Virginia Federal Court Rules ObamaCare UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

[Guest]

After two previous federal judges backed the "must buy or pay fine" provision in ObamaCare, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson ruled against the law. The ruling supports the Attorney General's contention that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to impose that requirement.

Florida's lawsuit, with 20 states signed on, is still pending; with the Supreme Court expected to make the final judgement.

So there's hope now for the repeal of this overreaching abomination of a law.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul_virginia

[Guest]

Way to go Ken Cuccinelli!!!

[Guest]

Well, looks like the Health Care law is now going to be adjudicated by the US Supreme Court. Chances are it will be a 5-4 decision (but which way?)

I understand completely what opponents are upset about being made to buy a product - but, this has been a law in Taxachusetts for some time (with Mitt Romney, a Republican as governor) and no Republicans or Democrats have brought that up. What gives?

[Guest]

Well, looks like the Health Care law is now going to be adjudicated by the US Supreme Court. Chances are it will be a 5-4 decision (but which way?)

I understand completely what opponents are upset about being made to buy a product - but, this has been a law in Taxachusetts for some time (with Mitt Romney, a Republican as governor) and no Republicans or Democrats have brought that up. What gives?

Well, it seems that a difference in the two plans is the Mass. plan requires "businesses" to provide health care or pay a fine of $295 a month per employee not covered. This provisions was later vetoed by Gov. Romney with his line item veto power, but then, I think, overridden by the Democrat Legislature.

The uninsured would be supplemented by the Mass. State Government.

This is the main reason I am decidedly lukewarm to the prospect of a Romney presidential bid. The only Republican contender I distrust more is McCain.

In any case, the law in Mass. is a state issue. People are content to let them sink or swim in their own borders, i believe. No one has to live or do business in Mass. The notion of a national law is a whole other kettle of fish.

[Guest]

The federal judge specifically stated the law violated the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution - you know, the clause that is usally cited to *defend* government encroachment in almost all areas. There's a certain irony in that.

I predicted that there was no way that a law that required to to pay money to simply "exist" would stand up in court. Other provisions of the law are still in effect but this one, which would have taken effect in 2014 is history for the time being (and I predict it'll stay that way).

[Guest]

You can't be compelled to participate in interstate commerce, that is basically what Hudson upheld by saying it is unConstitutional to force someone to purchase something. Prior to this ruling, Virginia lawmakers passed a law saying as much in regards to health insurance. Hip-hip-hooray!! Long live states' rights and our individual freedoms and liberties.

[Guest]

Speaking of the Massachusetts attempt to get coverage for everyone, here is an aspect of it that's not mentioned nationally:

"But having health insurance doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy to find a doctor. Even before reform, reports projected a shortfall of 40,000 primary care physicians over the next decade. Thirty-two million newly insured Americans, plus the millions of baby boomers entering Medicare age, will only make this shortfall worse.

As a primary care doctor in New Hampshire, I have had the opportunity to observe the effects of health reform in neighboring Massachusetts, which enacted a similar approach to universal coverage in 2006.

To its credit, Massachusetts covers 97 percent of its residents, the highest in the country. But its wholly unprepared primary care system was unable to handle the 500,000 newly insured patients looking for a regular doctor. According to the Massachusetts Medical Society, a primary care internist had an average wait time of 50 days for new patients, with almost half refusing to accept to new patients.

When Amherst, Mass., family physician Kate Atkinson decided to accept newly insured patients, she was forced to close her doors six weeks later. She told the Boston Globe that "there were so many people waiting to get in, it was like opening the floodgates," saying that her office is getting "10 calls a day from patients crying and begging."

And this is a state that already has the highest number of doctors per capita nationwide. It's frightening to imagine how other parts of the country, most of which have significantly fewer primary care doctors, can handle the influx of patients if Massachusetts can't.

By Kevin Pho M.D. (3/30/10)
http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-what-good-is-health-reform-if-you-cant-see-a-doctor/19419684

[Guest]

Next stop for Healthcare Reform is the US Supreme Court. IF it is NOT deemed unconstitutional by a majority of the court (and with liberals in the majority of the Court, not subject to a President) what do you propose to do?

There are annual protests against abortion now but it still remains legal.

If Healthcare Reform is found to be constitutional, what are your plans?

[Guest]

the system. Why not. Please don't say it is illegal....on second thought, do say it is illegal. And if it is only as illegal as immigration is.....there will be no problemo!!!
We had employees who we have offered insurance to, including us picking up 50% of the cost as an incentive to get insurance. We had zero takers. ZERO. They said there was no way they were going to spend money they needed for other "more important" things in life.
So what makes anybody think a little law shaking in their face is going to do? NOTHING!!! Just like illegal immigration!!.

btk

[Guest]

t . . .
We had employees who we have offered insurance to, including us picking up 50% of the cost as an incentive to get insurance. We had zero takers. ZERO. They said there was no way they were going to spend money they needed for other "more important" things in life. . .
btk

This is right. The "more important" things in life are Droid cell phones, cigarettes at $4-5 per pack, NBA or NFL tickets, tattoos, hair extensions, and acrylic fingernails. And it's not limited to ethnic, racial or socio-economic groups.

And so the rest of us pay when they go to the E.R. which costs a fortune to staff and equip 24 hours/day, for a stubbed toe. A lot of that would stop if the E.R.'s could charge a $10 CASH up front co-pay.

[Guest]

On the other hand, what about employee owned companies, and other companies, that have great benefits and are self insured and provide 100 percent of the cost of healthcare costs to retain good employees. What will the extra costs of, just say one aspect, adding adult "children" to the plan until they reach, what is it now 27?

[Guest]

On the other hand, what about employee owned companies, and other companies, that have great benefits and are self insured and provide 100 percent of the cost of healthcare costs to retain good employees. What will the extra costs of, just say one aspect, adding adult "children" to the plan until they reach, what is it now 27?

That's just the point. Do you really think Congress and the White House care one iota about employee-owned companies and others who are RESPONSIBLE, paying for their employees' insurance, and who are ETHICAL?

I think Congress and the White House want them to fail, so the ex-workers become government dependents who are sure to vote for those who promise the most entitlements. It's all about buying votes and keeping them.

[Guest]

1) The new age is 26.

2) The young are the healthiest and cheapest to cover, on average.

3) In most cases, it's not so much an "added" cost as a "returning" cost. In other words, if the premium was good enough to cover the kid at age 18 - or six kids for that matter since most "family" plans cover all kids no matter how many you have - coverage at 19 is just a continuation. This exposes a weakness in how family plans are organized. How many people with one or two kids wonder about what it costs their insurance company to cover (say, a few years ago) a "Jon & Kate + 8" type of family? The births along are 5-figures each.

4) When I worked at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, a study found that WAY over half the benefits (payouts) from insurance companies went on behalf of just 2% of their subscribers. That was in the late 80s, early 90s - I wonder what it is today?