13 captures
01 Feb 2011 - 22 Dec 2014
About this capture
Sign In
Judge strikes down healthcare reform law
  Comments (249)  
  Social Stream  (What's this?)  
MerkMan wrote:
One more nail in the unconstitutional overreaching arrogance of the Democratic party and it Union Cronies. Come on Supremes!
Put this well intentioned but criminal legislation in the grave, before it bankrupts all of us, financially as well as culturally.
Jan 31, 2011 3:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DPender wrote:
Some sanity still left in this country.
Jan 31, 2011 3:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
outspoken wrote:
I applaud this decision. Hopefully the Supreme Court will uphold it. However, I’m sure Democrats in Washington will continue to spit in the face of the taxpayers and trample the Constitution as they push their socialist agenda to the limit.
Jan 31, 2011 3:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jogger1947 wrote:
Yes! America lives to see another day. Obubba and his Chicago cronies and band of crooks have not destroyed her yet.
Jan 31, 2011 3:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
spares wrote:
The sance that helthy peple MUST buy something they do not need not do not want is leagal and ethical is such a farse.
FREEDOM demands that this law be defeated and if there is truly good things like pre existing conditions, etc that are really needed, then the congress should only pass that part as law and leave the rest of us to decide what if anything we need to buy, period.
Jan 31, 2011 3:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Cogs wrote:
I wonder who the incompetant Democrat lawyer was who failed to write the bill as “severable”. That guy must be looking for work.
Jan 31, 2011 3:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MarjoJimbo wrote:
Maybe there still is hope.
Jan 31, 2011 3:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ultraphoenix wrote:
…furthermore, it is unconstitutional to enact a law, and then grant exemptions to various organizations and special interest groups.
Jan 31, 2011 3:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BarryBinInhalin wrote:
Another vote for individual liberty. No one – especially the federal Governent – can ‘make’ you buy something under penalty of law.
Jan 31, 2011 3:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Redford wrote:
A stake in the heart of Dracula. Frankenstein lurches home to Chicago to seek his makers.
Jan 31, 2011 3:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
spares wrote:
So I take it the law is voided imediately and can only be resurected if the Supreme Court overturns the ruling?
Jan 31, 2011 3:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
aAGMines wrote:
President Obama told Egypt’s MuBarak that he should listen and be responsive to his people, but Presdinet obama and teh democratic Party did not do that whne they passed such a horrible, bad, and terrible Health Care Law that over 60% 0f the American people were against passing, but they did it anyway.
Today Egypt is in the middle of a revolution, America used the Power of elections to remove Democrats from Office that sponsored and passed this illegal, unconsitutional, and outright mistaken law for the glory of their egos, and abandonment of what is best for the people.
God Bless America!
Jan 31, 2011 3:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JayVee22 wrote:
A blow for freedom!
Jan 31, 2011 3:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
McGehee wrote:
Obama’s court-packing scheme announced in 5… 4… 3…
Jan 31, 2011 3:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
livingfortruth wrote:
So now we wait for the supreme court. This will lessen the workload for the House to bring our out of control spending into check. What socialists do not understand is that piece of paper that as written a couple of centuries ago is the cornerstone of law here in the United States. The federal government is usurping powers that the states gave them, in a limited way. Maybe they will now get the hint of what we told them before ramming this piece of garbage legislation through. Most of the ones that did this are gone, (Good riddance Fiengold and Kagen) and more will be on the way out in less than 2 years.
Didn’t need Reid afterall.
Jan 31, 2011 3:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BornPolitical wrote:
Ronald Regan, the gift that just keeps on giving
Jan 31, 2011 3:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
commiehater wrote:
this is great news. I bet Obama is just fuming about that little thing we call a Constitution.
Maybe when he is booted out of office in 2012 he can shack up over in China, I heard it is more up his alley
Jan 31, 2011 3:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
FanDaElis wrote:
“… aims to expand health insurance to cover millions of uninsured Americans while also curbing costs.” That is a lie, I mean, that it will curb costs! The only reason the CBO scored it as such is because there were gimmicks inserted to distort the fact that the bill will actually increase costs and increase deficits!
Jan 31, 2011 3:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
porchhound wrote:
If this program is so beneficial then why is Obama giving WAIVERS to all his union buddies and those corporations who supported his election? HMMMMM????
Jan 31, 2011 4:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
StreaknRican wrote:
While I am not in favor of all the provision within the ObamaCare Act, there were some points I favored, such as the elimination of the pre-existing conditions clause which hits close to home my family. I also feared what the rest of the legislation would bring to bear. When politicians tell you that we need to pass the law to find out what’s in the law, well, that scares the heck out of me. What did they sneak in there that they don’t want you to know until its too late.
Jan 31, 2011 4:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sesails wrote:
Imagine that!
Jan 31, 2011 4:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bebgsurg wrote:
The law represents the liberal mind set that the gov’t must provide services to those who want them, can vote, but cannot pay for them. The taxpayers MUST pay for healthcare for those who can vote but cannot pay. Problem is that the NonPayingConsumers, when they get the free stuff, want more and more people join their ranks every year. This costs too much, so the gov’t has to cheapen the product (health care will get crappier) and more vigorously squeeze more money out of those who can pay. They also will of course waste a lot of money and divert a lot of money to those who can assure them of votes. So soon many people in the country who could afford reasonable health care if the gov’t stayed out of it, are now being forced to pay tons of money to the gov’t in exchange for crappy health care. Most of their $ goes to voters who do not take care of their health but spend all the Payors $ on their health care, in exchange for voting Democratic. The payors are being legally held up. It is called socialism and countries who get a full dose of this disease slide into tyranny or poverty or both. It is argued that Medicare is popular, but it is popular in the way that Bernie Madoff was popular before that awful day when he had to own up to his fraud.
Jan 31, 2011 4:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mpetnet wrote:
“Officials argue it is only by requiring healthy people to purchase policies that they can help pay for reforms, including a mandate that individuals with pre-existing medical conditions cannot be refused coverage.” –
So the logic here is people who do not want or need healthcare “healthy people” should be required to pay for something that is irrelevant to their life. I suppose everyone should have to have automobile insurance whether they drive or not, that way it is more affordable to everyone(the possiblilities are endless).
Jan 31, 2011 4:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DonW wrote:
Thank God that there is some sanity left in our courts. This was unconstitutional from the beginning. God Bless this judge.
Jan 31, 2011 4:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cjack72 wrote:
This is what happens when the uneducated liberal lunies elect a community organizer (pretending to be a constitutional expert from Harvard law school) as their leader and our president.
Obama has no clue when it comes to governing or leading our nation nor he has any clue understanding our constitution as he signed his signature ‘Obamacare’ legislation into law!
He’s very likely go down as the only president disregarding the law of our land though claiming to uphold it!
Jan 31, 2011 4:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jjd1965 wrote:
The biggest issue I have seen during the last two years dividing liberals and conservatives is their allegiance to the Constitution. Liberals seem totally short-sighted and Machiavellian: Whatever they need to do to get the result demanded by their ideology is OK. Forget whether it is Constitutional; it is obvious that they really don’t care. To them, the fact the the Constitution was written specifically to restrain the government because government has historically been the greatest threat to individual liberties is irrelevant. Hey libs: There are principles that transcend your desire for massive governmental interventions and redistribution of wealth. And if you were wiser, you would be thankful for them.
Jan 31, 2011 4:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jubal wrote:
While the ruling of the judge is correct and within the framework of the Constitution, The blatant bias and politicking of the author and Reuters is only too obvious in their flawed and incomplete description of the bill itself. Once again, Reuters shows itself to be a socialist-leaning organ of the leftist political machine.
Jan 31, 2011 4:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JackDaniels wrote:
I’m relieved that we finally have a judge that is willing to protect the rights of American people from this Obama power grab. Obama had the option to provide healthcare to those that didn’t have it, instead he endangered my health coverage along with every other American who isn’t on the list of exemptions, I’m not a union I guess.
This needs to be fast tracked to the Supreme Court so we can destory this “unbridled exercise of federal police powers”.
Jan 31, 2011 4:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DenisePA wrote:
Maybe it was left out for a reason and that reason maybe the public option. I don’t think the democrats thought they would lose the house or come so close to losing the senate,when they crafted this bill. They thought it was a slam dunk.
Jan 31, 2011 4:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Way to go Judge!!! Another win for the constitution
Jan 31, 2011 4:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
supersniffy wrote:
Jan 31, 2011 4:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DrBobNM wrote:
good thing this is not in Illinois. The supreme court there will overturn anything that remotely opposes the democratic machine (i.e. Rahm for mayor)
Jan 31, 2011 4:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
aPatriot wrote:
Since Obama has yet to produce his original long form birth certificate, the question remains whether or not he is constitutionally eligible to serve as President. Here is another theory…if he knows he is not elible to serve, then he is not a citizen and not under the US constitution and therefore not under any authority to conduct himself in matters relating to it. This does not excuse the Democrats who passed this monstrosity of government over-reach and interference. This healthcare “law” was rightly deemed unconstitutional today by Judge Vinson. It will go on the US Supreme Court. There we will all learn if the Constitution is still the law of the land. Here’s to State’s rights, The people’s rights and to preserving what makes the USA unique! FREEDOM!
