Liberal free for all coming to an end

[randolph]

So let me get this "straight".
An injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. A declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of a injunction (sort of).
Since the law is not yet in effect, there can be no "relief". The final determination will have to be made by the Supreme Court.
Also, since the law was created and passed by Congress and has become law, it is out of the hands of the Executive Branch. A judges ruling on the Constitutionality of the law would apply to the Congress not the Executive Branch.

So Congress is where the law must be straightened out.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

So let me get this "straight".
An injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. A declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of a injunction (sort of).
Since the law is not yet in effect, there can be no "relief". The final determination will have to be made by the Supreme Court.
Also, since the law was created and passed by Congress and has become law, it is out of the hands of the Executive Branch. A judges ruling on the Constitutionality of the law would apply to the Congress not the Executive Branch.

So Congress is where the law must be straightened out.

The bill was written without the usual "separability" clause that makes it possible for a judge to rule on parts of a law that is challenged rather than on the entire law. This may or may not have been done deliberately (that is a separate discussion). Hence, the judge's ruling is on the entire law.

He could have chosen to STOP the law's implementation immediately by issuing an injunction. He did not. There are arguments among lawyers and talking heads about the judge's intent, but it is clear that however he may define various words, he did not enjoin the government from its immediate implementation of the law, which he could have done and which he could have made clear.

The Justice Department considers the ruling to be a declarative one that allows for the implementation of the law as the case makes its way higher, to the Supreme Court (remember, the individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014). Some of the states that have sued the federal government consider the ruling to be more than declarative, and are clamoring for the immediate halt to implementation.

It is notable that the judge has NOT changed his ruling. It would be easy for a state that thinks he ruled to enjoin the law and stop its implementation immediately to go back to his court and ask for him to make this clear. That has not happened, precisely for the reason I stated earlier. Judge Vinson is acting in accord with the spirit of the statutes and his judicial authority. He seems to be recognizing the absurdity of enjoining something that hasn't yet gone into effect (in other words, how can you stop something that hasn't yet started?). And, by virtue of his statement in the ruling quoted by Randolph earlier, he recognizes the political reality that there are provisions in the law that, to stop their implementation (e.g., the provision that disallows an insurance company from denying coverage for a pre-existing condition), would not only wreak havoc but -- he implies -- are probably constitutional (remember, this bill lacked the "separability" clause).

Vinson may be an "activist judge" -- as some proponents of the law have claimed -- but he surely is no dummy.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

To the individual the cost would go up, as the hospitals rais the cost of care to pay the new tax placed on them so the Feds could bring what would be needed to pay for every one Government insurances.

Why should the hospitals raise the cost of care per person? Sure, if there are more people coming to hospital, they maybe need more personal and room, but the new people pay too.
If you have standardized accounts, wouldn?t it reduce bureaucracy costs?
If everyone goes early enough to the doctors, the individual health problem would be less serious, the time could be reduced, chances of getting healthy again increase, costs and stay time per person could be reduced. (not waiting as long as possible because they fear the costs, or because they have no insurance and wait for an emergency)

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Companies now offer a benefits package. The insurances is not forced on you can ether take or simply opt out. They do this to attract new employees. After all the benefits package is added into your wages, only you never see the cash. Let try to show it this way. If you get your health insurance, and it cost you 500 a mouth, then your company offers you the same coverage for 200, they pay the other 300, then you just got a raise of 300 a mouth.
Now with Obama care if that same company drops all insurance from the benefits package. Opting to pay the tax/ fine imposed on them, it would drop their cost to some thing like 150 per mouth per employ. A savings of 150 per mouth per employ. Their employees still get health insurances through Obama care, and the company saves 1/2 of they had been paing out.

But there are other companies that didn?t/don?t pay the 150 per mouth, and with Obama care they have to? And employees, without that offer, don?t have to pay less with Obama care?

