What part of the law is the law don't you get. And haven't you noticed that packing the court hasn't actually produced the expected results? Why? Because the law actually has some form to it.
that's a typical lament.....with no substance. aren't you used to it? OMG liberal activist judges!!!! then, a huge FAIL when asked to show any consequences.
that's a typical lament.....with no substance. aren't you used to it? OMG liberal activist judges!!!! then, a huge FAIL when asked to show any consequences.
I'm begingin to think many are just whiny. Liberal media, liberal judges, any thing to excuse why they don't get their way.
Another attempt to limit freedom of speech through ridicule. Trying to shut people up is your way.
Another attempt to limit freedom of speech through ridicule. Trying to shut people up is your way.
don't give him another opening. I want to see how they justify giving Congress the right to regulate mental activity.
I'm sure you're going down some silly road here, but I'm game. Explain.
explain? see post # 203.
On Tuesday, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia handed down her decision in the fifth Obamacare court challenge, Mead v. Holder. Kessler upheld the individual mandate, along with the rest of the law, leading PPACA advocates to crow that three judges have upheld the mandate, versus two who have overturned it.
But Judge Kessler’s reasoning is weak, and her ruling demonstrates why there is a real possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn Obamacare...
Beginning on page 25, Kessler examines whether or not the Commerce Clause allows Congress to impose an individual mandate. She goes through the familiar litany of Supreme Court Commerce Clause jurisprudence, and then gets to the heart of the matter: Are people who choose not to buy health insurance engaging in interstate commerce? On page 39, she writes:
The findings on this subject could not be clearer: the great majority of the millions of Americans who remain uninsured consume medical services they cannot pay for, often resulting in personal bankruptcy. In fact, the ACA’s findings state that “62% of all personal bankruptcies are caused in part by medical expenses.”
It’s truly amazing to see this fraudulent medical bankruptcy figure uncritically repeated in a court document. It comes from a partisan analysis published by members of Physicians for a National Health Plan, and contains numerous methodological flaws that Megan McArdle identified here and here. It included as “medical bankruptcy” anyone who declared bankruptcy who also “lost at least 2 weeks of work-related income due to illness/injury,” or who reported “uncovered medical bills >$1000 in the past 2 years,” among other absurdly broad criteria. For Judge Kessler to cite this article in order to claim that “the findings on this subject could not be clearer” is a bad start.
She then goes on to write:
To put it less analytically, and less charitably, those who choose–and Plaintiffs have made such a deliberate choice—not to purchase health insurance will benefit greatly when they become ill, as they surely will, from the free health care which must be provided by emergency rooms and hospitals to the sick and dying who show up on their doorstep. In short, those who choose not to purchase health insurance will ultimately get a “free ride” on the backs of those Americans who have made responsible choices to provide for the illness we all must face at some point in our lives.
This “free ride,” as I have written about previously, is a consequence of a clumsy 1986 law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, which forces hospitals to provide free care to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. It is nonsensical to argue that Congress can pass an unconstitutional law in order to solve problems caused by another act of Congress.
And yet, this is precisely what Kessler argues, on page 47 of her ruling. She claims that the health-care market is special, and fundamentally different from other markets; hence, we shouldn’t worry that PPACA’s individual mandate could be used to force people to buy cars, food, or housing:
This second aspect of the health care market distinguishes the ACA from Plaintiffs’ hypothetical scenario in which Congress enacts a law requiring individuals to purchase automobiles in an attempt to regulate the transportation market. Even assuming that all individuals require transportation in the same sense that all individuals require medical services, automobile manufacturers are not required by law to give cars to people who show up at their door in need of transportation but without the money to pay for it. Similarly, food and lodging are basic necessities, but the Court is not aware of any law requiring restaurants or hotels to provide either free of charge.
It should be emphasized that this distinction is not merely a useful limiting principle on Congress’s Commerce Clause power. Rather, it is a basic, relevant fact about the operation of the health care market which is critical to understanding the ACA’s efforts to reform the health care system.
Nonsense. Judge Kessler simply makes this up. There is nothing “basic” about, or inherent to, the operation of the health-care market that required Congress to force hospitals to provide uncompensated emergency care. Congress could repeal EMTALA tomorrow if it wanted to, eliminating the alleged “free rider” problem and obviating the need for the mandate.
3. Congress can regulate “mental activity.”
Judge Kessler then goes on to assert something entirely new in the history of American jurisprudence: that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate “mental activity”:
As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power. See Thomas More Law Ctr., 720 F.Supp.2d at 893 (describing the “activity/inactivity distinction” as an issue of first impression). However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance…Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
If Congress can regulate “mental activity,” then there simply isn’t anything that Congress can’t regulate, and the Constitution as we know it no longer exists....
What does Mead v. Holder mean for the next round?
What Mead v. Holder tells us is that the pro-mandate case hinges on believing two things: one, that the “free rider” problem is insolubly inherent to the health-care market, leading to the necessity of the individual mandate; and two, that Congress has the power to regulate “mental activity,” along with essentially everything else. Suffice it to say: It’s not a slam dunk that higher courts will agree.
Just because it's you and i know that you will be unable to avoid the ad-sourcinem fallacy as opposed to actually trying to defend the stance that Congress can regulate mental activity.... i found the NRO article on it
The Latest Obamacare Court Ruling: Congress Can Regulate ‘Mental Activity’
interestingly, she also threw out the Administrations' new claim that the mandate is actually a "tax".
link to the actual ruling is on the webpage linked here. you are free to go see it if you wish... by going through NRO. :devil: :lol:
Again, is not a fallacy if the source is flawed. You have to know this. There's a reason I don't use Moveon, or Oberman or the Nation.
:cpwill puts a penny in his "totally called that" jar:
But still don't know the difference. :coffeepap
I think if they really got into this poll and worded it right its not entitlement cuts they are opposed to...its Paul Ryans destroy them and give the wealthiest huge tax cuts in every category.
Every where I go I ask people what they think of Ryans plan I cant find ONE that likes it...but then again im not talking to any rich 35 yr olds...the rich of course Love it...imagine that
still waiting on your defense of why Congress can regulate mental activity.
No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. . . . The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings . . . they cannot opt out of this market.”). Thus, the vast majority of individuals, if not all individuals, will require some medical care
in their lifetime.
Second, in contrast to other markets for goods and services, if an individual is sick or injured, medical providers may not refuse basic medical services under federal law, regardless of the individual’s ability to pay.11
The turd that you keep polishing is bankrupting the country.
Here, right from your link, that ****ing traitor FDR should have gotten his head blown off for what he did to this country. And you people have the balls to talk to us about Bush war crime trials, while you put that traitor on a pedestal.
of course the wealthier segments of the nation are going to like it better (even though it takes more from them). they have a much better idea of how businesses and the economy work. that's how they became rich. poor people, however, tend more to be economic morons; which is why they will support the Democrats 'do nothing until we hit bankruptcy" plan.
I recall that it was the rich Wall street segment that brought his country close to economic ruin in 2008. They create the bubbles that make them rich and they skip when they burst and leave the tax payers to pick up the pieces and give them more money.
You should actually read it. It is about decision making concerning insurance.
On page 46, following the mental activity quote, you find what I've argued all along:
So the argument is not what you are NRO is trying to make it out to be, so once again they are inaccurate.
Raise taxes. We don't have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem.
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?