Jan 31, 2011 4:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
coyotesx5 wrote:
Now we need to find a judge who will invalidate Obama’s inauguration.
A Certificate of Live Birth is an invalid form of proof of birth locale and the press KNOWS IT! Now we need some honest journalists to expose this fraud being perpetrated upon the American people and the world.
The countless number of Democratic judges that have denied standing to American citizens who took oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution makes it clear that the judiciary’s refusal to decide these Obama nativity cases based upon the merits is in and of itself a fraud being perpetrated upon the American citizenry. Obama was undoubtedly born in Kenya and the USA is in a state of sede vacante.
Jan 31, 2011 4:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cslagenhop wrote:
So you mean there is a limit to what the government can do to you? I thought the constitution was obsolete- maybe there is hope!
Jan 31, 2011 4:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
willp wrote:
The media always refers to 30 million uninsured.I believe that include the 15+ million illegals? They are not supposed to be covered according to Obama. Let Each State do for their citizen what their citizens wish about health care. Many states have pools which cover those with pre-existing conditions. Illinois for one and Texas for another. I do not know what happened to these pools now that Obamacare was passed.
Jan 31, 2011 4:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Kmbold wrote:
Hah! No more of your vile attempts to undo this nation. (Although judging from the videos on this website it is already far gone.)
Jan 31, 2011 4:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kentex1146 wrote:
I do disagree with the judge on a point. He says that it was a difficult decision to reach. In no way shape or form is it difficult to reach the conclusion that time after time, those in power are trampling on the constitution. Why wax over it. Get the rubber stamp out that says, “Unconstitutional” and use it.
Jan 31, 2011 4:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harlo wrote:
Thank God! I can’t wait for 2012 when we can get rid of these Socialists and Communists that call themselves Progressives.
Jan 31, 2011 4:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
swbuehler wrote:
Noble idea, wrong way to go about it. You can’t force anyone to purchase a product.
Jan 31, 2011 4:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BikerBen wrote:
It is unfortunately that the Senators and Congressmen who supported this monstrosity cannot be prosecuted for voting for it in spite of their oath of office whereby they solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Not only did they disregard the Constitution, they never even bothered to read the bill. What a disgusting show of anti-Americanism by the democrat congressmen and senators, many of them card-carrying members of the Democrat Socialists of America (DSA).
Jan 31, 2011 4:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Orpheus75 wrote:
finally, some sanity in this land of insanity! Hopefully it will reach all the way up to the Supreme Court. Not holding my breath on that one though.
Jan 31, 2011 4:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lspivak wrote:
I believe that we all realized that the ultimate determination for this law would be in the Supreme Court. While the make-up of Supreme Court appears to favor the Florida court there is no guarantee that this law will be struck down or broken in to separate pieces. We need to continue to pressure the Senate to bring the “Repeal Bill” up for a vote.
In the meantime we all need to continue to be vigilant and hold our legislators account for the choice they make. If we continue a multi-front assault on this horrible law we might just save ourselves from the turmoil that is currently underway in the Middle-East.
Jan 31, 2011 4:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
FTBranch wrote:
Thanks that some one understands and supports the constitution.
Obama go hid under a rock. That is where a bug like you should be.
Jan 31, 2011 4:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
waldob wrote:
Let’s get this to the Supreme court and get it over with and quit wasting money
Jan 31, 2011 4:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CrispusAttucks wrote:
Common sense prevails! Think of the terrible precedent that we would suffer if the government could mandate behavior amid threats of tax penalties.
Jan 31, 2011 4:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
murrietamike wrote:
The British Empire tried, The Southern slave traders tried, The Nazis tried, the Japanese tried, Al Qaida has tried. Now our own democrat party has tried but thankfully, America is too strong, too proud and too free to allow any force that reckons to destroy our way of life founded on the constitution to bring her down.
We will win this fight! Do not let anyone trample on our freedom!
Jan 31, 2011 4:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Deadman wrote:
Impeach the media!
Jan 31, 2011 4:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CapObvious wrote:
Two Fed judges found this law to be CONSTITUTIONAL a few months back. It is so obvious an unconstitutional measure even a child could figure it out.
That goes to show how some of our Fed judges are in league with the anti-American president.
Jan 31, 2011 4:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
psloyan wrote:
Wow you conservatives are getting crazier. That evil Obama – the nerve of him to want to give 40 million unfortunate, uninsured people healthcare. the nerve of him to stop insurance companies from denying for preexisting conditions. the nerve of him to stop $10,000 coverage caps so you can actually get treatment when you have cancer, and not worry about the expense. The nerve of him to want to stymie health care costs that are getting higher and higher each year. some of you need to travel a litte – every other western country has some form of universal health insurance for all people, expept us that is, and nicaragua and el salvador and mexico. nice to be associated with those countries. There is nothing socialist or evil about having health insurance. Use common sense, stop parotting Rush and Beck you tea party lemmings. By the way, no way the supreme court will overturn obama case. republicans tend to be against extreme judicial activism like this judge, cant have it both ways.
Jan 31, 2011 4:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xbrian wrote:
AN Elementary level education into the Constitution (and I mean that literally) would have told someone the ObamaCare bill was unconstitutional from the start.
That it ever passed is a damnation of those supposedly representing the People and the Constitution.
Jan 31, 2011 4:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Deadman wrote:
Impeach the media!
Jan 31, 2011 4:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RodeoTina wrote:
After my review of all 78 pages of Judge Vinson’s decision, he carefully weaves previous SCOTUS decisions, hence precedent as the basis of this decision. I don’t see how the Supremes’ can defer this one but we shall see. Well thought out as to form and well-constructed as to content Judge Vinson. Very well done indeed.
Jan 31, 2011 4:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheHistorian wrote:
This is some of the best news in modern American history.
Jan 31, 2011 4:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sparky222 wrote:
Freedom rings! This is the real Inconvenient Truth, the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the land and it was affirmed today.
I find it really scary though that we have 50 state governments, 534 senators/representatives and it comes down to a handful of judges as the only members of government that can tell this law is blatantly un-Constitutional! What will happen if they loose their sight!
Jan 31, 2011 4:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
johnchik wrote:
Let’s hope the Obama administration raises above ideology to stop the appeals process, sits down with congress to fashion a Health Care Law that is constitutional, neutral to all groups, meets the will of the people and is bi-partisan.
One can Hope for Change when it comes to the current Health Care Law.
Jan 31, 2011 4:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
toxic1222222 wrote:
Now, here is the bad news. Like most companies that didn’t opt out of the new healthcare rules, the insurance companies have already raised the rates. I don’t see them rolling back the rate increase. It will be a pain to get them to admit the increase was due to future anticipated costs. Class action anyone??
Jan 31, 2011 4:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
plainjane wrote:
I’ll be for whatever health care plan that Congress passes and the President signs that covers every person in this country that receives his pay check from my tax dollars. Don’t push this one off on everyone except Congressmen, their staffs, their favorite unions, etc.
Jan 31, 2011 4:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BestEver wrote:
“Administration officials insist it is constitutional and needed to stem huge projected increases in healthcare costs.” Constitutional is just an opinion, which it appears that the courts are consistently disagreeing with.
That the entire bill is “needed” and the implied ONLY way to decrease healthcare costs is a fallacy, as our current system is not about health, but about disease and sickness. what systemic changes are put forth by this bill? it is more of what we have that has gotten us into this mess – cheap calories, disconnect from our where our food comes from, behaviour which supports disease.
why do i feel like i’m being silly when i wonder how doing more of the same is change? at how human nature is being ignored? if someeone else is going to bail you out for all your mistakes (financially, like the banks, or dietarily, like “health” care) then who is rewarded?
Jan 31, 2011 4:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
pebbles14 wrote:
Wonder how Pollack and other far left liberal Marxists would react if a law was passed that required every citizen to buy a GUN. Bet you a billion bucks he and the rest of the Obamabots would do a 180 and scream that’s it’s unconstitutional for the feds to require such a purchase….
Remember Prohibition and just say repeal!
Jan 31, 2011 4:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AnneLethe wrote:
Hmm, that’s odd.
The original headline for this piece read:”Judge rules healthcare reform law unconstitutional.” and it’s been changed to read: “Judge strikes down healthcare reform law”.
Interesting, no?