(I?m not sure if it shines through enough that I?m not from the US, and because of that I have no knowledge about Obama care)

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Obumer, in his sad attempt to push GM sales up, did what called cars for clunkers.The idea was that you could bring in any car, over 15 or 20 years old. (Please don't hold to the age of the car I may be wrong) You would get 1500 I think it was for that car. Only if you traded it for a smart car. One that used electricity to run. Well a lot of people jumped on it, and the feds still have got that paid for. In a way what they did was give you 1500 for a car they were going to crush and sell for scrap. Much the same as me giving you 1500 to bring me a 100. Sad but true.

The Chevrolet Volt? And only this one, or do they sell alternatives? I don?t know how it turns out, but it sounds like a try to rescue your car industry, save jobs, and boost economy. It could help you or harm you.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by Tread

Why should the hospitals raise the cost of care per person? Sure, if there are more people coming to hospital, they maybe need more personal and room, but the new people pay too.
If you have standardized accounts, wouldn’t it reduce bureaucracy costs?
If everyone goes early enough to the doctors, the individual health problem would be less serious, the time could be reduced, chances of getting healthy again increase, costs and stay time per person could be reduced. (not waiting as long as possible because they fear the costs, or because they have no insurance and wait for an emergency)

The new tax. With any added cost it is always passed on to the consumer. Simple economics 101.

But there are other companies that didn’t/don’t pay the 150 per mouth, and with Obama care they have to? And employees, without that offer, don’t have to pay less with Obama care?
In this nation if you have less than 10 people working for you, you have no need to offer Heath care. SO you are almost right. Though with this bill most small businesses will be forced out, ether do to not being able to provide HCI (Heath care Insurance) Or the tax imposed on them for not doing so. Ether way they will be shut down. This needless to say leads to higher unemployment.
(I’m not sure if it shines through enough that I’m not from the US, and because of that I have no knowledge about Obama care)



The Chevrolet Volt? And only this one, or do they sell alternatives? I don’t know how it turns out, but it sounds like a try to rescue your car industry, save jobs, and boost economy. It could help you or harm you.

Well you could turn your car in to any car company that wanted take part. Toyoda, Honda, G.M. Ford. It was more an attempt to gt us out of the SUV and into Government approved cars. You know going green thanks to the lie of Global worming.
I had to look that up to make sure if I was right or wrong.
By the way I do not know how to do the reply where it splits up my rely inside your post. I did get it once only now seem I cant. SO my reply in bold inside of your.

[Tread]

Rainrider I asked you if you can explain me why it gets more expensive, but you only describe me things from a single view point. You let other positions out, and ignore them. If every tax payer would have to pay more, the whole idea of affordable health insurance for everyone would go wrong. It can?t be that simple and stupid.

Can you, or are you willing to tell me the full story why you think it gets more expensive in long term, or not? If you only telling me these single view shreds, we can stop here. That will lead nowhere.

Originally Posted by Rainrider

You know going green thanks to the lie of Global worming.

Global warming is no lie. There is the question how much mankind has to do with it. If you have any creditable prove for that statement, you could post it in the global warming thread.

Originally Posted by Rainrider

By the way I do not know how to do the reply where it splits up my rely inside your post. I did get it once only now seem I cant. SO my reply in bold inside of your.

Copy and paste or type in the quote commands, so that the paragraph you want to quote is implemented by the quote commands. For further information Click here.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

So let me get this "straight".
An injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. A declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of a injunction (sort of).
Since the law is not yet in effect, there can be no "relief".

The law is in effect. The initial stages are preparatory stages and our health care system is now being dismantled to make way for Obamacare. That needs to be stopped NOW.

Originally Posted by randolph

The final determination will have to be made by the Supreme Court.
Also, since the law was created and passed by Congress and has become law, it is out of the hands of the Executive Branch. A judges ruling on the Constitutionality of the law would apply to the Congress not the Executive Branch.

Well both actually. The executive branch signed it.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The law is in effect. The initial stages are preparatory stages and our health care system is now being dismantled to make way for Obamacare. That needs to be stopped NOW.

