- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,991
- Reaction score
- 60,557
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I am so glad we live in a country where you can make inane comments like the above.
yup. i'm so glad that we are now ruled by a small oligarchy which deigns from time to time to tell us how we may order our lives.
Your point has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a declaratory judgment has the same effect as an injunction in this instance.This is where we show your own words in actuality. Note what I was responding to. Note that "has the same effect as an injunction" is false, for the reasons I pointed out.
How Jeffersonian of you!yup. i'm so glad that we are now ruled by a small oligarchy which deigns from time to time to tell us how we may order our lives.
How Jeffersonian of you!yup. i'm so glad that we are now ruled by a small oligarchy which deigns from time to time to tell us how we may order our lives.
Your point has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a declaratory judgment has the same effect as an injunction in this instance.
Is it right to force American citizens to purchase a product because the government says you must, or be fined or possibly serve jail time?
States have laws that require you to buy auto insurance, if you choose to drive your car.
The health insurance you have to buy because you breath and you have no choice in that matter.
I think they have that mandate in Mass. (which it's failing) but maybe they can do that because it's a state mandate.
That comparison is inherently flawed. Mandating insurance for drivers is necessary, but it is only liability which is mandated, which is specifically designed to protect against other people in the case of an accident (and without the mandate, we're looking at trillions of wasted litigation dollars). There is no mandate that requires people to pay for collision or comprehension. Healthcare is an entirely different matter that affects the sole individual who is being insured. It is the individual's responsibility to pay for their own healthcare, just as it is an individual's responsibility to pay for collision and comprehension.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'll stick with my facts.Well, since it did not, despite your claim, and I pointed out why, I think it does.
Uninsured patients dump their costs onto other people all the time.
Jeez, no complaints about activist judges here I see...
If Republicans want to repeal the health reform law then repeal it!
Jeez, no complaints about activist judges here I see...
The only way Congress has any affect on the health care reform law is if by or before 2014 we have a Republican Congress and a Republican president.
If Republicans regain control of the House, the one issue likely to be most transformed is the health care overhaul.
While new Republican leaders of key health committees wouldn’t become official until January, one thing is crystal clear: Whoever takes the seat in the event of a shift in power in November will make implementing the law as difficult as possible for the Obama administration. A key committee in question is the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, which will hold sway on funding for the new law. The panel will have the authority to limit or expand funding to the Departments of Health and Human Services and Labor, which are overseeing parts of the law’s implementation.
[Hal Rogers] would replace Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), who is retiring this year, and the two men represent diametrically opposed positions on the reform law. Obey held the chairmanships of both the health subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee, which gave him huge influence over the reform legislation and made him an instrumental player in its passage. In contrast, [the Republican member] wanted to kill the law. He both offered and supported Republican amendments to repeal the whole law or deny funding to pieces of it. All Republicans on the subcommittee supported motions for repeal or defunding this year, but the amendments failed to pass after the votes fell along party lines. A House Republican aide said there’s no reason to think Republicans on Appropriations wouldn’t continue on the same path in the majority.
Repeal of the entire law wouldn’t get past Obama’s veto pen and quite likely would struggle to pass the Senate, especially if the chamber is split about evenly. Instead, the likely route of an ascendant Republican majority next year would be to target unpopular provisions of the law that could garner some bipartisan support to squeak through. Key provisions already targeted by Republicans include the 1099 tax-reporting requirements, the mandate that nearly all Americans buy insurance, requirements on employers to provide coverage and the state expansion of Medicaid. Another likely target would be the new Independent Payment Advisory Board, which the law requires be set up to help control Medicare spending.
Republicans could also use the reconciliation process — which was used to get a package of repairs to the health law through the Senate in March — to stall portions of the law that increase spending. The upside of the reconciliation route is that it bypasses a Senate filibuster, but it’s also limited in scope and can’t be used to repeal the whole law. Rather, the budget resolution could instruct committees to write bills to reduce mandatory spending including that tied to the health law. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who is likely to become Budget Committee chairman if Republicans take control of the House, told CNBC recently that Republicans want to use reconciliation to scale back some of Obama’s policies.
I'm not making it complicated. I'm just stating fact of which you countered with congressional appropriations which isn't a repeal but rather a stalling tactic.