Jan 31, 2011 4:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tampamom25 wrote:
It’s not a done deal yet, but this is another step toward repealing it. It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with it. The man who voted for this monstrosity should be removed from office from violating their promise to uphold and defend The Constitution. Most of them probably don’t even know what’s IN it…..
Jan 31, 2011 4:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
hoteltriano wrote:
good. obama can use his veto pen to sign autographs when he takes residence back in Chicago in January 2013.
Jan 31, 2011 4:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
roshambo wrote:
So, I’m wondering, all of you Republicants who want to repeal the healthcare laws set forth by the current administration, do you also want to repeal public schooling and requiring a drivers license and auto insurance in order to drive.
How about these fine examples you probably all use everyday, do you want them repealed too?
The New National banking system
The VA Hospital
The Post Office
Parks (national and city)
Beaches (national and city) Privet beaches are nuke beaches
Road, Streets, Highways, byways, Freeways
Street lamps and or any lighting paid by the Gov’t (city included)
The U.S Military (Paid by the Government using tax dollars).
Republicans, you should be outraged that these systems are being forced upon you! How dare the government infringe upon you rights.
How dare these services be forced upon you everyday!
Jan 31, 2011 4:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
IcemanCDA wrote:
//”The decision flies in the face of three other decisions, contradicts decades of legal precedent, and could jeopardize families’ health care security,” he said in a statement.//
Wow, what countries law has that guy been reading ? It doesn’t contradict any legal precedent, since when has the federal government been able to force ALL Americans to purchase a private product, from a private individual looking to make private profit.
Any other ruling would have been ridiculous.
Jan 31, 2011 4:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
political_matt wrote:
wow, this blatant disrespect for the president disgusts me. I understand a lot of you don’t support the policies our commander in chief enacts, but as leader of our country he should be treated with respect just like any human being. this “democrats vs. republicans, take your allegiance” crap is starting to get old, and so is the “obama isn’t a US citizen, but rather a nigerian prince looking to take over the United States!” rubbish.
anyways, my opinion on the decision. i believe the healthcare bill SHOULD be edited. however, the requirement to pay for healthcare is not unconstitutional, as it is a tax, stated before many times. if it were not a tax, many more judges would have took up this bill a long time ago. Obamacare WILL go to the supreme court, but also will be found to be constitutional.
Jan 31, 2011 4:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
roshambo wrote:
So, I’m wondering, all of you Republicants who want to repeal the healthcare laws set forth by the current administration, do you also want to repeal public schooling and requiring a drivers license and auto insurance in order to drive.
How about these fine examples you probably all use everyday, do you want them repealed too?
The New National banking system
The VA Hospital
The Post Office
Parks (national and city)
Beaches (national and city) Privet beaches are nuke beaches
Road, Streets, Highways, byways, Freeways
Street lamps and or any lighting paid by the Gov’t (city included)
The U.S Military (Paid by the Government using tax dollars).
Republicans, you should be outraged that these systems are being forced upon you! How dare the government infringe upon you rights.
How dare these services be forced upon you everyday!
Jan 31, 2011 4:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LarryinParker wrote:
A welcome ruling, but it will go to the Supreme Court. I recently read that Social Security was also challenged as unconstitutional when it was signed into law by President Roosevelt. Fearing the sitting, conservative, judges would rule it unconstitutional, Roosevelt asked for and got legislation which mandated Supreme Court judges retire at age 75. When he signed it into law. it resulted in six vacancies which Roosevelt filled with sympathetic judges who ruled it constitutional. It is not over until the fat lady (SCOTUS) sings.
Could President Obama, a constitutional scholar, have known all along that his legacy legislation was unconstitutional?
Jan 31, 2011 4:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
5700ken wrote:
Ron Pollack, suck it up. We have been living with judicial activism for a longtime and talk about “run amok” we have had enough of that. To date we have been nearly ruled by fiat. No more will we be ruled by Fiat.
Jan 31, 2011 4:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LiveFreeOrDie76 wrote:
Karl Marx is rolling in his grave, thank God.
Jan 31, 2011 4:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
OdinsAcolyte wrote:
Just say no to socialism.
Jan 31, 2011 4:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
billybob1 wrote:
I would like to believe that our US Constitution is still valid. Oftentimes I wonder if it is because the elites always seem to get their way in the end. Nevertheless, the judge at least did the right thing.
Jan 31, 2011 4:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bokushi wrote:
“”Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution,” the judge ruled.” That statement must be a bitter pill for the Dems to swallow.
I can hear Polosi’s reaction: “What? We have a Constitution?”
Jan 31, 2011 4:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
arun_kumar wrote:
Fantastic. It’s amazing how the Democrats would laugh hysterically when asked about the constitutionality of the law – show their ignorance as well as their arogance.
Jan 31, 2011 4:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
IcemanCDA wrote:
Roshambo, you are giving examples of public SERVICES paid for by TAXES. That is completely different that forcing people to buy private services from private individuals.
Auto insurance isn’t a good example, millions of Americans have no auto insurance, some never have it their entire lives. It is perfectly legal to be an American with no auto insurance if you choose not to drive. Not to mention it is also a state jurisdiction.
Jan 31, 2011 4:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BoboFromTexas wrote:
Finally. Hope & Change that we can really believe in.
Jan 31, 2011 5:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
editedforbias wrote:
If the law cannot work without mandating actions by individuals, then the converse is true; the law cannot work if Americans are allowed to retain individual freedom and choice.
That itself should concern us all.
Jan 31, 2011 5:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
texas58 wrote:
Thank God there are still some constitutional judges left in the U.S. Federal Judiciary. This President and his marxist allies have been doing everything they could to overturn our constitution and this won’t end those attempts. It does however demonstrate to Obama and his ilk that the free people in the United States refuse to go quietly into the nightmare of the Obamanation.
Jan 31, 2011 5:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
michaellovesnyc wrote:
Roshambo: Yes I would repeal all those great govenment programs; the VA hospital system is a disgrace for our veterans, the Post Office delivers 10 pounds of garbage to me a week and then you liberals scream about the enviornment; Medicare and SSI are Ponzi schemes; Parks and Beaches are closed because of the budget cuts and they would be better off privatized; libraries are obsolete, schools are a joke and better off privatized, Military spending and senseless wars do nothing to protect me, I do not want nor need any government service; thank you !
Jan 31, 2011 5:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ErikOlson wrote:
roshambo – Pretty much, well, YES
Jan 31, 2011 5:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DerJakl wrote:
roshambom you have some pretty good ideas lets just keep the U.S Military the rest can be done WITHOUT goverment
Jan 31, 2011 5:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DrJJJJ wrote:
It all about who has the best practices!! Take the best ideas from Obamacare, add tort reform persuade the privsate sector to offer affordable catastrophic insurance and spur competition nationwide! Which states/countries are making healthcare work cost effectively and why? Perhaps each state could levy a tax for a pool of money that would cover low income children for preventative care-I’d be vote for that in a hurry! Sorry, I’m also one that has little to no confidence government can reduce costs of anything they touch-based on a long track record of failure! FYI many local churches in our area offer no cost medical/dental services FYI! In God we trust-government’s credit line is maxed!
Jan 31, 2011 5:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KennyWest wrote:
TO ROSHAMBO: Funny that the only government service that Roshambo mentioned that is done right (though not very efficiently) is the only thing provided for in the Constitution – The US Military. The post office is in the Constitution too, but certainly not very well done. Guess those old dead white guys weren’t so dumb after all. I could do without everything else on your list.
Jan 31, 2011 5:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Wrstmkr wrote:
Roshambo, Does Nimrod mean anything to you? But while you ask, I think the Depts of Education,Energy,The EPA and all those Czars would suffice.
Jan 31, 2011 5:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RodeoTina wrote:
Please let me add to my previous post that President Obama made no SCOTUS friends during his first SOTU. Quite the contraire’. This is precisely why one doesn’t dress down the executive level of a company you need to conduct business with. The standing ovation the President received from his own supporters after slamming the SCOTUS was extremely embarrassing which was seen by 52 million Americans. One does not disrespect the third leg of our tricameral government especially the Supreme Court which rules as the last word on these types of issues like Obama did. If this were done in the private sector Obama would have been summarily fired for not exercising elementary business logic. It is what it is and my take is the healthcare bill will go to the SCOTUS where they will gut this thing and keeping only those aspects that need the entire law to effectuate which means a new healthcare law do over without the individual mandate which has been ruled un-severable. Yes fans, this means that one Federal Judge could file a motion for injunctive relief and stop this whole thing in its tracks until the SCOTUS hears the argument and it’s getting close to this time. It’s not a matter of if, but when.
Jan 31, 2011 5:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Damocles wrote:
Leave it to Reuters to make a constitutional issue into a sleazy politics question.
Thank God (yes, I used that word) there are some sane people still in the judgship here.
