as you say, very odd that he left such a clear paper trail. this is not defensible.

also, wouldn't the legislation have a boilerplate clause stating that the invalidity of any part does not invalidate the whole? or is that just part of contracts?

One of the bigger ironies that has gone overlooked is that these far right Tea Partiers, the Florida judge included, are not patriots at all. They are the Anti-federalists who lost to the national (federalist) interests when the United States Constitution was ratified and implemented!

The judge referenced the Boston tea party, but left out the ensuing 15 years of our national history - you know, that period of time when we forewent the confederation model, and instead vested supreme authority with our National Government!

21st century far-right activist judges are not good for our 21st century nation! -Kevo

It doesn't make any difference. If Obama said the sun will last for 50 million years, a wingnut Federal judge would rule the opposite.

FOX Noise is about to have a field day so buckle up. Nauseating...

The argument that "inaction" should not be regulated and that failure to buy health insurance places an individual outside the system of interstate commerce is simply wrong, although advocates of the mandate have not put forward an alternative theory.

The relevant interstate commerce is in health care. Every element of health care is entangled in interstate commerce, from the patent protection that allows drug companies monopoly prices, to the distribution of medical technology, to the training of physicians, dentists, nurses, and other health care providers, to national rules for payment under Medicare and Medicaid. The uninsured, once they enter the health care system as patients, impose burdens on others through uncompensated care that reverberate through national policies and the decisions of hospitals and physicians on where to locate and what services to offer.

The requirement for insurance to be bought is intended to change the burdens and obligations of each individual with respect to their capacity to buy health services, to create access to care via insurance, but also reduce the burden of the uninsured to be subsidized when they seek care through cost shifting and special payments for high charity care hospitals.

Unless the uninsured are all committed to not using the health care system (which they clearly are not), they are entangled in interstate commerce. The decision to require insurance of those who may use health care is directly analogous to the decision to require insurance of those who will drive cars.

So what is it 2-2 in Federal court rulings re: the Health Care Act. (Its actually 13-2 IN FAVOR if you count lower court decisions)

A note to my friends on the right side of the aisle:

Lets just keep perspective when the entire news media pumps this story all week as some sort of repudiation of Obama's signature acheivement

I hope it stands. It would create quite a precedent. The whole "commerce clause" house of cards would collapse. I'm all in favor of that, but of course it ain't going to happen. This judge probably doesn't even realize what it means, or maybe he just didn't get memo.

Well, since the mandate really is the keystone for the whole edifice, one could make an almost plausible argument that finding it unconstitutional means the entire thing collapses anyway. But certainly that's not what Marbury was all about.

But why do we even call this a mandate? Really there's a tax imposed, which is clearly in Congress' power, and if you can prove you have insurance, you get a break. It's more like the mortgage interest deduction--nobody argues that the government is forcing you to buy a home.

As you say, "the Supreme Court will have the final call. Between now and then, we're left to marvel at the extremism of some misguided Republican judges."

It's a good thing there are not any misguided Republican extremists on the Supreme Court. Oh, wait a second...

I wonder how often Congress's laws are deemed unconstitutional? Just saw campaign finance struck down. I can't think of another modern instance but too lazy/busy to Google it just now. It's interesting, though, because I often read about Scalia saying to one audience or another "that's why we have a legislative branch" or, you know, "then get a law passed that does what you want; it's not up to the courts." The lesson here being that "conservative" really equates to "intellectually bankrupt."

Grammar, dammit.

Steve Benen (correctly) says:
[The Affordable Care Act is] consistent with how the government has operated for generations.

Five members of the Supreme Court (incredibly) are entirely capable of saying:
Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem ... generally presents many complexities.

The fools that drafted this bill left out the severability clause and are now being punished for their incompetence.

This was a stretch of the Commerce Clause too far. It snapped.

Seriously? A tea party reference in the ruling? Clearly this judge is a Koch sucker.

If you have the time, go and read the actual ruling. It is an absolute mess, and embarrassment to our judicial branch of government.

Beware the broccoli mandate!

All of this is interesting, as far as it goes, but I should emphasize the point that renders at least some of this trivial: the Supreme Court will have the final call. Between now and then, we're left to marvel at the extremism of some misguided Republican judges.

...after which we'll be left to marvel at the extremism of some misguided republican judges.

Hmmm:

"The various segments of the law are sufficiently intertwined that it's very hard to cut out the mandate and leave the rest unaffected. If [the mandate] is unconstitutional then I tend to agree that you can't just sort of surgically remove one part of it and leave the rest intact."

The ruling goes so far as to reference a ReasonTV.com video on page 47.

Now that's some good legal authority. Did the judge also cite any Erick Erickson tweets?

I find it difficult to believe that business is OK with gutting the commerce clause. After all they benefit greatly from unified regulations across all 50 states. The last thing many of the businesses that back the Republicans would want is 50 different regulations dealing with everything from auto emissions (the California problem) to food additives/labeling (California and Oregon) to everything elese.

They want a relatively powerful federal government precisely because it makes commerce simpler and much more profitable.

Damn those "activist liberal judges," always legislating from the bench! Oh, wait...

Snap! That's the sound of the Commerce Clause breaking.

Just like the minds of liberals as they face the death of their welfare state dream while the Tea Party takes us back to our roots. Just like the mind of the liberal who tried to assassinate Republican Governor Jay Nixon.

The MSM still hasn't covered that attempted murder of a Republican governor by a Democrat, despite all the boo hooing over ultraliberal Gabriel Gifford. Gee, I wonder why not?

Show of hands: who trusts Anthony Kennedy on this? We all know it's 4-4 with him being the deciding vote. Terrific. Citizens United? Bush v. Gore? Does anyone truly think the 'law' will actually come into play here?

Well, let the whip count begin. You better believe we already know how Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will rule. Likewise, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan.

That makes it best two out of three.

And, in the end, it will all likely depend on Justice Kennedy. Unless, of course, we lose someone in the meantime.

[Content by a repeatedly-banned troll deleted. --Mods]

Skimmed the decisions and as Steve and others have noted it is both remarkably discursive and argumentative. A 78 page piece of highly selective anecdotal if-then reasoning. He does seem to get much of his argument from NRO. Ending of course with 'I do this with a heavy heart' caveat.

I have two questions.

First, perhaps this has appeared in previous posts, or other sites, but what record does Justice Kennedy have on these issues? Rather than Justice Roberts he is likely to determine the outcome.

Second, how valid is Judge Vinson's argument that he must strike down the individual mandate, and thus must invalidate the entire APCPA, because he/the judiciary is unable to determine whether the remaining pieces are able to work it? He seems to acknowledge this is highly unusual, even going to the Bush v Gore extreme of noting that it is unlikely to happen again. Any lawyers out thre care to comment?

