Florida Federal judge declares Obama Care unconstitutional

[Rita]

.
Here is Kaiser?s video explainer on the individual mandate to help understand what the court ruling in Florida is about.
Individual Requirement - Kaiser Health Reform


.

 

[poppy]

Fox News geography from 2009

 

[GoodWitch58]

Understood. I don't dispute that. I'm not saying the judge didn't rule to throw the whole law out. I'm simply saying what the judge did- that his ruling was that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. If the mandate wasn't in there he wouldn't have ruled the rest of it unconstitutional. A semantic difference? Perhaps. But a difference nonetheless.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."

Okay. Thanks for clarifying...

 

[idlewind]

I'd like to see a real conservative speak against an action by the sort of 'activist judge' they usually set up as the perfect strawman.

The judge was not exhibiting "activist" tendencies but was illustrating how to properly interpret the Constitution. Striking down a law that exceeds the authority of the central government is a proper use of judicial oversight. Upholding laws that learly exceed what the document allows is not.

 

[idlewind]

I'd like to see a real conservative.

Don't look in Washington or Tallahassee or DeFuniak Springs or Shalimar government buildings then.

 

[30ashopper]

Geo, I am not a lawyer, although I have worked for many of them, and I did stay in a Holiday Express once...when the ruling says the law is not severable, it means it can not be separated...so, you have it all or you have nothing...but remember this is just another opinion and probably is full of loopholes that will show up on appeal...and I do belive it will eventually be before the Supremes.

This was the fault of the authors, apparently they did not to place a severability clause in the bill. If one part of it is ruled unconstitutional, the whole thing goes with it. One of the bills had this at one point, but it never ended up in the final bill that passed.

 

[30ashopper]

Fall back position: try and save the rest if the mandate falls

With health reform in legal limbo, Dems consider their options - The Hill's Healthwatch

 

[idlewind]

Fall back position: try and save the rest if the mandate falls

With health reform in legal limbo, Dems consider their options - The Hill's Healthwatch

A start would be meaningful tort reform combined with a prohibition on excluding pre-existing illnesses and canceling those who become sick.

Everyone knows the system is broke, how to fix it is the rub.

 

[BeachSiO2]

OK: We all pay for the vast amount of weapon systems that the US invests in, the vast amount of interstate highway system the US invests in, whether anyone wants to have the biggest weapon system in the world, or whether a person even owns a car to drive on the interstate highway system. Shall I go on about the number of government systems that I have to pay for that I don't use?

You do realize that all of those you pointed out are paid through a single payer system, not an individual mandate, right? That was the Progressive Left's preference but not the bill that was passed.

I don't disagree that our taxes are used to pay for systems that we may or may not use, but I don't personally write Halliburton a check every month like I do Blue Cross Blue Shield. I am still looking for another similar service provided by private companies that I am required to pay for directly (not through taxes) so that others can receive a similar service. I have yet to find one.

 

[30A Skunkape]

A quick blurb about tort reform. New Medicare requirements may make it much less appealing for plaintiff's attorneys to sue on behalf of patient's with borderline cases. This is due to a new Medicare requirement that a portion of any financial award given to a plaintiff be set aside for future medical expenses, esentially a trust fund that nobody can ever touch that is devoted to paying for future medical bills related to the diagnosis that resulted in a plaintiff winning a judgement. The rub is that Medicare does not give concrete guidelines as to HOW MUCH money should be set aside...from the legalistas I have discussed this with, the concern is that a plaintiff could sue their lawyer for legal malpractice years down the road if the original attorney did not set aside enough money in the trust and Medicare refuses to pay for ongoing treatment. Kind of ironic, isn't it?