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

26 states are now taking Obamacare to court...Sounds like the number could grow to 30-32.

States in Florida lawsuit...
Maine
Wyoming
Ohio
Wisconsin
Kansas
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Georgia
Indiana
Idaho
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Washington

Plus two that have their own lawsuits....
Virginia
Oklahoma

It will be interesting to see when they find out why 222 business and unions have been exempt from the new health care laws. Why?
More payback ?

---


Judicial Watch Sues HHS to Obtain Obamacare Waiver Documents
big government ^ | 1/12/11 | Tom Fitton

According to an official estimate by the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), at least 222 companies and unions have received waivers from Obamacare so far. Yet, as this number continues to soar, HHS refuses to explain to the American people how decisions are being made regarding which organizations receive a waiver and which do not.

One certainly cannot find any explanation in the Obamacare law itself. The Obama administration did not anticipate (despite repeated warnings) how much chaos would be created by the requirements of their massive healthcare overhaul. And so they have been forced to resort to a slapdash and politicized approach where officials at HHS are reviewing requests on a case-by-case basis with no set standards in place.

Now, here’s why this seemingly arbitrary and capricious policy is so dangerous: Companies able to secure these coveted Obamacare exemptions are given an unfair competitive advantage over their rivals — which, of course, blows the door wide open to influence peddling and corruption. Just yesterday, Karl Rove pointed out that the leftist Obama ally AARP, which spent millions on ads for Obama’s health “reform” effort, received an “extravagant gift” from Obama in the form of the very waivers Judicial Watch is investigating.

(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...

Bronco wrote:It will be interesting to see when they find out why 222 business and unions have been exempt from the new health care laws. Why?
More payback ?

---


Judicial Watch Sues HHS to Obtain Obamacare Waiver Documents
big government ^ | 1/12/11 | Tom Fitton

According to an official estimate by the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), at least 222 companies and unions have received waivers from Obamacare so far. Yet, as this number continues to soar, HHS refuses to explain to the American people how decisions are being made regarding which organizations receive a waiver and which do not.

One certainly cannot find any explanation in the Obamacare law itself. The Obama administration did not anticipate (despite repeated warnings) how much chaos would be created by the requirements of their massive healthcare overhaul. And so they have been forced to resort to a slapdash and politicized approach where officials at HHS are reviewing requests on a case-by-case basis with no set standards in place.

Now, here’s why this seemingly arbitrary and capricious policy is so dangerous: Companies able to secure these coveted Obamacare exemptions are given an unfair competitive advantage over their rivals — which, of course, blows the door wide open to influence peddling and corruption. Just yesterday, Karl Rove pointed out that the leftist Obama ally AARP, which spent millions on ads for Obama’s health “reform” effort, received an “extravagant gift” from Obama in the form of the very waivers Judicial Watch is investigating.

(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...

It'll be interesting to compare that list to the list of Obama and DNC donors.

Bronco wrote:It will be interesting to see when they find out why 222 business and unions have been exempt from the new health care laws. Why?
More payback ?

---


Judicial Watch Sues HHS to Obtain Obamacare Waiver Documents
big government ^ | 1/12/11 | Tom Fitton

According to an official estimate by the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), at least 222 companies and unions have received waivers from Obamacare so far. Yet, as this number continues to soar, HHS refuses to explain to the American people how decisions are being made regarding which organizations receive a waiver and which do not.

One certainly cannot find any explanation in the Obamacare law itself. The Obama administration did not anticipate (despite repeated warnings) how much chaos would be created by the requirements of their massive healthcare overhaul. And so they have been forced to resort to a slapdash and politicized approach where officials at HHS are reviewing requests on a case-by-case basis with no set standards in place.

Now, here’s why this seemingly arbitrary and capricious policy is so dangerous: Companies able to secure these coveted Obamacare exemptions are given an unfair competitive advantage over their rivals — which, of course, blows the door wide open to influence peddling and corruption. Just yesterday, Karl Rove pointed out that the leftist Obama ally AARP, which spent millions on ads for Obama’s health “reform” effort, received an “extravagant gift” from Obama in the form of the very waivers Judicial Watch is investigating.

(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...