Would a acceptable compromise be that those who decide not to buy insurance have to sign an irrevocable oath stating that if they got ill or injured, the medical facility would be required to put them out on the curb to die?

Mike K,

When you try to use this in future trolling activities, please note that Jay Nixon is a Democrat.

One of us, one of us, one of us...

Now who are the activist judges,where does Florida find all these right wing-nuts? The Repugnantsnow have forged the battle,and the clarion call is down with extreme decisions from the bench!

John Sherman, Ezra says that has been proposed and would be a viable alternative ... if we had a working Congress that was not just trying to score political points but was trying to "fix the bill."

Mike K, after now seeing some of your other comments, I'm pretty sure you're a spoof. You got me!

When you try to use this in future trolling activities, please note that Jay Nixon is a Democrat.

Maybe now he is. When he was the target of an assassin a few months ago he was a Republican. Also, he is a congressman, not a governor, so please correct your mistake.

Cool! I hate wearing government mandated seat belts in my privately owned vehicle. And who needs government mandated auto insurance? If I kill or maim someone, suck it up cupcake. Sue me (and I'll file bankruptcy). Who needs government in my life? (unless it's in my uterus, of course!)

While I find the judges discussion of forced broccoli consumption humorous, I do have one question: Why is auto insurance never discussed when we talk about health insurance? It is mandated. It is insurance. How do we discuss mandated insurance yet never, ever, ever compare it to an existing mandate? In 78 pages, not one mention.

Step 1: Demand single payer.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: SUCCESS!!!!!!!!

Libby: To quote from the decision: "Attempting to deflect this rather common sense rebuttal to their argument,the defendants emphasized during oral argument that it is not just the economic decision itself that renders the failure to buy insurance activity; rather, it is that decision coupled with the fact that the uninsured are guaranteed access to medical care in hospital emergency rooms as a backstop, the use of which can and does shift costs onto third parties. The defendants thus refer to the failure to buy health insurance as a financing decision. However, this is essentially true of any and all forms of insurance. It could just as easily be said that people without burial, life,supplemental income, credit, mortgage guaranty, business interruption, or disability insurance have made the exact same or similar economic and financing decisions based on their expectation that they will not incur a particular risk at a particular point in time; or that if they do, it is more beneficial for them to self-insure and try to meet their obligations out-of-pocket, but always with the benefit of backstops provided by law, including bankruptcy protection and other government-funded financial assistance and services."
Notice anything missing from this list of insurance products? It must not be mentioned.

Mike K - the troll that trolls himself!
viz.: "to assassinate Republican Governor Jay Nixon." - Mike K's troll turd #1.

"Also, he is a congressman, not a governor, so please correct your mistake." - Mike the K's troll turd #3.

What a maroon!

I don't have to explain my positions or offer a shred of support for them. It is enough for me to assure you that you are wrong.

[We don't ban dialog, we ban paid operatives from republican boilerrooms who are paid to hijack threads. Since you don't get paid if your contributions don't stay up long enough to be verified, we delete your stuff on spec. Now that you know we know what's up with you, why don't you give up? --Mods]

It was my understanding that one of the problems with the health care law was that it didn't carry boilerplate language specifying that if one part of the law were found unconstitutional the balance would stand.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are responsible for that oversight, or explaining why the language was deliberately left out (if it was).

That a Judge took such a step after ruling against the mandate should not be a surprise to anyone, especially not to someone as well versed in this particular legislation as I thought Steve Benen was.

I'm certainly no constitutional scholar, but from what I've read, and from my experience in life, it is absurd to argue that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Is it outrageous to require people to buy a product from a for-profit company? Sure. Is it unconstitutional? No. People who live in flood-prone areas are required to purchase flood insurance.

Harokin, the post about Nixon was not me. I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. By the way, I did have a similar post on my blog (but not here) and Nixon's party affiliation does not appear on his web site. I wonder why that could be ? He ran as an Independent last election.

karen, that's a pretty good argument but only those who choose to live in a flood plain are required to buy the insurance. Ditto for auto insurance. Home owners' is only required by mortgage lenders.

Sorry, but when looking for precedents, there's a fundamental difference between requiring automobile owners to buy car insurance and nuclear power plants to purchase liability insurance. In both cases, if you don't like the rules you don't have to play the game -- don't own/drive a car, or don't build a nuclear power plant.

The same holds with the requirement for seamen to pay into a health fund -- the option existed to become bakers or candlestick makers. Whether any of the options are feasible is immaterial to the conservative and libertarian points of view.

Where the PPACA and health care mandate run into trouble is that there's no way to opt out without being penalized by the government.

Oddly enough, I think this line of thinking would have been rendered moot if the PPACA had been written to true libertarian standards -- scrap the penalty and simply say that those not in compliance would have NO access to healthcare. None, period. To the libertarian mind, that would have made healthcare a matter of individual choice. Of course, Dems would never have gone for that, burdened as they are with the character flaw of being empathetic.

Pragmatically, any argument that relies on the "founders did it" to justify the PPACA mandate is unconvincing and inconsequential, simply because it assumes a logical consistency that does not exist in either the conservative or libertarian minds. I'm sure they'd justify Washington's mandate to purchase arms and ammunition on grounds of national defense and not commerce.

Nor does it matter who first came up with the idea of a mandate. Conservatives have already wiggled out of that inconvenient fact, and besides, they come up with ideas all the time that are unconstitutional.

As much as I don't want to see the PPACA repealed, I haven't yet heard of a precedent that convinces me the mandate will stand on those grounds. I think this is going to come down to a matter of opinion, and given the current Court, that makes upholding it anything but certain.

Beep52--there is no "opting out" of health insurance given that everyone must be granted access to emergency care. There is always a free-rider problem. If you want to allow hospitals to start denying care based on ability to pay, then you have an argument.

And for another analogy: what's the difference between the mandate and selective service?

re Mike Lamb: I don't think the selective service has ever been justified under the commerce clause.

Beep, fair enough. How about the point that everyone is a potential medical liability (financially speaking)? There is no "opting out" of sickness/accidents?

Posted by: Mike Lamb on January 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM

"If you want to allow hospitals to start denying care based on ability to pay, then you have an argument."

It was liberals who made it illegal for hospitals not to treat people who couldn't/wouldn't pay. The fact that you got an inch does not mean that you therefore deserve a mile. If the liberal policy created a problem, it's your problem, not ours.

