Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

ATrain wrote:Proud day to be a Virginian. Doesn't change the fact that Cucinelli is a cook, but he did manage to do something right.

HI54UNI wrote:Duh! How many lawyers did it take to figure this out? All us amateurs had this figured out months ago!

SuperHornet wrote:

ATrain wrote:Proud day to be a Virginian. Doesn't change the fact that Cucinelli is a cook, but he did manage to do something right.

What's his specialty? Italian?

U.S. District Judge, George Streeh, of the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that Congress does have the authority to enact a key part of President Obama's healthcare law reform, requiring US citizens to obtain coverage by 2014. The day Obama signed it into law, the Thomas More Law Center had filed a lawsuit arguing that it was an unconstitutional tax outside Congress authority. The latest ruling said that under the Commerce Clause of the American Constitution a penalty could be imposed on those who did not get insurance coverage.

Judge George Steeh wrote:

The minimum coverage provision, which addresses economic decisions regarding health care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congress's goal

A federal judge in Virginia on Tuesday rejected a legal challenge to the healthcare reform law, the second time the law's mandate that people buy insurance has been ruled constitutional.

The lawsuit was brought by Liberty University, which also argued that the law violates the First Amendment by requiring people to buy insurance that could cover abortions.

"I hold that there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals' decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market," ruled U.S. District Judge Norman Moon, a Clinton appointee. "Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care.…
"Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance. As Congress found, the total incidence of these economic decisions has a substantial impact on the national market for health care by collectively shifting billions of dollars on to other market participants and driving up the prices of insurance policies."

A federal judge in Michigan ruled the same way last month. And in August, a California federal judge rejected a similar lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no standing.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I find it fascinating that this judge's ruling has seen a HUGE amount of press... probably the top story of the day. While other rulings... UPHOLDING the bill... have received barely a peep. Why?

U.S. District Judge, George Streeh, of the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that Congress does have the authority to enact a key part of President Obama's healthcare law reform, requiring US citizens to obtain coverage by 2014. The day Obama signed it into law, the Thomas More Law Center had filed a lawsuit arguing that it was an unconstitutional tax outside Congress authority. The latest ruling said that under the Commerce Clause of the American Constitution a penalty could be imposed on those who did not get insurance coverage.

Judge George Steeh wrote:

The minimum coverage provision, which addresses economic decisions regarding health care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congress's goal

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/204038.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A federal judge in Virginia on Tuesday rejected a legal challenge to the healthcare reform law, the second time the law's mandate that people buy insurance has been ruled constitutional.

The lawsuit was brought by Liberty University, which also argued that the law violates the First Amendment by requiring people to buy insurance that could cover abortions.

"I hold that there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals' decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market," ruled U.S. District Judge Norman Moon, a Clinton appointee. "Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care.…
"Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance. As Congress found, the total incidence of these economic decisions has a substantial impact on the national market for health care by collectively shifting billions of dollars on to other market participants and driving up the prices of insurance policies."

A federal judge in Michigan ruled the same way last month. And in August, a California federal judge rejected a similar lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no standing.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/ot ... titutional" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Skjellyfetti wrote:I find it fascinating that this judge's ruling has seen a HUGE amount of press... probably the top story of the day. While other rulings... UPHOLDING the bill... have received barely a peep. Why?

U.S. District Judge, George Streeh, of the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that Congress does have the authority to enact a key part of President Obama's healthcare law reform, requiring US citizens to obtain coverage by 2014. The day Obama signed it into law, the Thomas More Law Center had filed a lawsuit arguing that it was an unconstitutional tax outside Congress authority. The latest ruling said that under the Commerce Clause of the American Constitution a penalty could be imposed on those who did not get insurance coverage.

Judge George Steeh wrote:

The minimum coverage provision, which addresses economic decisions regarding health care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congress's goal

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/204038.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A federal judge in Virginia on Tuesday rejected a legal challenge to the healthcare reform law, the second time the law's mandate that people buy insurance has been ruled constitutional.

The lawsuit was brought by Liberty University, which also argued that the law violates the First Amendment by requiring people to buy insurance that could cover abortions.