Jan 31, 2011 5:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gellero wrote:
Judicial activists run amok?? How about CONGRESS run amok !!
Jan 31, 2011 5:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DrJJJJ wrote:
Canada had a similar finacial crisis to ours, they cut spending dramatically and IT WORKED!!! Once we have closer to a balanced budget, I’m all for expanding services to the least of us! Non essential spending is stealing from those in need of essentials! Healthy younger folks should pay a small monthly insurance fee for catastrophic care and self insure on the rest like most of us boomers did! I wouldn’t take issue with a government initiated catastrophic insurnace risk pool! 2000+ pages of red tape-scary!
Jan 31, 2011 5:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DAS wrote:
First of all it was far from a health care reform bill. It was the take over by government of almost 30 % of the national economy at added cost of trillions of dollars. Number two Regan had the foresight to actually put judges on the bench and not activist as the Carter Klan did. Thirdly it was passed under fraudulent debate because it was sold by the left as not a tax and now they claim it is a tax a deceitful way to avoid constitutional law. Scoundrel’s every last tone to them… the left is made up of disgusting human debris and the media follows close being.
Jan 31, 2011 5:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SharpShtik wrote:
Socialists and communists d/b/a Democrats hate the Constitution, but make sport out of fabricating new “interpretations” of words/phrases they try to make ambiguous by taking them out of the context in which they are written.
There has never been a doubt that Obamacare would die because Democrats designed Obamacare to fail. They could have tried to legislate a massive tax increase and used it to pay trillions for their new entitlement, but they would have lost votes and exposed the true cost of their scheme. By designing it to fail with an obviously unconstitutional mandate to buy something and without a severability clause, they can say they did their part, but that Republicans undid it. Many Democrats are traitors who should be charge, tried, convicted and punished accordingly.
Jan 31, 2011 5:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chinbo wrote:
Hey Roshambo, do a little research the majority of the things you mentioned are the resposibility of the states and local govt. not the fed. The constitution was written to prevent the fed. govt. from exactly what this healthcare scam is about. I give you the U.S. Military and that is all. The rest was grabs for our money to increase the power of the fed. It has been done by both parties but the democxnts are resposible for the worst of the failed programs.
social security
Medi caid
VA hospital
and so much more!!!
Jan 31, 2011 5:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JCFitz wrote:
Obamacare is little more than an elaborate tax scheme. In a brief defending Obamacare, the Obama Regime’s Justice Department stated that the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes. This is how socialist proponents of Obamacare will defend it before the Supreme Court.
Jan 31, 2011 5:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dbryceman wrote:
“Officials argue it is only by requiring healthy people to purchase policies that they can help pay for reforms, including a mandate that individuals with pre-existing medical conditions cannot be refused coverage.”
Of course. Tax the healthy to treat the sick, tax the wealthy to support the poor, always force those who do well in any aspect of their lives to sacrifice to the government or be marked as a criminal.
An action questioning the Constitutionality of a Federal mandate, when supported by more than half the states, simply cannot be written off as ‘political activism’. Next, they’ll accuse the states of ‘hate speech’ because they do not agree with the Federal agenda.
I suppose the US Government would be a smashing success if they didn’t have all these pesky voters standing in their way.
Jan 31, 2011 5:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sheffboyrd wrote:
I have to be honest and say I’m surprised so many people are outraged by the provision to require the purchase of health insurance. Considering the moving statistic of roughly 30million americans without health insurance that is really only 10 percent of the population. I would take a small leap to expect that a decent number of these people pass up health insurance because they lack the money to purchase it. Hearing the multitude of anger and opposition to this one clause is coming from mainly people who already purchase health insurance. So why do all of you have such anger towards the provision? Furthermore, it is a certainty that 100% of people in America will need health services at some point in their lives. A healthy person today can easily discover a terrible disease or cancer tomorrow. Will you really risk financial ruin because you don’t want to purchase healthcare? Or will you simply get your healthcare without insurance and force the government to pick up your unpaid bills(ie your fellow taxpayers) when the time comes?
Jan 31, 2011 5:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
r1ghtm1nd wrote:
The thing is, the health care reform does NOT require you to buy insurance so, it is NOT unconstitutional. It DOES NOT. Stop saying it does, because you don’t like poor people, don’t like democrats, don’t like Obama, or whatever it is you don’t like. Stop making up lies simply because you don’t like something. Under the law, you DON’T have to buy insurance, but you WILL be charged a penalty if you don’t.
The argument is that you can not penalize someone for NOT doing something, in this case not buying insurance. It is the argument made by both GOP judges that ruled against it. But we are ticketed if we are pulled over for driving without auto insurance. We are jailed if we do not pay taxes. We are jailed if we do not send our kids to school. etc. There are lots of things we are penalized for not doing because the government/society requires it of us for the common good.
What people are not arguing about, is whether it’s a good thing, because nobody want’s to defend the position of “I want to screw you to save a buck”
Jan 31, 2011 5:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Heefy wrote:
All these great things that you have listed, name one that has not failed in some manner. Healthcare does not need to be ran by government. Government should have limited capabilites as to what the private sector must do to survive. There is not one government ran or funded program out there that has not failed or on the brink of it. The governement has no business in the private sector! Medicare is running out of funds. The P.O. is in so much debt it cant see anything but red numbers, I can go on and on…
Jan 31, 2011 5:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DrJJJJ wrote:
Roshambo: SS, Medicare are deep in the red and getting scarier every minute! 80 million boomers lining up for these unfunded entitlements too! What makes you think gov healthcare will fail any less miserably? Also, the post office should have been shut down last year and dramatic education and defense cuts are coming very soon! Ask what your country can do for you or?
Jan 31, 2011 5:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
stan11003 wrote:
So if mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional. Why is car and real-estate insurance mandated, for that matter an income tax! I think we should carry this to its logical conclusion. No more freebies for anyone… People coming into the ER with out insurance or money should be left out on the curb to die. Then when the bodies start piling up like something out of zombie movie and the smell reaches this Judge’s house maybe he will realize why people need insurance.
Jan 31, 2011 5:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dawn123 wrote:
r1ghtm1nd: you better take the time to read the whole bill and stop listening to what the progressive propaganda is. It IS unconstitutional it DOES force you to buy by other provisions in the bill. Before opening your mouth – read the entire bill – I did. I don’t think you will like other things planted in the bill that has nothing to do with health care. Unless, of course, you live off the government and want a Marxist society. Auto insurance is a state mandate and driving is a privlidge, not a right. If you don’t want to pay for insurance, then you cannot drive – it’s YOUR choice. The lies are what you have been brainwashed in to thinking. Poor people get health care now, regardless if they can pay or not. It is the law. So quit spewing the propaganda that they don’t if this bill is not passed. And, while at it – look at all the other things in this “health care bill” that doesn’t even pertain to health care at all. Open your mind. You have been brainwashed.
Jan 31, 2011 5:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SpreadTheWealth wrote:
I love how the judge used Obama’s own words against him. . . . . . “I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that �?if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
Jan 31, 2011 5:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
FanDaElis wrote:
@roshambo, do you understand the USA constitution? Read it! Why do you make comments without understanding the subject? Read the judge’s ruling and you will be enlightened a little. Conservatism, contrary to what liberals think, is not against government, it is against government overreach! Forcing individuals to buy something they do not want is overreach!
Jan 31, 2011 5:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Deadman wrote:
I haven’t read the bill. Has anyone?
Jan 31, 2011 5:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
pessimist88 wrote:
Hospitals should just leave people to DIE ON THE EMERGENCY ROOM FLOOR then if they don’t have insurance nor the means to pay for it, because those of us who do have insurance are paying for the people who don’t!
Jan 31, 2011 5:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Cynycl1 wrote:
It’s interesting that Judge Vinson declared the entire law unconstitutional, though without the individual mandate the rest of the law can’t work.
The challenge for our new Congress is to provide something of value to replace it that actually addresses the cost issue BEFORE demanding a repeal. There may be some positive pieces of the law, but those parts should be individually considered on their own merits and voted upon.
Making a law ‘for all’, then granting waivers ‘for some’ shows favoritism and is an unconstitutional act itself.
Jan 31, 2011 5:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
FanDaElis wrote:
The stupid comments don’t stop coming, someone is bringing up again car insurance! The government does not force you to buy a car. If you want to have one you have to take care of all costs, which includes insurance.
Jan 31, 2011 5:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
forzapista wrote:
It’s obvious that Americans do not want health care. I think the Federal Mandate that requires hospitals to treat people without the ability to pay should be dropped too. That would leave anyone who cannot afford to pay for healthcare to die. More dead Americans is never a bad thing. Let them eat and smoke themselves to death, the fattest country on the earth is in a death spiral anyways.