Anyone who's been to a so-called "Emergency Room" knows what a burden it is for people who can actually pay. The fact is, government solutions usually create problems that can only be "solved" with more government solutions. It's all down the wrong path. There needs to be another way.

Nixon's party affiliation does not appear on his web site. I wonder why that could be ?

Because virtually no elected official (as opposed to candidate) of either party puts his/her party affiliation on the official site of his/her elected office, you towering moron.

He ran as an Independent last election.

No, he didn't, you thundering fucking jackass. He ran as a Democrat.

Do you ever get anything right? How many people did you kill and maim in medical practice because you're pathologically unable to admit your stupid mistakes?

The liberal reasoning that everyone must purchase health insurance because everyone uses the health care system is easily punctured. Not everyone must necessarily use the health insurance system. More damningly, it is patently obvious that many who choose not to purchase insurance are fully capable of paying out of pocket for whatever health care they need. Thus the reasoning for compelling them to purchase insurance fails.

But even more, Judge Vinson's ruling states also a more problematic, but no less obvious problem with the Individual Mandate. If the Commerce Clause, or any other Constitutional Clause, can be stretch to compel people to buy a private product, then the whole concept of enumerated powers is obviated in this interpretation of the Constitution. It would be a Constitution in name only, with no practical limits on government power, and thus of no force and effect at all. It means whatever Congress wants it to mean at any moment. Either the Constitution stands, or Obamacare stands. The fact that the outcome is uncertain is a scary reflection of where we stand at this moment in time.

I take it then, Perplexed, that you would have no problem with allowing to refuse care based on an inability to pay?

Also, no one is compelled to buy anything. Your taxes go up if you choose not to purchase health insurance. That's your choice. For the same reason that people who don't purchase health insurance now face increased costs if they need health care. Your argument is akin to stating you are mandated to buy a house with a mortgage, otherwise you pay more in taxes.

If we can solve the problem of people not having health insurance by forcing people to buy health insurance, why can't we solve the homeless problem by forcing homeless people to buy a house?

Does the cost of being homeless shift a cost burden onto the rest of society? That's a really bad comparison.

Posted by: Mike Lamb on January 31, 2011 at 7:12 PM

"I take it then, Perplexed, that you would have no problem with allowing to refuse care based on an inability to pay?"

That's completely beside the point. The fact that uninsured people use the Emergency Room for primary care is in no way a justification for making everyone purchase a government approved health plan. It is incumbent on those who would require hospitals to treat everyone to find a way to pay for it, not use their failure to do so as a justification for further expansions of government power.

"Also, no one is compelled to buy anything. Your taxes go up if you choose not to purchase health insurance. That's your choice."

And what happens to you if you fail to pay those taxes? You're saying that you're not "compelled to buy anything", it's just that you'll go to jail if you don't? You have a pretty loose definition of "not compelled", my friend.

More damningly, it is patently obvious that many who choose not to purchase insurance are fully capable of paying out of pocket for whatever health care they need.

Absolutely, if by "many" you mean "almost no one" and by "whatever health care they need" you mean "no one really needs cancer treatment, organ transplants, complicated surgery or, really, anything more expensive than antibiotics."

Oh, that's not what you meant? You meant that young, healthy people whose annual medical bills consist of a yearly pap smear or a couple of trips to the dentist shouldn't be forced to be part of the insurance risk pool, but should be able to reap its advantages when they get older and sicker and suddenly discover that they can't pay out of pocket for the expensive care they now need? Or perhaps you meant that all those courageous youngsters who skipped buying insurance have just the moxie required to later become such high earners that they can pay cash for horrendously expensive treatments?

Of course you did. Aren't you glibertarians the cutest things ever? Not one of you can look six seconds down the road.

just want to re-emphasize waldtest's point, there is no "mandate", it's a tax. If you want a tax break, you show proof of health insurance.

Mandates would something like you have to have smoke alarms in you house--code it most parts of the country.

That's completely beside the point.

Get your dirty reality out of my beautiful philosophy, the consequences of which I'm not man enough to even say out loud, much less defend.

Posted by: grew out of it on January 31, 2011 at 7:19 PM

First off, it offends me when people like you imply that young people are not paying their way. The older generation in America is taking far more out of the system than they ever put in, and they are leaving utterly unpayable debts to our children. The baby boom generation has been the greediest generation ever. It has to stop somewhere.

Moreover, the fact that many people are fully capable of paying for their own health care in whatever way they wish is, in fact, patently obvious, and undeniable. Even you don't deny this, although you certainly seek to minimize it.

The fact that many cannot pay for their own health care does not entitle you or those you vote for to strip the rights from those who ARE capable of paying for themselves in order to subsidize those who can't. That's simply thieving. But inasmuch as socialism is based on theft of property, it fits the theme I suppose.

Mike Lamb... I agree that there is no opting out. My point was that, had there been, it would have undercut the libertarian argument that underlies today's decision.

If this goes to the SC, I'm sure we'll hear a reasonable line of thinking that justifies the mandate in terms of commerce (in particular, shifting costs to the state and insured individuals) -- I just don't think that the so-called precedents circulating among the liberal blogs hold water.

With regard to the mortgage deduction, it's an incentive to purchase a home, but the PPACA mandate provides no incentives, only penalties. The net result may be similar, but the way the PPACA is written, there's a difference that leaves opponents a legal opening.

I would LOVE to see the metrics on which you can pass off as fact that statement that the older generation is taking out more than they ever put in/they are the greediest generation.

You do realize that under the CURRENT system you are ALREADY subsidizing free riders, right?

But hey, let's just let them die, right?

" . . . it is patently obvious that many who choose not to purchase insurance are fully capable of paying out of pocket for whatever health care they need."

Uh, no. It is patently obvious that *most* who choose not to purchase insurance are incapable of paying out of pocket for whatever health care they need.

Moron.

Posted by: Mike Lamb on January 31, 2011 at 7:18 PM

"Does the cost of being homeless shift a cost burden onto the rest of society? That's a really bad comparison."

Take it up with Mr. Obama, v2008, who made that statement in the first place.

Posted by: Joel on January 31, 2011 at 7:33 PM

"Uh, no. It is patently obvious that *most* who choose not to purchase insurance are incapable of paying out of pocket for whatever health care they need."

So you admit that there are people who are fully capable of paying for their own healthcare, but their rights don't matter, because there are an indeterminate number who can't?

"Moron."

Nice. You know that he who insults first is the one who's out of arguments?

"The baby boom generation has been the greediest generation ever. It has to stop somewhere. -- Perplexed and Amused"

Perplexed, you are indeed. Only now is the baby boom generation beginning to reach retirement age, and the problem is not that we're greedy but that there are so many of us.