If Republicans want to repeal the health reform law then repeal it! But they'd better come up with something far better than what they'd tear down or they're likely to regret their action should things ever come to that.
actually she did and she was correct. but that's a discussion for a different thread. the misogynistic attack on conservative women goes on.
Republicans have made opposition to the Democrats’ health care overhaul a central theme in their push to take back Congress. But the fate of the law may actually depend more on the outcome of dozens of state-level races across the country. While congressional Republicans won’t be able to repeal health care reform with Barack Obama in the White House, Republican governors and their appointees have the power to throw major roadblocks in the way of reform plans.
Governors who oppose the legislation can refuse to set up pieces of the law, such as the state-based insurance exchanges where most Americans will purchase coverage beginning in 2014. In many cases, they also can appoint insurance commissioners and Medicaid directors with directives to refuse to participate in implementing the law or the federal funding associated with it.
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, who is expected to defeat Democrat Tom Holland in the gubernatorial race, has promised to fight health reform “every step of the way.” Republican Nikki Haley has promised not just to block the law if elected governor in South Carolina but to lead a group of governors in repealing it, according to local media reports. In Pennsylvania, Republican Attorney General Tom Corbett joined the multistate suit and is now running for governor.
The Republican opposition is modeled after the approach of Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has gone so far as to sign an executive order blocking state officials from accepting any federal funding associated with the legislation.
The most prominent roadblocks are likely to be in setting up the exchanges. They need to be up and running by 2014 but require so much work that health experts say states need to pass legislation establishing them next year to have them running in time.
actually she did and she was correct. but that's a discussion for a different thread. the misogynistic attack on conservative women goes on.
So far actually it is not headed that way, since most judges have rules that it is constitutional out of those that even heard the challenge. Details, they are important.
A handful of governors are beginning to seriously flex their muscles in attempts to block the federal health reform law by rejecting grants or legislative action, a worrisome move for health reform’s most stalwart supporters.
“The danger is that the critics of reform will kill it before it ever has a chance to take hold,” former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle writes of the health reform law in his new book, “Getting It Done,” out Tuesday. “Opponents in state government could undermine it at every turn, or simply say they cannot do what the law requires,” Daschle adds.
After the struggle to pass health reform dominated Washington for the better part of a year, the issues of implementation were largely left to governors and state legislatures to hash out.
Alaska and Minnesota were the only states not to apply for health exchange planning grants. Three others — Wyoming, Iowa and Georgia — joined them in not pursuing an additional $1 million grant for rate reviews, released in the summer. Most recently, Utah has become active in opposing more federal regulation of insurance markets.
Health reform advocates who have pushed back against their governors’ disengagement — urging them to take a more active role in implementation — have seen little success. Alaska’s Democratic state senators have become increasingly aggressive in pressuring Republican Gov. Sean Parnell and his administration on the issue, but to little avail.
Last week, state Sen. Hollis French wrote a letter to Parnell, accusing him of blocking the legislation’s benefits. From where French sits, it gets only more difficult: Any legislation needed to implement health reform requires the governor’s signature. So the prospect of setting up a state health exchange, for example, is relatively dim. “The governor can veto any bill; he can red-line any appropriation,” French said. “We’ve got the Republican governor standing on our way, and we’re really stymied.”
The situation is similar in Minnesota, where Gov. Tim Pawlenty, with an eye on a 2012 run for president, has taken a hard line against the health reform law. Pawlenty has barred any state agencies from applying for health-reform-related grants; and, just last week, he prohibited them from sending public comment on health exchanges to the Health and Human Services Department.
the requirement that we buy insurance or get fined.
How Jeffersonian of you!
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
How Jeffersonian of you!
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
EDIT:
Wow, what a crackpot this "Jefferson" guy must have been to say something so "inane" as that.
we're not going to repeal it, we're going to repeal major portions of it
like 1099's and the mandate
and both parties are gonna have to do something about the states, you know, california, new york, illinois...
(are you aware of governor bredesen's views, on behalf of the entire conference? why, even diane feinstein in my home state is eagerly on board)
sebelius has already done a great deal about repealing the requirement of 750K of coverage---she EXEMPTS anyone, apparently, who asks out
we'll be sure, tho, to keep the pre existing protections, the 26 year old dependents---they're necessary and popular
we will do what the american people are overwhelmingly demanding we do
stay tuned
So far actually it is not headed that way, since most judges have rules that it is constitutional out of those that even heard the challenge. Details, they are important.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?