Export thread

Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Virginia Challenge to Health Care Law - FoxNews.com

Perhaps the people voted into office should actually read the stuff they put in there?
Discuss.

Welllllllll... uh... I think this was kind of expected, legal challenges that is. I don't know enough about the legal system to know if it means that this can't be overturned, but I don't expect the administration to just drop the issue.

I guess. Keep suing until you get your way.

Everyone on both sides has already accepted that this will be appealed until the Supreme Court has to decide it. Yay.

Krisken said:

I guess. Keep suing until you get your way.

Click to expand...

Really? Agree with them or not isn't it a good thing for states have the opportunity to challenge stuff? I mean, isn't that more of a good use of the judicial system? Having the courts look into the constitutionality of something seems like more of what they were intended for rather than suing McDonalds for making you fat. If congress passed a bill banning abortion (or pick whatever liberal issue considered important) in all states wouldn't you want your state to have the right to challenge that?

Don't be an ass, I didn't say any of that.

How many times in that state do they have to sue before it is considered settled?

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.

Click to expand...

THAT is why I wrote what I wrote.

Krisken said:

Don't be an ass, I didn't say any of that.

Click to expand...

Damn dude. I was just asking a question and in no way trying to "be an ass". Go have a beer and calm the hell down.

For the record, sorry I misunderstood what you were talking about. Your post sounded like you were challenging the whole idea of states being able to sue.

Sorry. I really have to stop assuming you're trying to be confrontational. I should know that isn't really your style.
I have no problem with a state challenging something they really think is unconstitutional. I think challenging it over and over again until you find someone to agree with you is asinine.

Krisken said:

Sorry. I really have to stop assuming you're trying to be confrontational. I should know that isn't really your style.
I have no problem with a state challenging something they really think is unconstitutional. I think challenging it over and over again until you find someone to agree with you is asinine.

Click to expand...

Well... luckily you could sue upward (depending on the case I guess) until it does reach a stopping point.

Krisken said:

Sorry. I really have to stop assuming you're trying to be confrontational. I should know that isn't really your style.
I have no problem with a state challenging something they really think is unconstitutional. I think challenging it over and over again until you find someone to agree with you is asinine.

Click to expand...

Don't feel too bad, I read Espy's post as confrontational as well.

I also agree that people in this country seem to have the "sue until you win" mentality. It's on both sides for any number of issues. This is just the latest example.

Tress said:

Don't feel too bad, I read Espy's post as confrontational as well.

Click to expand...

Well yes, technically it is confrontational. He made a post and I responded to it by asking a question. So yes, I "confronted" him. I didn't use angry or combative language, I merely misread a vague post and got his meaning wrong.
Shocking, I know.
It seemed like an odd stance for Krisken, so I questioned it, but I probably should have asked him what he meant. That was my fault. Sorry Krisken.

But seriously, not every question is an attack around here folks. Sometimes a question is just a question. Except when it's not.

I don't think anybody really expected this not to happen. It was a given that it was going to be a great big batch of "it's unconstitutional" "no it's not" "yes it is" "no it's not" along party lines (the two judges that said "it's not unconstitutional" were apparently appointed by democrats whereas the one that has said "it is unconstitutional" was appointed by a republican - Shrub, as noted in the article) until the supreme court puts it to rest. Just goes to show you that justice isn't blind nor impartial.

It's interesting that Obama compares it to auto insurance:

I feel that it was rushed and too much compromise was given to it.

Offering someone something they weren't asking for is not compromise.

Very nice, short, article that compares the two rulings (one judges saying it's unconstitutional, the other saying that it's within the commerce powers of congress) and then goes on to describe the case that defines the power congress has to regulate commerce. It's this case that allows congress to regulate personal transactions if they determine that it is for the public good.

Judges Have Different Interpretations of Health-Care Law - WSJ.com

Both sides are going to take this to the supreme court, regardless of how the lower judges rule. The question is how will the supreme court rule:

A) Congress does not have the power to force people into a health care transaction
B) The public good is best served if everyone is forced into this transaction

I hope they set a high bar for "best served" because even if an eventual healthcare system requires payment into it, I don't think that this particular implementation is significantly better than our current system.

The difference between Auto Insurance and Health Insurance is you can opt out by not having an auto....

I always wonder why not just go with "blanket" service like SS and medicare. I know that both system really need some serious overhaul, but the idea of the systems are pretty good.

So... why not extend the whole system for the population (essentially making it national base healthcare system) but you can get "extended" services via normal insurance company or supplement. We already pay a portion to SS and medicare anyway so why not expand it to all citizens?

Chibibar said:

I always wonder why not just go with "blanket" service like SS and medicare. I know that both system really need some serious overhaul, but the idea of the systems are pretty good.

So... why not extend the whole system for the population (essentially making it national base healthcare system) but you can get "extended" services via normal insurance company or supplement. We already pay a portion to SS and medicare anyway so why not expand it to all citizens?

Click to expand...

Because they're bankrupt at best and a government-sanctioned ponzi scheme at worst.

Yeah... I don't think anyone here wants to use Social Security as a "good" example of government services...

Fun Size said:

Everyone on both sides has already accepted that this will be appealed until the Supreme Court has to decide it. Yay.

Click to expand...

Bork is not amused by this....