On the other hand, the so-called greatest generation was pleased to reap the benefits of our greater numbers when we were footing their bills in the last months of life. For that matter, they are the ones who saddled boomers with paying their guaranteed benefit pensions.

So cut the generational crap. My wife and I have paid for health insurance since we left college.

"So you admit that there are people who are fully capable of paying for their own healthcare, but their rights don't matter, because there are an indeterminate number who can't?"

Uh, no. I don't and I didn't.

So you make up shit to cover for the fact that you don't know what you're writing about?

Moron.

Posted by: Mike Lamb on January 31, 2011 at 7:29 PM

"I would LOVE to see the metrics on which you can pass off as fact that statement that the older generation is taking out more than they ever put in/they are the greediest generation."

Sure, Mike. Look up any cost/benefit on people have received social security. The numbers are out there, you just have to look for them. It's all well-known. I won't tell you where to look, I don't want to get into the shoot-the-messenger game.

"You do realize that under the CURRENT system you are ALREADY subsidizing free riders, right?"

Sure, and I'm okay with that, I'm used to it. There's a lot of free riders in society. I just don't want to make it any easier for them.

"But hey, let's just let them die, right?"

I think you're overstating your case. The baby boom generation has the best health care in history, much of which they are not even paying for. The unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare are estimated at over $100 trillion. To be paid for by the next generation, of course, long after the baby boomers are dead.

Hey Perplexed and Amused - you'd have more clarity in your life if you chose an island to buy and live on, instead of this dismal place called USA!

Because you live in America, you can have such a cold-heart, and selfish way to gain the world and lose your soul!

Congrats to you, and cheers to a healthy life you can afford out of pocket! -Kevo

First off, it offends me when people like you imply that young people are not paying their way.

Aw, did your wittle strawman scratch your wittle feelings? Of course, I referred to a very specific subset of young people: those who are unwilling to participate in the insurance risk pool when it doesn't financially benefit them, but later expect to take full advantage of it when it does.

Unless you can suddenly support your repeated assertion that "many people are fully capable of paying for their own health care in whatever way they wish" by properly (and convincingly) quantifying "many" as well as the type and extent of healthcare these fabled multiplicities are receiving, we'll assume that you're conceding that the overwhelmingly more common scenario among these types is the one I describe: eschewing the insurance system when one is young, then jumping onto to it to reap its benefits when one grows older. That, laddo, is called demanding a subsidy.

The fact that many cannot pay for their own health care does not entitle you or those you vote for to strip the rights from those who ARE capable of paying for themselves in order to subsidize those who can't.

Your theory has two possible solutions, Bubble Boy: You can force healthcare providers to take a total loss when treating those who cannot pay. (It's hard to see why you don't see this as an infringement of others' rights--actually, it's not, since like all glibertarians you're fundamentally incapable of seeing past your own situation.) Alternatively, you can argue that it should be legal for healthcare providers to deny all treatment to those who cannot pay in full in cash. We've established that you're not honest enough to even discuss this possibility and you become quite flustered when it's brought up, which doesn't increase our already minimal respect for you.

There is, of course, a third option: healthcare providers treat those who can't pay and we all are forced to subsidize this. Could you but admit it, that's what's been happening and will continue to happen in the case of the uninsured.

Three doors. Pick one.

Posted by: beep52 on January 31, 2011 at 7:41 PM

I'm a baby boomer myself, so don't think it's some kind of inter-generation resentment. I just think it's a fact. Most people who receive Social Security and Medicare today will get much more out of the system than they ever put in. Sure, you've been paying in since you were young - but on average people will still get more out than they put in. Just google it and see. Also, the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare alone are estimated at over $100 trillion. This does not include unfunded pensions, promised by politicians of this generation, but never paid for, and simply cost-shifted to the next generation, who will be on the hook for the debts. This baby boom generation has lived far beyond its means, and the bill is coming due.

"The unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare are estimated at over $100 trillion."

There are no unfunded liabilities for Social Security. None.

"Most people who receive Social Security and Medicare today will get much more out of the system than they ever put in."

Cite, please.

Moron.

Posted by: Joel on January 31, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Joel, come back when you're ready to discuss things factually, rather than spew hateful invective at those who disagree with you. Hate is not good for your soul.

"Joel, come back when you're ready to discuss things factually, rather than spew hateful invective at those who disagree with you. Hate is not good for your soul."

ROTFLMAO!

You got nothin', bimbo. I called you out, and you know it.

Heh.

Moron (you just proved it).

Let's clear something up: is it unconstitutional for the federal gov't to mandate that ER's cannot refuse to treat someone based on inability to pay?

If your answer that such a mandate is constitutionally permissible, any remaining argument that the individual mandate is UNconstitutional goes up in smoke.

"Unless you can suddenly support your repeated assertion that "many people are fully capable of paying for their own health care in whatever way they wish" by properly (and convincingly) quantifying "many"....."

Nonsense. Quantity and exact numbers are immaterial. The fact is, we all know there are people (millionaires, for example) who can pay for whatever health care they need. I pay for my own health care with a combination of an HSA and a high deductible insurance plan. Why should I have to change to another plan?

What you don't want to admit is that there's lots of people in America who don't want the health plan that you want them to have, and you don't care, you'll just force them anyway. That's called tyranny of the majority, something the Constitution is designed to protect against.

Three points:

1. Vinson is one of the most right-wing federal judges in the nation -- in a federal district that IS the most right-wing in the nation. There was no chance -- Zero -- he would rule with the Government.

In North Florida, the federal judges don't read the briefs or weigh the evidence. They look at the name tags:
Corporation vs. Individual = Corporation wins. Corporation vs. Military = Military wins. Government vs. Accused Crook = Crook wins.
Crook vs. Corporation Crook Worked For = Corporation wins.
Civil Rights Claimant vs. Employer = Employer wins.

2. Obama screwed up, twice. The small one was forgetting to include a savings clause. The big one was not pushing hard -- really, not pushing at all -- for a public option.

3. Forget the Eleventh Circuit. The health care bill will get mugged in that right-wing den of Neanderthals, too.

"Quantity and exact numbers are immaterial."

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. P&A admits that facts don't matter. Whatever P&A believes is reality in his little world.

Moron.

Have the conservatives who are hailing this decision stopped to consider that, if this decision is a correct statement of the law, then privatization of Social Security is also unconstitutional? After all, if you can't force people to buy insurance, then you can't force them to save.

"Have the conservatives who are hailing this decision stopped to consider . . ."

You must be joking.