AARP should be immediately dismantled. The amazing thing is not that the voting public consistently favors repeal of Obamacare by large majorities. The amazing thing, considering the transparent corruption inherent in Obamacare and its implementation, is that the majorities are not even larger.

native wrote:
AARP should be immediately dismantled. The amazing thing is not that the voting public consistently favors repeal of Obamacare by large majorities. The amazing thing, considering the transparent corruption inherent in Obamacare and its implementation, is that the majorities are not even larger.

But when polled on the individual points of the healthcare law, people are generally in favor of what was done.* I think the Republicans did a great job spinning the healthcare bill to cast it in the most negative light possible, proof again that the Democrats are poor political infighters, by and large.

And hey, transparent corruption is better than opaque corruption, right?

*http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/ ... ap-or.html (in the text, they actually reference a poll that showed support went from -6 to +10 after people were given a synopsis of what the bill actually did!)

I'm not a fan of Obamacare, but one interesting thing about it is the ability for states to seek their own programs like single payer.

We're very happy that we can keep the kids on our insurance until they're 26. Saves us money.





The "socialist" AARP.

houndawg wrote:We're very happy that we can keep the kids on our insurance until they're 26. Saves us money.





The "socialist" AARP.

Kids on healthcare to age 26!

AARP.

From Jim Geraghty, NRO:

"...After Obamacare’s passage, if you had told Republicans that by January 2011 only 64 percent of Democrats would want to keep it, they would have danced jigs. The notion that nearly a quarter of Democrats support repeal of Obamacare is a big deal. Joe Biden might even throw in another modifier...."

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign- ... e-suggests" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chemhen wrote:

native wrote:
AARP should be immediately dismantled. The amazing thing is not that the voting public consistently favors repeal of Obamacare by large majorities. The amazing thing, considering the transparent corruption inherent in Obamacare and its implementation, is that the majorities are not even larger.

But when polled on the individual points of the healthcare law, people are generally in favor of what was done.* I think the Republicans did a great job spinning the healthcare bill to cast it in the most negative light possible, proof again that the Democrats are poor political infighters, by and large.

And hey, transparent corruption is better than opaque corruption, right?

*http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/ ... ap-or.html (in the text, they actually reference a poll that showed support went from -6 to +10 after people were given a synopsis of what the bill actually did!)

You could dress up a turd and get people to support it- its still a turd.

Chemhen wrote:

native wrote:
AARP should be immediately dismantled. The amazing thing is not that the voting public consistently favors repeal of Obamacare by large majorities. The amazing thing, considering the transparent corruption inherent in Obamacare and its implementation, is that the majorities are not even larger.

But when polled on the individual points of the healthcare law, people are generally in favor of what was done.* I think the Republicans did a great job spinning the healthcare bill to cast it in the most negative light possible, proof again that the Democrats are poor political infighters, by and large.

And hey, transparent corruption is better than opaque corruption, right?

*http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/ ... ap-or.html (in the text, they actually reference a poll that showed support went from -6 to +10 after people were given a synopsis of what the bill actually did!)

In other words, when they are propogandized by the poll taker.

native wrote:

Chemhen wrote:
But when polled on the individual points of the healthcare law, people are generally in favor of what was done.* I think the Republicans did a great job spinning the healthcare bill to cast it in the most negative light possible, proof again that the Democrats are poor political infighters, by and large.

And hey, transparent corruption is better than opaque corruption, right?

*http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/ ... ap-or.html (in the text, they actually reference a poll that showed support went from -6 to +10 after people were given a synopsis of what the bill actually did!)

In other words, when they are propogandized by the poll taker.

As opposed to being propagandized by O'Reilly et al? Also, if you want to claim the pollster is biased, I suggest reading the script they use. But yeah, that could be a factor.

Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Obamacare
http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-t ... care-a5758#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Over 20 new taxes or tax hikes.

native wrote:

Bronco wrote:It will be interesting to see when they find out why 222 business and unions have been exempt from the new health care laws. Why?
More payback ?

---


Judicial Watch Sues HHS to Obtain Obamacare Waiver Documents
big government ^ | 1/12/11 | Tom Fitton

According to an official estimate by the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), at least 222 companies and unions have received waivers from Obamacare so far. Yet, as this number continues to soar, HHS refuses to explain to the American people how decisions are being made regarding which organizations receive a waiver and which do not.