Jan 31, 2011 5:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JohnR22 wrote:
pessimist88 wrote: Hospitals should just leave people to DIE ON THE EMERGENCY ROOM FLOOR then if they don’t have insurance nor the means to pay for it,
It’s people like pessimist88 who are the problem. Sanctimonious Leftists who want to spend, spend, spend…with no understanding of how things actually work. Pessimist88 doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, that NOBODY is turned away from an emergency room. I was in one last week with my father and read the signs painted on the walls (in espanol too of course) that nobody is allowed to be refused service, regardless of insurance status or ability to pay. The Leftists have been spreading the lie about people dying for years now. Nobody is dying, nobody is refused emergency treatment, and our hospitals, doctors and nurses are the best in the world. The only people losing out under the current system are the uninsured (primarily unemployed) who don’t get routine recurring preventative care.
Jan 31, 2011 5:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RRJ58 wrote:
This is good news. Just think, some companies like McDonald’s, are exempt from buying insurance for their employees. What kind of crap is this? Sorry Soetoro, you are a DUD.
Jan 31, 2011 5:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ghostsouls wrote:
obama will take it to the supreme court where he knows he has some justices in his pocket. Chicago thuggery at it’s finest.
Jan 31, 2011 5:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SpreadTheWealth wrote:
No one has EVER been forced to buy car insurance. If you CHOOSE to drive a car on public roads then you’re required to carry auto insurance to protect people other than yourself, just like if I CHOOSE to hire employees I’m required to to carry workers compensation insurance to protect them. . .get it?
Jan 31, 2011 5:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
getuponthewheel wrote:
For the libs out there. Be careful what you wish for. If this is found constitutional, think for a minute what other services or goods the government could force you to buy under an extreme regime of another sort…
It has been proven that lawful possession of guns decreases crime rates…maybe up next is forcing everyone to buy guns or face fines or jail time.
…maybe the government is falling behind on revenue and needs you to buy more goods to get the taxes from their sale? ..what might they make you buy
Jan 31, 2011 5:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Pugszb wrote:
When the bank is taking your house and you are living under a bridge because you got sick and ran up a $100,000 bill at the hospital for your gallbladder operation and the insurance company says bye bye, then you have another illness, maybe you will regret the crap that is being spread on this site. You folks are such low intelligence that I am ashamed to think we live in the same country. Sure, just let the insurance companies bankrupt the whole lot of you and then maybe you may have a clue as to what our President is trying to protect us from.
Say hi to everyone at your KKK meeting. Enjoy your insurance plan while you have it, because as soon as you use it you lose it. Now that sounds like a really good plan.
That you could be cheering about ending up on the street because of the insurance thugs is mind boggling.
Jan 31, 2011 5:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Inugomontoya wrote:
MerkMan, One more nail for the loyal Americans to pull out: stop trying to kill Americans with twisted views of the Constitution and a badly dysfunctional HC system. The comment that this is “radical judicial activism run amok” is spot-on. Start by rereading the Constitution: this is clearly under the “necessary powers” clause, as 3 real American courts have found. There is still time for you to become a good American again.
Jan 31, 2011 5:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Smitty77 wrote:
The only country in the industrialized world that will let 50 million of it’s people go uninsured! What a country – the only friends they really have are the ones they buy!
Jan 31, 2011 5:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CCRyder wrote:
We may need some improvements in health care. But why would anyone think that government can or should be responsible for doing it? Surely not let a democrat majority do it. Would you let Ted Bundy run the girls school? NO, and you don’t need democrats running government for pretty much the same reason.
Jan 31, 2011 5:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Godsinfidel wrote:
Just to address one of your subjects, the one closest to Obamacare, Medicare. Going broke, unfunded mandates for the States, and try and find a doctor that will take Medicare patient. If you can find one they are either overwhelmed and or scam artists that process people through like cattle not caring whether they get better or just die. And they take a large portion of your Social Security check to let you pay for this “privilege”.
Jan 31, 2011 5:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
IntelliQ wrote:
Ron Pollack says this is judicial activism run amok?
Mr Pollack is a very dangerous individual. There is no possibility that he is ignorant of the unconstitutionality of this mandate. He is flat out mis-characterizing the judge’s position, and intentionally just making up out of thin air what’s “judicial activism”.
Very dangerous.
Jan 31, 2011 6:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
normandy1944 wrote:
What is it you Dems and libs don’t get? The reason a person is required to pay for liability insurance on your car is in case YOU damage someone else…and if you’re paying a bank or credit union every month for the car, then collision/comprehensive is to protect the entity that loaned you the money in case you damage the vehicle….
Mortgage insurance is required to protect the mortgage company or bank that lent you the money to purchase a property…..has nothing to do with your rights…it’s about the right of the lender and those who are damaged from YOUR actions.
Jan 31, 2011 6:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mbitsko wrote:
It also violates the Equal Protection clause. The second Obama granted exceptions to certain businesses and labor unions (who just happened to contribute heavily to his campaign) he rendered the whole scheme unconstitutional. I understand the Left hates Constitutional principles but it might behoove them to at least READ the thing so as to avoid the more obvious violations. They way they “interpret” the Constitution we could also bring back slavery and disenfranchise women. It seems the actual words of the document mean nothing to them. Now it will be hilarious good fun to watch the Kool-Aid Drinkers try to wiggle their way out of this one.
Jan 31, 2011 6:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
weisschr wrote:
Wow! Such selfishness!!! Making people buy their *own* insurance so that the total pool of available premium dollars can lower costs.
I am an employer and the impact of Obamacare on my health insurance costs is… zero! I insure all my employees at least as well as required by the new law. My employees will be impacted exactly…. zero dollars!
Our costs for our business are substantially lower because we buy into a small business pool. The idea behind Obamacare is essentially the same thing – everyone buys into the pool lowering the costs for all by spreading the risk further. This is nothing new.
The poor get health care regardless of their ability to pay, but it costs us all more when they go to the ER for a preventable illness. The people who are stuck in a job with no benefits and without the means to pay for premiums are the people who get screwed whenever they get sick. Is it fair? Is it Christian? Is it reasonable?
Let’s put aside our selfishness and help each other live better. The Tea Partiers like Bachman claim we are a Christian nation. If this is true, then we are our brother’s keeper, and we should act the part.
Jan 31, 2011 6:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Deadman wrote:
Oh wait. Now I remember. This was the one that was passed in the middle of the night, right? Was that before or after the ceremonial disemboweling?
Jan 31, 2011 6:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
COTO wrote:
Oops … so, what does that make it now? Obama has accomplished just what in two-years? This was his signature piece of legislation. Granted it was a piece of crap from the beginning, having been written by the health insurance companies, for the insurance companies, and had as much to do with health care as as arsenic has to do with longevity of life. But it was the one thing he could hang his hat on, rotten as it is.
Oh well, just more proof that our entire government is one big rotting immovable mass of corruption. And its all so easy. All so obvious.
Want to fix health care? Fine. Make it non-profit. Puff! Problem solved.
Commonsense, something we all have it to some degree, and most of us heed it. But its obvious commonsense has a price in a for-profit industry. And the focus needs to be on proactive medicine as opposed to reactive. Again commonsense.
But don’t look for this rotten mass I call our Corproment, a blend of corporations from all the big-industries, the MIC, Big-Phrama, Big-Energy, Big-Agriculture, and the Health Care Industry, running our government, in a scientific form of fascism, so don’t wait for this unholy band of cretins to come-up with a solution.
My guess is either the gang of criminals we refer to as the Republicans think they need more of a piece of the pie, or this is a real judge trying to chip away at the Corproment, could even be a bit of both.
But whatever it will wind-up I’ll take bets that commonsense will have nothing to do with it.
Jan 31, 2011 6:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
hoteltriano wrote:
chinbo: Leave the USPS out of this. I get my mail on time every day, don’t you? I think they do a great job. But you are right about the other ones and you could add literally hundreds of other agencies and entire departments as well.
Jan 31, 2011 6:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sheffboyrd wrote:
@Spreadthewealth – If the judge truly wrote that in his decision it points to a political and/or personal motive which is highly suspect in any judicial course. The bill is at question in his case, not the individual or individuals responsible for its’ passage or makeup. Your quote calls into question this judges credibility and character in the matter. I’m not sure how I feel about the bill itself, but I know a judge quoting the then senator, now president, 3 years ago as some sort of argument for his decision is suspect. I also find it funny to hear so many conservatives rejoicing in this judges decision after not too long ago hearing the same conservatives bashing the judicial system for “legislating from the bench”. I guess hypocrisy goes all around.
Jan 31, 2011 6:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TPAINE3 wrote:
“This lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt by those who want to raise taxes on small businesses, increase prescription prices for seniors and allow insurance companies to once again deny sick children medical care,” said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid.
“Healthcare reform is the law of the land and, now that Americans see its benefits, a majority of them oppose Republicans’ dangerous plans to repeal a law that put patients in control of their own healthcare,” he said.