Dear Perplexed,

You don't have to change to another plan and no one else does. The Affordable Care Act won't affect you at all.

Having a health insurance policy means you are not paying for your own healthcare, the minute anything really bad happens your insurance company pays, that's why you have it.

How many millionaires don't bother with insurance? I'll bet Bill Gates has insurance.

When have you ever heard of anyone paying for their own brain surgery?

The only surgery I can think of anyone having to pay for themselves is cosmetic surgery, otherwise you just don't get it.

Republicans, unlike a lot of Democrats, know that the Holy Grail of power is the Supreme Court, which is why Republicans fight so hard to win the presidency and pack the courts. Democrats who complain that there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats because they're both corrupted by corporate donors are underestimating the long-term damage that Republican-appointed justices can do. Citizens United is but one example, and a future decision on health care may be another. All the Republicans need are 5 Supreme Court votes to strike down the mandate, and they already have 4 pretty well locked up. Without a mandate, there's no way to guarantee insurance coverage for adults and children with pre-existing conditions. We go back to a system that allows insurance companies to dump and deny the sick, and keeps millions of people from obtaining the medical treatment they need. Disgraceful.

If Obama is not relected in 2012, it's likely that the conservatives will lock up the Supreme Court for decades and it won't be pretty.

Posted by: cld on January 31, 2011 at 8:23 PM

"You don't have to change to another plan and no one else does. The Affordable Care Act won't affect you at all."

I don't believe that's correct. I believe Obamacare does away with the HSA/high deductible option since it doesn't meet the government standard. Moreover, approximately 700 plans have had to be exempted (so far) from the provisions of Obamacare because they don't meet the standards either. Those exemptions won't last forever, and when they expire, lots of people will lose their current health insurance. Obama's promise that people won't lose their current insurance is a promise that has proven empty.

Posted by: bilben on January 31, 2011 at 8:18 PM

"Have the conservatives who are hailing this decision stopped to consider that, if this decision is a correct statement of the law, then privatization of Social Security is also unconstitutional? After all, if you can't force people to buy insurance, then you can't force them to save."

That's a good question, but I don't think Social Security privatization would need to be compulsory. I think privatization would take the form of allowing people to opt out on their own volition and invest their own retirement money as they please, much as they do with 401k's now. There would have to be some sort of federally guaranteed insurance to cover them if they lose everything, however.

I don't believe that's correct. I believe Obamacare does away with the HSA/high deductible option since it doesn't meet the government standard.

You believe wrong:

Look closely at the standards for coverage in the insurance exchanges: The minimal, or bronze, insurance option allows out-of-pocket spending of up to $12,500 for a family of four. The actuarial value is 60 percent, which means, very roughly, that the plan only covers about 60 percent of the average person's medical bills. Those are some pretty high deductibles! I haven't made the apples-to-apples comparison and I don't know anybody who has, but I'm pretty sure the overall exposure is comparable to what you get in a Health Savings Account[...]

Now, the Affordable Care Act does mitigate the effect of high cost sharing in a few crucial ways. Under the law, even the bronze plans will include the benefits in the basic, government-defined package -- with no annual or lifetime limits on total claims paid. That's a vast improvement over the present individual market, in which policies can have huge, hidden gaps that leave unsuspecting consumers paying bills they'd assumed were covered.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/82048/if-republicans-are-serious-health-care

The problem with mandated insurance is that it is always larded up with Democrats favorite hobby horse, like acupuncture and mental health coverage and other favorites like chiropractic. A plain vanilla catastrophic coverage plan would cost young people very little. The estimates of the cost of care of the uninsured have been grossly inflated.

I didn't like operating on the uninsured (mostly illegals) but that was better than what you folks have in mind. I think Obamacare will mostly be repealed or defunded but, if it goes into effect, watch for huge shifts in doctors' practice patterns. I don't think you will like it.

Oh, and I'm tired of your sockpuppets posting under my name. The moderators should stop it as they can see the ISP.

I've never used my la-di-da mental health coverage and my professional and personal life turned out just fine. I'd have saved a lot of money I could have used for defense and divorce lawyers if I hadn't paid for that coverage.

Yes, it's so inexpensive 50 million people are uninsured.

See, there goes someone postlng under my name agaln. Mods, who is thls man's lnternet servlce provlder? I demand to know.

Posted by: facts, not belief on January 31, 2011 at 9:16 PM

First off, let's acknowledge the stated preference of Obama and most of his backers in converting the US health care industry to single payer. As most of us know, the reason why Congress did not pass single payer is that there was no support for health care run by the same organization that runs the IRS, the MVA, and the Post Office.

That said, the provisions of Obamacare have to be analyzed carefully with regard to how the ultimate aims of those who formulated it might be achieved by administrative fiat rather than through straightforward legislation. A Trojan Horse, if you will.

The analyses I have read indicate that standards for the high deductible component of the HSA/HDHP are arbitrary and fluid, and can be changed at the sole discretion of the HHS Administrator. Thus, Obamacare can be said to not directly eliminate HSA's, but it puts the government in the position to eliminate them any time it wants to, without brake. That's a distinction without a difference.

As we have already seen, over 700 private health plans have already received waivers, some have been arbitrarily turned down (i.e., nobody knows why they were turned down for waivers). The limits you cite can be changed at any time without recourse by those affected, and those with authority to make these changes have already stated their desire to do so.

What you have demonstrated is plausible deniability. Although you may show that the HSA option is not directly outlawed, it's obvious that they can be under Obamacare at any time, and those who would have the power to do so have the means. Nice try, though, on both theirs and your part.

Although you may show that the HSA option is not directly outlawed, it's obvious that they can be under Obamacare at any time, and those who would have the power to do so have the means. Nice try, though, on both theirs and your part.

Attaboy. Never admit you made a mistake. That's a philosophy that's served me well.

Hey, did you'll hear Ayn Rand took Medicare to treat her lung cancer? Who'dathunkit? -Kevo

Ayn Rand, goddamn commie freeloader! She needs to learn it's a tuff world and she can be killed!

Thinks she's gonna live ferever, goddamn commie peacenik. . .

I wonder what John Galt would say about the old broad taking the dole? -Kevo

prrrplexed, The analyses I have read indicate that standards for the high deductible component of the HSA/HDHP are arbitrary and fluid, and can be changed at the sole discretion of the HHS Administrator.

And that's different from your present insurance policy because --you can call your congressman and complain about it?

And if your argument is that a particular kind of policy 'may' be outlawed that is to presume a worst case scenario must be the only reasonable outcome. Like the 1% doctrine it's just paranoiac delusion.