"I hold that there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals' decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market," ruled U.S. District Judge Norman Moon, a Clinton appointee. "Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care.…
"Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance. As Congress found, the total incidence of these economic decisions has a substantial impact on the national market for health care by collectively shifting billions of dollars on to other market participants and driving up the prices of insurance policies."

A federal judge in Michigan ruled the same way last month. And in August, a California federal judge rejected a similar lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no standing.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/ot ... titutional" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Col Hogan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:I find it fascinating that this judge's ruling has seen a HUGE amount of press... probably the top story of the day. While other rulings... UPHOLDING the bill... have received barely a peep. Why?


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/204038.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/ot ... titutional" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

May its because they're all wrong and Judge Hudson is correct...

catamount man wrote:who will continue to pay for the deadbeats who never pay for their emergency room services if this bill gets shot down? That's right, you and me and every other person who actually remains accountable. Funny. Republicans are defending the very same deadbeats they bitch about all the time.

GannonFan wrote:

catamount man wrote:who will continue to pay for the deadbeats who never pay for their emergency room services if this bill gets shot down? That's right, you and me and every other person who actually remains accountable. Funny. Republicans are defending the very same deadbeats they bitch about all the time.

Uh, the deadbeats still won't pay under Obamacare. Only those who are able to financially afford insurance will have to buy it. There'll be plenty of people who will be exempted from buying insurance. Either way, we will still end up paying for the deadbeats, the argument is just about what that system looks like.

On a side note, I still don't understand fully why Obamacare is even pursuing this route. They could've skipped the Constitutional question and just called this a tax and been done with it. Trying to avoid calling it a tax and instead call it a mandate was just a weak way around the issue (i.e. the issue that it's going to cost people a lot of money to have this system) and has introduced this Constitutionality aspect to the whole thing. The Dems had all the votes they needed with the supermajority and rather than getting it done then, they let politics get in the way and that's why we are here today. Just another reason to shake your head at the missed opportunities the Dems had to get it done right at the start of the Obama administration. I think he gets re-elected, but I'm always going to rue over the missed opportunity he had to really make a mark as a great President.

GannonFan wrote:

catamount man wrote:who will continue to pay for the deadbeats who never pay for their emergency room services if this bill gets shot down? That's right, you and me and every other person who actually remains accountable. Funny. Republicans are defending the very same deadbeats they bitch about all the time.

Uh, the deadbeats still won't pay under Obamacare. Only those who are able to financially afford insurance will have to buy it. There'll be plenty of people who will be exempted from buying insurance. Either way, we will still end up paying for the deadbeats, the argument is just about what that system looks like.

On a side note, I still don't understand fully why Obamacare is even pursuing this route. They could've skipped the Constitutional question and just called this a tax and been done with it. Trying to avoid calling it a tax and instead call it a mandate was just a weak way around the issue (i.e. the issue that it's going to cost people a lot of money to have this system) and has introduced this Constitutionality aspect to the whole thing. The Dems had all the votes they needed with the supermajority and rather than getting it done then, they let politics get in the way and that's why we are here today. Just another reason to shake your head at the missed opportunities the Dems had to get it done right at the start of the Obama administration. I think he gets re-elected, but I'm always going to rue over the missed opportunity he had to really make a mark as a great President.

If allowed to stand as a tax, the [provision] woudl be the only tax in US history to be levied directly on individuals for their failure to affirmatively engage in activity mandated by the government not specifically delineated by the Constitution

catamount man wrote:who will continue to pay for the deadbeats who never pay for their emergency room services if this bill gets shot down? That's right, you and me and every other person who actually remains accountable. Funny. Republicans are defending the very same deadbeats they bitch about all the time.

CID1990 wrote:

catamount man wrote:who will continue to pay for the deadbeats who never pay for their emergency room services if this bill gets shot down? That's right, you and me and every other person who actually remains accountable. Funny. Republicans are defending the very same deadbeats they bitch about all the time.

I'd like for you to explain to me how it is that under Obamacare you WON'T be paying for deadbeats.

You'l be paying for deadbeats to the nth power.