I own a small business and wouldn’t be able to offer healthcare if this law had stayed on the books. As to “sick children,” Senator, you and I both know ANYONE can walk into any emergency treatment center and GET HEALTH CARE NOW!!
I, for one, appreciate a judge that showed some sanity and knowledge of the Constitution. As he states in his ruling, the logic “the worst Congress in history” used could be equally used to force us all to eat beets . . . and I don’t like beets!!
Jan 31, 2011 6:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Robert76 wrote:
Gee. Big Suprise! a Republican Appointee rules against a law that the Republlicans were unwilling to pass, but are making a lot of publicity by condeming and railing against to the detriment of the citizens that would benefit from the law.
Jan 31, 2011 6:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mbitsko wrote:
If the courts would simply rule that the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights is “constitutional” all our problems would melt away, along with the deficits.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about you should read it. The 10th Amendment clearly states that the Federal government has no power to do ANYTHING unless that power is specifically granted by the Constitution. Judicial activism has long since nullified that. But judicial activism can just as easily eliminate the rest of the Bill of Rights. The only reason it was able to kill the 10th is that We the People WANTED to be able to suckle at the government teat. The 10th was in our way, so when the courts did an end run around it we just looked the other way.
All these issues boil down to the death of the traditional American values of self-sufficiency and hard work. It has been said that democracy can only survive until the citizens realize they can vote themselves largess from the public coffers. I think we collectively realized we could do that in the 1930s and its been getting worse ever since.
Jan 31, 2011 6:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mbitsko wrote:
Ron Pollack doesn’t know what “judicial activism” is. This was a rare example of a federal judge actually interpreting the constitution according to the intent of its authors. Obamacare is a clear violation of the constitution, but as its written and in the outrageous way its been selectively applied. It violates almost every constitutional principle. If it grabbed guns and shuttered churches it would achieve anti-American perfection, but it scores at least a B+ grade on the anti-freedom report card. Freedom does NOT mean freedom from bad luck, or illness, or financial burden. Freedom DOES include the freedom to fail. The nanny state is not compatible with freedom.
Jan 31, 2011 6:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Strawnman wrote:
Harry Ried is a disgrace to this nation.
Jan 31, 2011 6:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mbitsko wrote:
Want to know why health care is expensive and health insurance is unobtainable for some people? Its simple: Everyone is a communist in the doctor’s office. We expect somebody else to pay for our health care. If you’re a liberal you want the government to do it. If you’re a conservative you want your insurance company to do it. But it amounts to the same thing. We don’t WANT to pay for our own care because it’s not fun or good to eat. We believe we are ENTITLED to be free from unwanted expenses. How much would food cost if we all demanded 100% coverage GROCERY insurance? If every candy bar had to be run through a $30 Million office tower full of bureaucrats and computer networks? Insurance is supposed to be for things we CAN’T afford, not merely for things we don’t WANT to afford. If we all took responsibility for routine health care expenses the overall cost of health care would plummet. And the huge insurance companies we love to complain about would shrink down to size as if by magic. We did this to ourselves. By the way: We’re all communists at the gas pump, too, but that’s a discussion for another day.
Jan 31, 2011 6:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Delphinus13 wrote:
Praise the Lord!!! There’s hope for our Republic after all.
Jan 31, 2011 6:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rbren wrote:
This is just another activist right wing judge. No surprise and invalid.
Jan 31, 2011 6:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mbitsko wrote:
“It’s interesting that Judge Vinson declared the entire law unconstitutional, though without the individual mandate the rest of the law can’t work.”
As written the mandate cannot be legally separated from the rest of the law. Therefore the entire law is unconstitutional. The courts have no “line item veto”, so to speak. (Though liberal judges certainly believe they do.)
Jan 31, 2011 6:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
burningtree wrote:
Isn’t it a shame that that third branch of government, the courts, is there to keep the excesses of the legislatures and executives in balance? I guess that might upset our Dear Leader…and Chuck Schumer, who think that the three branches of government are the House, the Senate, and the POTUS. Poor boys. Wait until the SCOTUS gets this case, and it’s all over for Obammunism.
Jan 31, 2011 6:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sheffboyrd wrote:
@JohnR22 – The reason no person is refused treatment is the hypocratic oath all MDs must take. That’s the one that involves the whole “do no harm”. Medical professionals have a moral obligation to help these people. Mind you this has nothing to do with financial decisions.
Take serious note, however, that all of these people who are admitted and cared for without insurance or money to pay for services have their bills sent to the federal government where my and your tax dollars are spent to pick up the tab. I believe, but am not positive, amounts to the neighborhood of $600billion annually. That is a serious ammount of money.
Jan 31, 2011 6:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Parker1227 wrote:
The spin by Obama et al, and repeated by Reuters, that the bill was intended to decrease healthcare costs – is laughable.
That there are 2500 pages of micro-regulation of the entire healthcare system – but not ONE WORD about ambulance chasing lawyers who have driven thousands of good doctors out of the business with their con games, is a crime.
And Obama handing out over 250 exemptions to the new health laws – all to big unions and corporate toadies – is a crime against fairness.
Jan 31, 2011 6:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Delphinus13 wrote:
This is the same law the Demoncraps had to use “Deem & Pass,” the “Louisiana Purchase,” and the “Cornhusker Kickback” to ram through. That group of 7 Dems who went ahead and voted to allow this to go to a vote and then voted AGAINST it were cowards who have since been throw out by their constituents. Plus, the government has granted over 700 waivers to this law for unions and large companies. If it’s such a great law, why are there waivers required, and why did the Republicans gain 63 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate on a platform of repealing it? Over 55% of Americans oppose this law and want it repealed.
Jan 31, 2011 6:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BTRN wrote:
It appears that Obama has even pulled the wool over eyes which vetted him to teach constitutional law.
Jan 31, 2011 6:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Robert76 wrote:
All of you that are so happy that One Republican Appointee ruled the Affordable Health Care Act (it’s real name – Not Obamacare, as no President writes the laws) need to realize that there are Republicans who also want to end Social Security and Medicare. Unless you are very rich, there will be a time when you will depend on Social Security and Medicare to try to survive. You probably should start worrying about what happens when you reach retirement age, as only 3 – 5% of the population are that rich.
Guess you do not care that Grandma and Grandpa are thrown to the wolves. Unless you are rich or die young you will be one of those thrown to the wolves. Congratulations on being fed a bill of goods by the hate mongers of the Fake News Network and the Power Brokering of Dick Armey through his Tea Party Puppits or Karl Rove through his Freedomworks. You know they will not suffer when Medicare and Social Security are gone.
Jan 31, 2011 6:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
touran-dokht wrote:
OK dnc-rooter, next time you’re reporting on some leftist judge ruling against the Constitution, we expect the same fair and balanced professional reporting you have displayed right there in the first line out of your mouth, and you will announce which leftist critter installed that “good” judge! Right?
Besides that, THANK GOODNESS for some justice and legitimacy AND SANITY in this country!
Jan 31, 2011 6:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Delphinus13 wrote:
One state went to Federal court and WON. 26 states took a separate case now to Federal court, and WON. Yet, some on this board are slamming the judge for “judicial activism.” Do you really think 27 states, with their attorneys general and teams of lawyers, legal experts, and constitutional scholars would have gone through the trouble of bringing these cases if 1.) they didn’t think they had a real chance of winning, and 2.) if there wasn’t a compelling reason by the states to stop this piece of legislation?
So far, it’s the states 2, the Democrat Congress 0. This law goes WAY BEYOND what the Constitution allows and far surpasses any precedent set in U.S. legal history. The SCOTUS will very likely uphold these decisions, but it’ll probably be on a 5-4 vote. Amazing how so many constitutional issues are settled on a 5-4 vote. Seems there would be a lot more 9-0 or 8-1 votes when it comes to determining constitutionality
Jan 31, 2011 6:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Josie09 wrote:
I am continually amazed by the stupidity of the legislators I see on TV defending this piece of trash, and the Obama administration’s belief that this garbage is constitutional. How stupid are these people? Donald Trump is RIGHT, they are idiots.
I sincerely hope Mr. Trump runs for president. We need someone like him who can clean up this stupid mess once and for all, and get this country back on the right track. It seems the rest of the named possibilities are just too weak or stupid to get the job done.
Jan 31, 2011 6:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Josie09 wrote:
I am continually amazed by the stupidity of the legislators I see on TV defending this piece of trash, and the Obama administration’s belief that this garbage is constitutional. How stupid are these people? Donald Trump is RIGHT, they are idiots.
I sincerely hope Mr. Trump runs for president. We need someone like him who can clean up this stupid mess once and for all, and get this country back on the right track. It seems the rest of the named possibilities are just too weak or stupid to get the job done.