I think my favorite uninformed comment so far (and it is a tough one to call) has to be from Perplexed arguing in favor of doing away with Social Security: "I think privatization would take the form of allowing people to opt out on their own volition and invest their own retirement money as they please, much as they do with 401k's now. There would have to be some sort of federally guaranteed insurance to cover them if they lose everything, however."

In case you are too busy reading Atlas Shruggded yet again to understand, let me explain it to you in simple terms. We already have federally guaranteed insurance to help people if they lose everything. It is called Social Security. It is an insurance program. It is fully funded for many decades to come.

The juveniles are still trying to argue via sockpuppet. All it does is close your minds even more to other viewpoints. You will lose the Supreme Court decision as the Commerce clause will not stretch that far. It might be time to think of alternatives. I have previously discussed and recommended the French system, which is almost the opposite of Obamacare. The result of that attempt to discuss and debate was anger and I was banned for a while.

You look foolish for tolerating the adolescent behavior but, since we don't agree, go for it !

Because the Constitution is so old, it is written in the "old-timey" language of people of more than one century ago, which leads many modern people to get confused and frustrated by it. "What is this stupid boring thing?" they will ask, then go back to playing Super Mario Cart. These modern people could not be any more wrong, because hidden underneath all the "so-called" confusing words is an exciting story with twists and turns everywhere. Fortunately, and most importantly, the Founding Fathers also invented the Supreme Court which does a good job of translating the Constitution into modern words and juxtaposing them for all of us, the American people of the United States.

Posted by: BuckyThePony on January 31, 2011 at 10:47 PM

"It is fully funded for many decades to come."

Oh that's a relief. Now I don't have to listen to all those prominent economists who claim that Social Security is $30 trillion in the hole. I also don't have to worry about the $45 billion yearly deficit it is running this year, many years ahead of the previously published alarming schedul. I have an anonymous internet blogger citing no sources saying Social Security is just fine, in fact it's fully funded for many decades to come! You've really put that issue to rest. Thanks.

Although you may show that the HSA option is not directly outlawed

In fact I did, and consequently refuted the entire basis of your complaint and ensuing arguments on this thread.

Had you been in possession of the fundamental knowledge of this issue necessary to understanding it prior to arguing about it you wouldn't have been shown up; nor would you feel compelled to resort to silly semantic gymnastics and arguments based on conspiracy theories to try and save face.

By the way: you're welcome for our efforts to provide you with cheaper access to the same quality health care you now posses and for crucial consumer protections that would keep you from being denied health care at the whim of a for-profit insurer. Let's hope for your sake that these protections survive activist judges and partisan politics.

Okay, I've had a few so I'll be honest. I wasn't really banned for temporarily approving of the French healthcare system in between disapproving of it. I was banned because I came on here one night loaded to the gills and had a spectacular screaming meltdown.

I didn't remember it the next morning but I'm told it was quite a show. Mea culpa, not that any of today's liberals have had classical Greek. Learning dead languages is too hard on their "self esteem," I guess.

And by the way, I have never banned anyone from my own blog. I encourage open and frank dialogue there at all times.

Posted by: facts, not beliefs on January 31, 2011 at 11:00 PM

"By the way: you're welcome for our efforts to provide you with cheaper access to the same quality health care you now posses and for crucial consumer protections that would keep you from being denied health care at the whim of a for-profit insurer. Let's hope for your sake that these protections survive activist judges and partisan politics."

The thing is, I don't think you have provided me or anyone else with anything at all. I pay for my own insurance now, and I don't need the dubious benefits of your "help", and I didn't ask for it. You and your ilk have foisted, through threats, bribes, and coercion, an unconstitutional law which vastly expands the power of government at the expense of individual liberty. You are a phony, my friend, a thief with a pen, seeking to foist your "help" on the entire country whether they asked for it or not. Go sell your nonsense to someone that's stupid enough to believe it, because you've been identified here.

Posted by: facts, not beliefs on January 31, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Oh, and by the way, I can see why you lost it here.

We all know Obama, Pelosi, and Reid would all have preferred to have forced single payer on everyone, but didn't have the votes for it. So instead, they voted this Trojan Horse of a Bill, that no-one has read, and few people understand. And even now, hundreds of waivers from its provisions have been issued, and insurance rates are rising, and the Sebelius is threatening companies that complain about its provisions. And you say it's all for our own good, and don't worry that it gives the Obama Administration the ability to outlaw HSA's, after all, they haven't said they want to DO THAT YET, doncha know!

Obama campaigned against the individual mandate, did you know that? And the first thing he rammed through Congress was exactly that? He and you are both liars, my friend, and not to be trusted for a minute.

You folks lie all day long, even to yourselves. But you're not fooling anyone.

So, to recap: I want to use the healthcare insurance risk pool when I need it and avoid it when I don't, and still have full benefits when I get sick.

I want the freedom to invest my retirement money however I please and the security of having the government bail me out when I fail.

I love privatizing benefits just for me, and socializing my risk to all of you.

Posted by: Perpiexed and Amused on January 31, 2011 at 11:35 PM

"So, to recap: I want to use the healthcare insurance risk pool when I need it and avoid it when I don't, and still have full benefits when I get sick. "

Perhaps you could explain this comment. I have my own insurance, and I pay for it. What am I avoiding?

"I want the freedom to invest my retirement money however I please and the security of having the government bail me out when I fail. "

I didn't say bailout. My proposal was that everyone who opted out of Social Security would be able to invest their own money, but would have to pay to insure what they invested. No bailout requested, purely pay as you go. Was that not clear to you? Do you understand it now?

So instead, they voted this Trojan Horse of a Bill

Funny Trojan Horse, given that the essence of this bill was largely drawn from the Republican proposals for health care reform from the early 1990's.

that no-one has read

Seriously, are you just an idiot? The bill is online. Plenty of people have read it, including me.

and few people understand

Uh no, it's quite understandable. So understandable, in fact, that some of it's earliest provisions have been enacted already. Perhaps you're just not very bright.

Obama campaigned against the individual mandate, did you know that?

Wait, do you mean to tell me that a politician campaigned on a certain position but later modified that position? And that modification had to do with compromises with Congress and two parties? Stop the presses!

Also: the mandate was taken directly from the Republican plan that was a response to Hillarycare. Republican congressmen supported it and even took credit for it until it became politically unfeasible. Ironic, given that the idea was likely an overture meant to win them over.

He and you are both liars, my friend

Oh suck me, and take your puerile projection elsewhere. YOU just lied and got caught about your HSA being taken away. Just now! Hello?

Time for your nappy, I think.