One certainly cannot find any explanation in the Obamacare law itself. The Obama administration did not anticipate (despite repeated warnings) how much chaos would be created by the requirements of their massive healthcare overhaul. And so they have been forced to resort to a slapdash and politicized approach where officials at HHS are reviewing requests on a case-by-case basis with no set standards in place.

Now, here’s why this seemingly arbitrary and capricious policy is so dangerous: Companies able to secure these coveted Obamacare exemptions are given an unfair competitive advantage over their rivals — which, of course, blows the door wide open to influence peddling and corruption. Just yesterday, Karl Rove pointed out that the leftist Obama ally AARP, which spent millions on ads for Obama’s health “reform” effort, received an “extravagant gift” from Obama in the form of the very waivers Judicial Watch is investigating.

(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...

AARP should be immediately dismantled. The amazing thing is not that the voting public consistently favors repeal of Obamacare by large majorities. The amazing thing, considering the transparent corruption inherent in Obamacare and its implementation, is that the majorities are not even larger.

Native, you left off the "L" in AALRP..

Chemhen wrote:

native wrote:
AARP should be immediately dismantled. The amazing thing is not that the voting public consistently favors repeal of Obamacare by large majorities. The amazing thing, considering the transparent corruption inherent in Obamacare and its implementation, is that the majorities are not even larger.

But when polled on the individual points of the healthcare law, people are generally in favor of what was done.* I think the Republicans did a great job spinning the healthcare bill to cast it in the most negative light possible, proof again that the Democrats are poor political infighters, by and large.

And hey, transparent corruption is better than opaque corruption, right?

*http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/ ... ap-or.html (in the text, they actually reference a poll that showed support went from -6 to +10 after people were given a synopsis of what the bill actually did!)

Two things, this poll is almost a year old and some of the things that this pollster is saying the health care bill does is very debatable.

Florida judge says mandate is unconstitutional, rules entire law void but it wouldn't be voided until 2014(when mandate goes into effect). Just another step towards the Supreme Court ruling on it, which will likely happen before 2014.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-0 ... ional.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FargoBison wrote:Florida judge says mandate is unconstitutional, rules entire law void but it wouldn't be voided until 2014(when mandate goes into effect). Just another step towards the Supreme Court ruling on it, which will likely happen before 2014.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-0 ... ional.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Repubs should jump on this opportunity to keep up the push for repealing and replacing the law.

BDKJMU wrote:

native wrote:
AARP should be immediately dismantled. The amazing thing is not that the voting public consistently favors repeal of Obamacare by large majorities. The amazing thing, considering the transparent corruption inherent in Obamacare and its implementation, is that the majorities are not even larger.

Native, you left off the "L" in AALRP..

My bad.

native wrote:

FargoBison wrote:Florida judge says mandate is unconstitutional, rules entire law void but it wouldn't be voided until 2014(when mandate goes into effect). Just another step towards the Supreme Court ruling on it, which will likely happen before 2014.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-0 ... ional.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Repubs should jump on this opportunity to keep up the push for repealing and replacing the law.

native wrote:

FargoBison wrote:Florida judge says mandate is unconstitutional, rules entire law void but it wouldn't be voided until 2014(when mandate goes into effect). Just another step towards the Supreme Court ruling on it, which will likely happen before 2014.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-0 ... ional.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Repubs should jump on this opportunity to keep up the push for repealing and replacing the law.

The Dems should continue to point out that while 2 Federal Judges have declared it unconstitutional.....2 Fedearl judges have also ruled to the contrary, upholding the law.

In other words - today's decisions doesn't mean squat. The only one that matters is the one that happens in the Supreme Court which won't happen for at least another year.

danefan wrote:

native wrote:


The Repubs should jump on this opportunity to keep up the push for repealing and replacing the law.

The Dems should continue to point out that while 2 Federal Judges have declared it unconstitutional.....2 Fedearl judges have also ruled to the contrary, upholding the law.

In other words - today's decisions doesn't mean squat. The only one that matters is the one that happens in the Supreme Court which won't happen for at least another year.

"...[Judge] Vinson ruled against the overhaul on grounds that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring nearly all Americans to carry health insurance, an idea dating back to Republican proposals from the 1990s but now almost universally rejected by conservatives. ..."