Well both actually. The executive branch signed it.

Well, the specific part of the bill,the part that requires everyone to have insurance is the part deemed by the judge to be unconstitutional. I does not go into effect until later. Since the bill is one piece, part of it cannot be extricated and allow the rest of the bill to stand. Consequently, the whole bill has to be looked at.

[ila]

After reading the exchanges between Tracy and smc all I can think of is that too many lawyers have so screwed up the laws that it's impossible for the average person to be able to understand what has really happened. It's not just the most recent court decision on healthcare in the US, but laws in general. How can the public be expected to support or disagree with any politician when the wording of judgments and laws are so full of legalese?

I am certainly not a stupid person (and in fact consider myself to be quite intelligent), but I'll be darned if I can figure out what the judgment really is on the lates court ruling over US healthcare.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

After reading the exchanges between Tracy and smc all I can think of is that too many lawyers have so screwed up the laws that it's impossible for the average person to be able to understand what has really happened. It's not just the most recent court decision on healthcare in the US, but laws in general. How can the public be expected to support or disagree with any politician when the wording of judgments and laws are so full of legalese?

I am certainly not a stupid person (and in fact consider myself to be quite intelligent), but I'll be darned if I can figure out what the judgment really is on the lates court ruling over US healthcare.

When in doubt, the smart route is to assume that I am correct.

And remember the old Spanish proverb: "It is better to be a mouse in a cat's mouth than a man in a lawyer's hands."

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Well, the specific part of the bill,the part that requires everyone to have insurance is the part deemed by the judge to be unconstitutional. I does not go into effect until later. Since the bill is one piece, part of it cannot be extricated and allow the rest of the bill to stand. Consequently, the whole bill has to be looked at.

The judge cleverly used Obama's own words. The mandate that all citizens must participate is not separable from the bill. Therefore he said the whole bill must be struck down.

[TracyCoxx]

Harry Reid has been chastising republicans about their position on the upcoming vote to raise the debt ceiling. He says "We can't back out on the money we owe the rest of the world."

Well, we don't have to. We can pay the money we owe, and stop payments towards Obamacare (especially since it is currently unconstitutional), and not pay out the rest of the several stimulus packages that have been enacted. That would easily cover it.

Perhaps Senator Reid would take his beloved Obama's advice on the matter:

Originally Posted by Obama - 2006

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America?s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can?t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government?s reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ?trillion? with a ?T.? That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President?s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion. (actually it's increased around $5 trillion - Who would sign off on such debt increases?)

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we?ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children?s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America?s priorities.

Don't believe him Senator Reid? Well there's another person who I think you'd find yourself forced to agree with about the matter:

Originally Posted by Senator Reid - 2006

If my [Democrat] friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

How can the [Democrat] majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it?s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That?s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation?s dependence on foreign creditors?

They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they?re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.

(Republican has been changed to Democrat to better apply the economic lesson to this situation)

I hope this clarifies things for you Senator Reid. You should be glad that the Republicans have finally heard Senator Reid and Barack Obama.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The judge cleverly used Obama's own words. The mandate that all citizens must participate is not separable from the bill. Therefore he said the whole bill must be struck down.

It should be noted that this is one judge in one federal court district. Other federal judges have thrown similar suits out of court. Nothing has been settled.

[TracyCoxx]

As a matter of principle, Obama should recall his 2012 budget. In his first budget in 2009 he called for "A New Era of Responsibility". He promised to cut the deficit to $912 billion by 2011 and to $581 billion by 2012. The reality is twice that size. But then when he campaigned, he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first year. In reality it quadrupled. Forgive me if I don't buy even his weak promises of deficit reduction this year.

[randolph]

If you look at overall government spending, taking into account spending by states, overall spending does not show a huge spike but a steady rise. Granted the rise is enormous over the past ten years. We have been living on borrowed money for a long time. All the special interests will protect their cut to the end.