Posted by: facts, not beliefs on January 31, 2011 at 11:56 PM

"Adjusted" his position? GMAFB.

Also, with regard to your "but we're not proposing to eliminate HSA's NOW, so you're wrong!" argument, here's the rebuttal:

"AHIP reports that 10 million Americans were enrolled in HSA/HDHP plans at the start of this year. That’s a 25% increase over January 2009 levels and a 64% jump in the last two years. Today, more than one of every 10 newly purchased health plans are HSA/HDHP plans.

Unfortunately, Obamacare threatens to render HSA/HDHP plans a thing of the past. It’s a regulatory thing. It all depends on how the Department of Health and Human Services decides to calculate the actuarial value of HDHPs. According to Roy Ramthun of HSA Consulting, if HHS opts not to “count” contributions to HSAs as part of the actuarial value, then “HDHPs, many of which have actuarial values below 60 percent (or whatever the final standard becomes) based on the insurance coverage alone, could no longer be sold.”

Will HSA contributions be included in these calculations? HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will be The Decider on that one. If she rules “no,” then high-deductible health plans including HSAs will no longer be viable… and you can kiss such plans good-bye."

Posted by: facts, not beliefs on January 31, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Oh, and given your apparent willingness to endorse virtually any position of Obama's, including 180 degree turnabouts, as "adjustments to positions", I think your untrustworthiness is pretty firmly established. That's the bitch about having no principles. You get id'd pretty quick.

So, the answer is, does Obamacare outlaw HSA's outright? Apparently not. Does it give Obama the ability to outlaw them anytime he wants? Uh, yeah it does. So you have a point, but it's meaningless. And given that Obama has already declared that he wants single payer, and demonstrated that his word is no good (it being subject to change at any time due to political considerations), well...

And I'm betting you're smart enough to know all this, and are simply clouding the issue with phony arguments, in order to mislead...yeah, that lying.

Perplexed satire: I love privatizing benefits just for me, and socializing my risk to all of you.

Yes. That is what Republicanism is all about.

All of his objections are vivid imaginings of what might happen if he jumped out the first window he came to, usually the window itself is imaginary.

Perplexed reasoning applied to real world scenario:

"Let's see, it says, bake for 15 minutes at 400 degrees. hmmm. I know! I'll bake it for 5 minutes at 5000 degrees, and then Tommy Liberace will stop calling me a faggot!"

Posted by: cld on February 1, 2011 at 12:17 AM

"Perplexed satire: I love privatizing benefits just for me, and socializing my risk to all of you.

Yes. That is what Republicanism is all about."

That's a fascinating comment. Could you elaborate? In what ways do Republicans, and only Republicans, seek to privatize profit and socialize risk? Can you define a Republican, and why only Republicans do this? I really want to know.

So Obama didn't have the votes for his preferred policy option and opts for something that isn't perfect but can get passed. For that he is untrustworthy and a liar? I'm glad you've exposed yourself as an idealogue so we dispense with trying to have a reasonable conversation.

According to Roy Ramthun of HSA Consulting, if HHS opts not to “count” contributions to HSAs as part of the actuarial value, then “HDHPs, many of which have actuarial values below 60 percent (or whatever the final standard becomes) based on the insurance coverage alone, could no longer be sold.”

Let's look at the context of these remarks to see what old Roy really has to say about the matter, him being the expert and all:

The health care reform legislation approved by the 111th Congress (H.R.3590, now Public Law 111-148, as amended by the budget reconciliation bill, H.R.4872, now P.L. 111-152) will likely have a modest impact on consumer-driven health plans and their associated health care accounts (i.e., FSAs, HRAs, and HSAs). Earlier proposals that would have eliminated some of these options...did not survive the legislative process.

http://hsaconsultingservices.com/wp-content/Health-Reform-Impact-on-CDHPs-041210.pdf

Funny, you characterized his remarks quite differently. Further, Ramthum says:

It is also not clear whether a plan’s actuarial value would include employer or individual contributions made to the individual’s HSA. The final legislation requires the Secretary of HHS to issue regulations on this matter. Based on an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, it would appear that the Secretary should conclude that HSA contributions must be included.

It appears that the sky is not falling.

So, the answer is, does Obamacare outlaw HSA's outright? Apparently not.

Yep, that's the part that you lied about. I'm curious, is it your hatred of Obama that drives you to tell untruths?

Yes, I know it's hard to be a mule in the time of the automobile, particularly when you hate that tyrant Henry Ford. As for me, I'd rather not have the situation where the U.S. pays 25% or so MORE in total health care expenditures as a percentage of GDP than the country with only the next highest costs (and spends twice as much as some) while not enjoying the universal access, protections, or even health outcomes enjoyed by other nations because of the confluence of both personal and corporate greed in this country.

But then again, I'm not stupid.

I don't think this question has been answered yet.

Would a acceptable compromise be that those who decide not to buy insurance have to sign an irrevocable oath stating that if they got ill or injured, the medical facility would be required to put them out on the curb to die? - john sherman @ 17:28

I think this is saying; can a bulletproof (pun unintended) piece of boilerplate be concocted to prevent health care providers from doing a thing (preventing any billable hours and hijacking laws that require ERs to do sOmEtHiNg). It isn't a stretch to look around at the world we are thrust into and conclude we are living in the best of times.

Steve, Nukes are required to purchase insurance as part of their license to operate the facility - a quid pro quo if you will. If they chose not to operate the facility, the don't have to buy insurance. This is much like the car insurance example - if you chose not to drive, you need not buy insurance.

There is no choice offered under this current healthcare mandate, and that is the problem.

Dear Perplexed,

Republicans believe that no amount of corporate welfare is too much, but any social benefit for actual humans is corruption.

Republicans think taxes are wrong, unless someone else is paying them.

Republicans think laws and regulations should be more like 'voluntary guidelines', while everyone else gets a death sentence for jay walking.

A Republicans' first thought in any policy is to first ask how they can soak money out of it for corporations (which we call 'business interests' because that makes them sound more human), or 'private contractors'.

or to clearly define how they can use it to hurt people because

b) it's fun to piously pretend hurting them is good for them and watch a lot of idiots agree, or c) that's what government is for because that way people will hate the government and let us destroy it so nothing can prevent us from hurting people all we want, because it's good for them.

But you know that, that's why you're here.

There is no choice offered under this current healthcare mandate, and that is the problem.

That's because if you choose to free ride on the system by not buying insurance, the health care system can't choose to refuse, at the very least, emergency care. It's very simple.

Objection, Concerned, asked and answered (ad nauseum)...

