikey

[sleepyb]

BradB, there is a reason why we don't want to let it play out. I had great insurance until this year when the insurance company premiums went up so high my employer had to drop them and go with a cheaper company and much worse insurance. That went with a 20% increase in premiums! Yes it does affect me.

[PST]

While there has been no example of pure capitalism, America at certain times in history was close, and Hong Kong has been close to pure capitalism. Notice the level of economic development of these places is the highest in history.

And yet, Hong Kong itself is unwilling to treat health care as just another commodity. The following is an excerpt from a 2009 column called "Does Hong Kong have the World's Best Health Care System?" by Nathan Lewis, a guy I consider an absolute wacko gold-standard libertarian type, but he actually says he favors a fully British-style government-operated health care system for the U.S. He believes that only with the security of a health care safety net not tied to employment can people take the risks capitalism requires.

Hong Kong is the last place you'd think of as having a "nanny state."

However, Hong Kong has a system of government-operated hospitals, which constitutes the majority of the health care system. People also have the option of a private hospital if they wish. There are more than fifty public hospitals, and twelve private ones.

Hong Kong's 6 million people are one of the healthiest populations in the world. The life expectancy is 84 for women and 78 for men, the second-highest worldwide.
Here is how it looks to a Hong Kong citizen:

To many of us who have worked and lived overseas, the Hong Kong health care system was the ultimate social safety net that never failed to lend us a strong sense of security. It was comforting to know that if we ever fell ill, we could always return home for care.

I was rushed to hospital after a bad car accident in Hong Kong many years ago. None of the nurses or doctors asked me if I had insurance coverage, or enough money to pay the bill. They just gave me the medical care I needed. The next morning, a stern-faced hospital administrator came to visit me in the ward. I did not know what to expect until she asked me if I needed social service assistance for myself and family.

I stayed in hospital for a week and was charged only for the meals. The total bill was HK$35 [US$4], and the food was actually not bad at all.

There must be millions of other people in Hong Kong who, like me, look upon our health care system as sacrosanct. Any attempt to tamper with it would arouse our strong suspicions and deep concerns.

http://english.sina.com/1/2008/0312/149936.html

This system of government-operated hospitals, open to all citizens, costs the Hong Kong government about 3% of GDP. Three percent! Private hospitals, used mainly by the wealthy, and all other health care services bring Hong Kong's total health care spending to about 6% of GDP. Compare that to about 16% in the U.S. today, and rising.
Three percent of GDP is less than half of the 7.5% of GDP that is already being spent by U.S. governments on health care.

There you have it. In terms of both cost and effectiveness, the Hong Kong system of public hospitals is one of the best in the world. It does not interfere in any way with Hong Kong's libertarian approach to economic policy in general.

Indeed, you could even say that it helps. Hong Kong corporations have no excessive health care burdens. Workers are happier and more productive. You might even argue that, when people aren't worried about health care, they are more likely to set off on their own and start the kind of entrepreneurial businesses that have made Hong Kong great.

The whole thing is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-le ... 99907.html