Jan 31, 2011 6:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
abkisa wrote:
I am an American and I am at a total loss understanding why anyone wouldn’t want national health care. It is wonderful (lived in Canada) and should be embraced instead of feared. The health care system in the U.S. is shameful! It is the fault of conservative politicians that the truth doesn’t reach the general public. Why would anyone believe that a system regulated by those making the money works?
Jan 31, 2011 6:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ken_Treuter wrote:
Who’d a thunk? A Federal Judge who obviously not only has read the American Republic’s Constitution but also believes in it as the foundation of and the supreme law of the land. Now how do we spell the Kenyan-born, fraudulent usurper of the Oval Office and the We, The People’s residential White House? F A I L E D!
Jan 31, 2011 6:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
abkisa wrote:
Funny how Republicans jam these boards to slant opinion! We had an economic disaster due to industry self-regulation… is health care going to be different? To all of you who slam a public option or national health care.. go to the doctor or have an operation in the U.S. and enjoy the experience!!
Jan 31, 2011 6:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MadJayhawk wrote:
How many Democrats who love this law and do not have healthcare insurance now will still support it when they are forced to buy healthcare insurance by Obama? We will see personal reality bash political idealogy squarely in the stomach when and if that happens. All these healthcare-loving folks will head for the exits when they open that letter from Obama that says WE WANT YOU to buy healthcare insurance and to write the check today or else. “What, what!!!” they will scream, “I thought healthcare insurance was going to be FREE. Paid for by the government (you and me).” Half the country will turn into Republicans or Independents on the day those letters hit the mailboxes while they hear their leaders, Obama, Reid, & Pelosi, blame it on George Bush one more time.
Jan 31, 2011 6:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
FanDaElis wrote:
It is amazing how the left thinks! And another amazing thing is that they go on to insult those who do not think like them. They think they are highly intelligent, yet, what is that they are for? They are for government taking care of responsibilities that should be theirs. And, by the way, since government has no resourcers, what they truly want is for other people to take care of them. To quote the Bible: they “are wisdom and wisdom will die with” them.
Jan 31, 2011 6:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Dryden01 wrote:
President Obama has once more met the same denial reality that FDR discovered: you cannot ignore or try to manipulate the American Constitution and get away with it. Some of the attributes of the reform would carry are a benefit but they are outweighed by the issues that the legislation fails to acknowledge: tort reform, competition accross state lines, specifically stated exclusion of services for illegal aliens. These things add a considerable expense to healthcare costs that simply pretending they do not cannot overcome.
Jan 31, 2011 6:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
roses457 wrote:
Become a fan of the Federalist Papers on Facebook (James Madison, John Jay, & Alexander Hamilton’s) commentary on the Constitution.
Url Link:
Jan 31, 2011 6:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DrJJJJ wrote:
$4+ Billion in the red every day/365 days of the year now folks, doesn’t include our national debt, state deficits/debt, unfunded entitlements, realestate meltdown, pesnion deficits, etc etc etc! Any additional government at this time is dangerous and foolish regardless of your intensions! $4+ Billion per day in the red-imagine the healthcare coverage this could buy for the least of us and imagine the non essential spending going on? What we do with our money says everything about us as a country! One of the reasons healthcare is rising so much is that we are covering everyone as it is, it’s the law-imagine how much more it would be with our government in the mix/costs??? That’s what I thought!
Jan 31, 2011 6:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MadJayhawk wrote:
“Next, they’ll accuse the states of �?hate speech’ because they do not agree with the Federal agenda.”
They already have. Arizona. SB1070. Every liberal in the country hates Arizona while being unaware of the fact that their own state is probably working on legislation that mirrors Arizona’s SB1070. Liberals hate a whole lot of things and the list keeps getting longer and longer.
Jan 31, 2011 7:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DaMama wrote:
Finally! Someone with an ounce of common sense. Forcing people to get health insurance is most definitely unconstitutional. I know the argument has been brought up about car insurance, but that involves other people. If I hit someone’s car, I better be able to pay for the damages. Health insurance is my choice. Most people never use it for something huge, but it’s there just in case. My daughter has 2 part time jobs and no health insurance. Why should she be forced by the government to buy it? This is not right. ObamaCare needs to go down in flames.
Jan 31, 2011 7:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
IcemanCDA wrote:
You are not making a constitutional decision. What you want, I want, the public wants is a policy decision. Obamacare could be great policy, that has zero bearing on its constitutionality.
Jan 31, 2011 7:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sheesh wrote:
How could anything be Constitutional that has (last count) 733 organizations and several states getting federal exemptions? If they want to exempt their political cronies, then every single American should have an “opt Out” opportunity. I believe that anything Congress imposes on Americans should include Congressmen, their families AND their political hacks.
Jan 31, 2011 7:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
FanDaElis wrote:
I have to agree with you madJayhawk, the liberals are the prototype of hate. And their vitriol is continuous. Read their comments in this site! They insult people who disagree with them. They make statements void of facts and make then on the next breath they accuse us of not using facts!
Jan 31, 2011 7:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sjhollar wrote:
So let’s see, just over half the States are against it, the majority of lawmakers are against it, and a large majority of the citizens are against it. So why is the Dictator in Chief still shoving it down our throats?
There are far too many legitimate measures that can be taken that would dramatically bring down health care costs without forcing our great nation further and further into socialism. Have we learned nothing from the Europeans?
Jan 31, 2011 7:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ken_Treuter wrote:
Funny how Dimlibbers (dimwitted liberals, be they demonrats, so-called moderates who stand for nothing worthwhile but fall for any scam, and progressives…spelled socialistic commies) jam these boards to slant opinion! We have an economic disaster due to governmental lies and self-serving regulation; i.e. Franks, Dobbs, Freddie and Fannie… is health care going to be different? To all of you who slam private insurance and individual health care.. go to a government funded quack or have an operation in a government run hospital and enjoy the experience (if you even come close to living through it)!!
Jan 31, 2011 7:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
truthster wrote:
Attack of the Drudge Monkeys!
Jan 31, 2011 7:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
truthster wrote:
Attack of the Drudge Monkeys!
Jan 31, 2011 7:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
garth_dakota wrote:
The Democrats and the supporters of the Healthcare Bill argue that is is needed in order to accomplish some good purpose. I doubt that is the real goal anyhow but the Constitution does not require bills to have a good purpose in order that they be Constitutional. What is required is that they follow what the Constitution says, and this bill did not.
Furthermore it should never have been passed because an intelligent people and an ethical government would not abuse our system in this way, passing a bill so enormous that anything under the sun could be in it and become law. Would anyone sign a 1000 page contract for payments on a new car? What all could be in all those pages? On the face of it, approving such a thing is wrong, wrong wrong, and so are all these enormous bills being used to abuse our carefully designed system.
Throw the whole damn bill OUT with the trash.
Jan 31, 2011 7:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
vijrohit wrote:
All opposing to health care are people with jobs and health care, once you get laid off, you will be on the other side of fence, without job and no health insurance for you and family and then realize how bad it can be without insurance. Since unemployment is ~10%, people in favor of Obamacare are mostly those 10% without job and hard to win against 90% people with job and health care.
Remember it takes just on lay off and you can be on the other side.
Jan 31, 2011 7:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PKFA wrote:
Health care costs are skyrocketing out of control; therefore we need universal health care. If health care costs were not skyrocketing out of control, we wouldn’t need universal health care. Why are health care costs skyrocketing out of control? Two reasons: fat people and old people.
The solution to rising health care costs is as plain as the nose on Howard Stern’s face: pay-as-you-go.
Pay-as-you-go eliminates every, yes, every problem associated with the current health care system. Some highlights:
1). No more nasty insurance companies to deal with- pay-as-you-go.
2). Thinking of super-sizing that happy meal? Remember, you’ll pay several multiples of the cost of food in a pay-as-you-go health care system.
3). Had an accident that you can’t pay for? Guess you’ll be more careful next time.
4). Need a hip replacement? Pay-as-you-go for whatever you can afford: surgery, a cane or a wheelchair.
5). Nearing the end of the drooling years? Spend some quality time with your family and maybe talk about the guilt that would otherwise have them order you connected to tubes and electrionics until someone finally had the guts to order the plug pulled.
6).Have a genetic defect that you can’t afford to pay for? Oops- too bad for you, but maybe you were responsible enough not to procreate.
Other advantages of pay-as-you-go are too numerous to mention but include things such as an ethos of actually being able to afford something before we buy it, a reduction in the use of pharmaceutical drugs, increased time spent on the job, increase in the number of vaginal births, fewer allergic reactions to things such as milk, peanut butter, bread and other common foods, increased care by loved ones instead of state robots, increased personal responsibility, decreased whining, dying with dignity at home, the list goes on.