Posted by: Mike Lamb on February 1, 2011 at 12:43 AM

"So Obama didn't have the votes for his preferred policy option and opts for something that isn't perfect but can get passed. For that he is untrustworthy and a liar?"

No Mike, apparently you have not been paying attention, please try to do so in the future. I said Obama is untrustworthy and a liar because he campaigned against the Individual Mandate. Then, as one of his first acts as President, assisted in ramming through Congress with threats, bribes, coercion, and extralegal maneuverings, exactly that. That is why he is untrustworth and a liar.

Posted by: Gregory on February 1, 2011 at 8:23 AM

"That's because if you choose to free ride on the system by not buying insurance, the health care system can't choose to refuse, at the very least, emergency care. It's very simple."

Which, as we have discussed before in this thread, is a problem for those who want to make it illegal for hospitals not to treat those who can't pay. it does NOT justify yet another expansion of government power to fix the problems created by the previous expansion of government power.

Posted by: facts, not beliefs on February 1, 2011

Your points have already been addressed. In the originally written Bill, the Democrats quashed HSA's. To make it more palatable, they changed that such that they had the unilateral power to quash them at any time. Your ramblings aside, that is the basic heart of the matter. Do we trust Obama not to order them quashed in the future? You would like us to, no doubt. Given that you admit that his positions are subject to complete reversals as politics dictate, I'd feel more comfortable that he did not have that power.

"But then again, I'm not stupid."

No, you're not stupid. You and your ilk are actually pretty clever and devious. You want a single payer, and you'll do and say pretty much anything to get there, no matter how many lies, bribes, and threats you have to make. That's why people like me don't trust you, and don't want you in charge of our health care.

No, you're not stupid. You and your ilk are actually pretty clever and devious. You want a single payer, and you'll do and say pretty much anything to get there, no matter how many lies, bribes, and threats you have to make. That's why people like me don't trust you, and don't want you in charge of our health care.

Yeah, wanting to help people who can't afford it is such a sinister motive.

This Perplexed and Amused person has by now clearly demonstrated that he has a specific personality disorder. Free key chain to the first person who can correctly guess what it is. Only one entry per person, please.

I would like Continually perplexed and Easily amused to point to how exactly it is that looking out for the welfare of its own citizens is outside the scop of the american government. Disband all your military, then.

The Doctor is In! said: "This Perplexed and Amused person has by now clearly demonstrated that he has a specific personality disorder. Free key chain to the first person who can correctly guess what it is. Only one entry per person, please."

Randian Sociopathy... but I repeat myself.

No, HMDK, this is an actual medical condition, and a significant one. You have wasted your guess, my friend.

I've seen the argument, including IIRC in WaMo comments, that the "mandate" in ACA isn't really like a law forcing one to do something. Instead of a statutory penalty for failure to purchase something, you are in effect (at least) denied a tax break, or it could be argued you are taxed for not doing the required act. (To what extent, true?) Since there aren't specific Constitutional provisions against taxation preference based on personal actions (and have been such tax features for decades), it's hard to call the so-called "mandate" the equivalent of the fine for not buying auto insurance (and maybe that isn't either, most places?) Maybe we need some clarification over what is a "fine" and what is effectively a tax on doing or not doing X.

Another point: I'm not so sure we even have to invoke interstate commerce. If we take COTUS Section 8 - to levy taxes for defense and the general welfare - and take heed of the final clause about Congress being able to pass legislation enabling that end, then to the extent that ACA can be considered "taxation" it is taxing for GW and not a specific enumerated regulatory power. Furthermore, from Amendment 9 we are told of "unenumerated rights" - which since not enumerated are subject to our later "discovery". If we claim that access to health care is a proper UR, then it seems credible that Congress can do what is needed (within limitations defined by the forbidden) to enable satisfaction of that right.

Note also that if we'd gone for single payer or at least more of public option, those would have had no constitutionality problems (at all, for rational people) since those are services provided through tax (in some sense) revenues. Ironically it was Obama trying to "accommodate" conservatives and the business establishment ("not put health insurance companies out of business" - and I'm not saying we should myself, just pointing out the irony here) that led to the mandate to buy from private companies instead, which is the very issue that causes conservatives problems. Maybe the latter should have thought that through.

In any case Judge Roger Vinson might be asked why he didn't consider these distinctions, if indeed he didn't?

With all the sockpuppets, trying to discuss a subject with you folks is like arguing with a child. Not worth it.

I'll come back tonight and share my wisdom. You punks are too irrational to talk to when I'm sober.

[sockpuppeting will be summarily deleted - mod.]

You simply can't square constitutional, limited government with the Obama Administration's idea of forcing everyone to buy health insurance, or any other product or service.

Funny, George Washington didn't have any trouble with it.

The Constitution establishes a framework of how the government exists and how it relates to the citizens.

It's scale isn't addressed anywhere.

Argh, copy/paste fail.

This George Washington has no problem signing a law forcing citizens to buy a product.

As usual, the conservative cult's beliefs don't stand up to reality.

[sockpuppeting will be summarily deleted -- mod.]

The Constitution establishes a framework of limited government in order to protect our liberty

Which is why anti-war protesters have been placed on no-fly lists, marijuana is illegal and there is no porn on network television.

Judge Vinson has brought us back to basics and reminded us that we do not live in a society where our lives are ordered by bureaucrats in Washington D.C.

Yes, his ruling is a stark reminder that they are in fact ordered by for-profit insurance companies who are able on a whim to exclude any American citizen who's ever been sick from ever being insured for care again. Thank god we will soon be free from the tyranny of health, medicine and fiscal well-being.

That's why people like me don't trust you

And when Perplexed says "people like me," he really does mean people plural--the dozens of shifting handles he's posting under in his frothing obsessive vicious homophobic instability. There is something very, very wrong with this guy's mind.

Perplexed...what "threats", "coercion" or "extralegal maneuvering"? That's just baseless projection. Also, when is proposing legislation, voting on said legislation and signing the legislation into law "ramming" something through Congress?

Stated otherwise, Obama is untrustworthy and a liar based on nothing more than your subjective interpretation of non-existent events.

Even more succinctly--you always believed he was a liar irrespective of your spin on reality.

Note that the conservative claim that the PPACA is the first time the government mandated purchasing a product is false:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/25/militia
>
As every fervent advocate of gun rights ought to know, however, that argument suffers from a glaring historical flaw. Only a few years after the nation's Founding Fathers ratified the Constitution, Congress approved the Militia Act of 1792, which was duly signed by George Washington, then the president and commander in chief.

Establishing state militias and a national standard for their operation, the Militia Act explicitly required every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45, with a few occupational exceptions, to "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder.."
>