"...Opponents [of Obamacare] say a federal requirement that individuals obtain a specific service — a costly one in the case of health insurance — is unprecedented and oversteps the authority the Constitution gives Congress to regulate interstate commerce...."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110201/ap_ ... h_overhaul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

native wrote:

danefan wrote:
The Dems should continue to point out that while 2 Federal Judges have declared it unconstitutional.....2 Fedearl judges have also ruled to the contrary, upholding the law.

In other words - today's decisions doesn't mean squat. The only one that matters is the one that happens in the Supreme Court which won't happen for at least another year.

"...[Judge] Vinson ruled against the overhaul on grounds that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring nearly all Americans to carry health insurance, an idea dating back to Republican proposals from the 1990s but now almost universally rejected by conservatives. ..."

"...Opponents [of Obamacare] say a federal requirement that individuals obtain a specific service — a costly one in the case of health insurance — is unprecedented and oversteps the authority the Constitution gives Congress to regulate interstate commerce...."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110201/ap_ ... h_overhaul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I could be mistaken or perhaps it didn't make it into the final bill, but I thought the way around the constitutionality issue was that having insurance would be a tax credit. If so government can't force you to have a kid or own a house either...

danefan wrote:

native wrote:


The Repubs should jump on this opportunity to keep up the push for repealing and replacing the law.

The Dems should continue to point out that while 2 Federal Judges have declared it unconstitutional.....2 Fedearl judges have also ruled to the contrary, upholding the law.

In other words - today's decisions doesn't mean squat. The only one that matters is the one that happens in the Supreme Court which won't happen for at least another year.

Danefan, speak to us about "severability." The lack of a "non-severability clause" is apparently the basis upon which Judge Vinson threw out the entire Obamacare bill, instead of just that portion he found unconstitutional. As I recall, the Dems purposefully left out a non-severability clause because it would have allowed allowed opponents to chip away at the bill one bite at a time.

Is severability a legitimate issue? Why or why not?

native wrote:

danefan wrote:
The Dems should continue to point out that while 2 Federal Judges have declared it unconstitutional.....2 Fedearl judges have also ruled to the contrary, upholding the law.

In other words - today's decisions doesn't mean squat. The only one that matters is the one that happens in the Supreme Court which won't happen for at least another year.

Danefan, speak to us about "severability." The lack of a "non-severability clause" is apparently the basis upon which Judge Vinson threw out the entire Obamacare bill, instead of just that portion he found unconstitutional. As I recall, the Dems purposefully left out a non-severability clause because it would have allowed allowed opponents to chip away at the bill one bite at a time.

Is severability a legitimate issue? Why or why not?

Also, I understand to some extent jurisdiction and the process of going to appellate courts, but in a case like this where everybody knows it will end up in the Supreme Court and the issue is a huge one that impacts everyone, why doesn't the Supreme Court cut out the BS and just hear the case. Are there times when the Supreme Court steps in prior to appellate courts hearing the case.

I think Bush V Gore was one example where this occurred?

OL FU wrote:

native wrote:
Danefan, speak to us about "severability." The lack of a "non-severability clause" is apparently the basis upon which Judge Vinson threw out the entire Obamacare bill, instead of just that portion he found unconstitutional. As I recall, the Dems purposefully left out a non-severability clause because it would have allowed allowed opponents to chip away at the bill one bite at a time.

Is severability a legitimate issue? Why or why not?

Also, I understand to some extent jurisdiction and the process of going to appellate courts, but in a case like this where everybody knows it will end up in the Supreme Court and the issue is a huge one that impacts everyone, why doesn't the Supreme Court cut out the BS and just hear the case. Are there times when the Supreme Court steps in prior to appellate courts hearing the case.

I think Bush V Gore was one example where this occurred?

As I'm sure you know, the Supreme Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It only has appelate jurisdiction except in limited circumstances (e.g. cases involving ambassadors and conflicts between two or more states).

The Supreme Court can hear cases on appeal from either the Federal Courts of Appeal or on appeal from the Highest Court in a particluar state.

The latter is why It heard the Bush v. Gore case on a appeal (appealed from the Florida Supreme Court) - although arguably it should have fallen under the "political question" doctrine and not been granted Cert anyway - but that's a different debate.

The reason why the Health Care case should not go right to the Supreme Court is a good one - all of the Circuit Courts of Appeal to which the 4 cases will be appealed may come down the same way - either for or against the law. If that is the case then you don't even have a circuit split and you might not see a SCOTUS case to begin with.