Pay-as-you-go is as American as apple pie and pre-bailout Chevrolet. We as a society need to “person-up”, exercise the responsibility that comes with freedom, get in touch with one another instead of mindless bureaucracy and pay-as-you-go.
Jan 31, 2011 7:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jackolantyrn356 wrote:
I hbeard that a News Media has sais that the Obama Crew will continue with Obamacare while it is beuing appealed. Sorry,Schmo! Thar=t cannot fly. An injunction is an Injunction…. Cease and decist……
Jan 31, 2011 7:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BalancedAndFair wrote:
This is simply another example of judicial activism and legislating from the bench
Jan 31, 2011 7:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Truthnow wrote:
ObamaCare’s Reality Deficit
If you believe that a new entitlement saves money, you’ll believe anything.
Of all the claims deployed in favor of ObamaCare, and there are many, the most preposterous is that a new open-ended entitlement will somehow reduce the budget deficit.
Jan 31, 2011 7:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Thebes42 wrote:
Wow, an actual victory for Freedom, and we didn’t even have to riot in the streets!
Jan 31, 2011 7:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ArbutusJoe wrote:
Now it’s up to the SCOTUS to eviscerate the Commerce Clause and put an end to 100 years of progressive interventionism that has destroyed our liberty and prosperity.
Jan 31, 2011 8:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
garth_dakota wrote:
BalancedAndFair wrote “This is simply another example of judicial activism and legislating from the bench.”
No it isn’t. If the court said ‘You must have a law to do X and Y’ then it would be what you say. When a law does not follow the Constitution the Court’s purpose is to prevent it from taking effect.
It’s something called “Checks and balances”. You might look it up sometime and see if you can grasp the concept.
Jan 31, 2011 8:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
EricTX wrote:
Obviously Rashombo has not read the Constitution,
let’s take this one at a time shall we?
The New National banking system – the national banks don’t lend to consumers, they lend to other banks – big difference
The VA Hospital – that falls under the military, which will be dealt with last
The Post Office – you don’t HAVE to use the Post Office – when’s the last time you mailed something? Christmas probably?
Jails – Every society has had prisons since the beginning of time. Moreover, there are state prisons, and federal prisons, depending on which crime you commit. For the common defense (read the preamble), jails are allowed
Medicare – there’s a question on this one’s Constitutionality, but since it covers the retired, and because it’s not mandated to take, it could be considered constitutional.
SSI – States run these programs, not the federal government
unemployment – once again, states run these programs
Parks (national and city)- once again, states, cities, counties, run these, they are within their right. I think if someone’s property were taken to establish a park, that would go to court.
Beaches (national and city) Privet beaches are nuke beaches – is there such thing as a national beach? all the beaches are owned by the state.
Libraries – once again, state not federal
Road, Streets, Highways, byways, Freeways once again, state
Schools once again state
Street lamps and or any lighting paid by the Gov’t (city included) once again, state
The U.S Military (Paid by the Government using tax dollars). Provided for within the preamble.
Obviously Rashombo has no clue how our system of government works. it’s up to the state to provide almost everything on that list. That’s why state run health care is constitutional, but federal is not.
please go back to high school, retake your civics course, and then come back to post when youre better educated.
Jan 31, 2011 8:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
valwayne wrote:
We have to be very thankful that we still have a mostly honest non-corrupt judiciary that honors the Constitution of the United States despite enormous political pressure. If Obama can make every U.S. citizen buy healthcare he can make us buy anything? He controls ever aspect of our economic lives. Let’s hope this move quickly to the Supreme Court where this corrupt unconstitional law will invalidated proving again the wisdom of our founding fathers and their rejection of total government control of our lives!
Jan 31, 2011 8:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WilliamPenn27 wrote:
In response, the Administration attacked the court. What uncouth cretins!
Jan 31, 2011 8:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GoNuclear wrote:
Don’t worry, the US Supreme Court, aka the nine learned orangutans with toy hammers, will find Obamacare with its mandate for “all Americans” to purchase health insurance perfectly within the bounds of the Constitution. How can that be??????????
It goes like this … first, it doesn’t apply to all Americans, and secondly, while touted as “the law” it is, in fact, 100% voluntary. Your “requirement” to purchase health insurance will be linked to your participation in another 100% voluntary program known as Social Security.
Socialistic Insecurity, is, according to the slave enumeration bureau, known to some as the Social Security Administration, 100% voluntary and not required to live OR WORK in the United States. THERE IS NO LAW REQUIRING ANYONE TO USE AN SSN TO BE HIRED. However, policies of virtually all corporate entities that hire people require them, and these policies are based largely upon ignorance and fear.
In the event that you use a socialist slavestate number on the job, you are considered first and foremost a federal employee. Think about it … you have elected to pay into a federal pension program, you are protected by minimum wage laws, OSHA, maternity leave, etc. all mandated by the federal govt. The federal govt. has no authority whatsoever to force its way into a contract between two private parties, but, use an SSN and you have invited them in.
SSN use converts your work into “employment”, a specifically defined legal term. It also converts your compensation into “wages” or “salary” or “commissions”, all legal terms defined within the tax codes. SSN use incurs liability for FICA, federal income tax, state income tax, local income tax, and soon Obamacare. Obamacare will ultimately be found to be within Constitutional bounds due to its voluntary nature as well as the nine learned orangutans determining the premiums to be be just another tax. That will be a stretch, sure, but that is the course they will take, I’m sure.
The solution is not to fight over Obamacare, the solution is legislation providing for a 1 time opt out/official denumeration from socialistic insecurity, and a requirement for a plain language full disclosure of all terms, conditions, rights waived, benefits guaranteed, all liabilities incurred including tax liabilities, all powers of attorney granted, consequences of providing, consequences of not providing, nature of request, etc. anytime anyone anywhere for any reason asks for an SSN. Said disclosure to be oral and in writing, to be initialled off point by point, signed at the bottom, and witnessed. If SSN requests were encumbered by this disclosure requirement the socialist applecart might be effectively overturned.
Jan 31, 2011 8:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:
What a load of manure! This is a Reaganite lap-dog bowing to the will of the Republican Menace, and trying to make a name for himself at the same time. Numerous other judges have ruled Healthcare Reform constitutional. This is nothing but an activist judge.
If a judge appointed by Clinton or Obama strikes it down, I’ll believe it; Otherwise, it’s just some schmoe playing politics. America needs that reform, desperately. 30 Million Americans need that coverage they can only get if Healthcare Reform remains intact. Obama bowed to the Right repeatedly in modifying Healthcare Reform into something they would accept, but still, they’re not happy. Republicans aren’t happy unless everything done by Democrats fails. They’re nothing but spoiled little children!
Jan 31, 2011 8:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
wileecoyote wrote:
Coverage for an existing condition is not insurance. It is forcing existing policy holders to pay for someone else’s medical care.
For this same reason, you cannot buy fire insurance on a burning building.
Jan 31, 2011 8:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
wiselatina wrote:
Finally someone working for the government has some common sense and understands the Constitution and separation of powers. Now let’s make this quick and final…let’s get the cases consolidated and expedited to the Supreme Court. Call your Congressman and ask them to ask Eric Holder to consolidate and expedite the cases for hearing to the Supreme Court. Let’s put this nightmare to rest once and for all – OBAMCARE is a debt sentence. Stop it now.
Jan 31, 2011 8:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Superpower wrote:
How sweet it is!
Jan 31, 2011 8:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TeaPartyVince wrote:
Amen. A judge that understands the Constitution.
Jan 31, 2011 8:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SharpShtik wrote:
Anti-American socialists and communists trying to fundamentally transform America are upset and patriotic Americans loyal to America as it is constituted are happy that Judge Vinson did his job.
There has never been a doubt that Obamacare would die because Democrats designed Obamacare to fail. They could have tried to legislate a massive tax increase and used it to pay trillions for their new entitlement, but they would have lost votes and exposed the true cost of their scheme. By designing it to fail with an obviously unconstitutional mandate to buy policies and without a severability clause, they can say they did their part, but that Republicans undid it when, in fact, is was undone by Democrats from the beginning.
The government industry is a man made crisis that is public enemy # 1, especially when Democrats run it like an organized crime syndicate. Every time Democrats try to force America’s quasi-free enterprise system to deliver their national socialism to benefit Democrat voters at taxpayer/investor expense we have financial disaster. Democrats’ affirmative action (standardless) lending program resulted in disaster for the real estate market and investments. Affirmative action healthcare/insurance would result in financial disaster too. My insurance premium already doubled as a taxless wealth redistribution to pay for the insurance wish list of Democrats.
Jan 31, 2011 9:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RENO1020 wrote:
I’ll keep my dignity and pay my own way. I don’t need my neighbor to pay for my health care insurance!
Jan 31, 2011 9:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gryphon wrote:
Americans & Health Care. Republicans & fiscal responsibility. It’s like watching the coyote chase the road runner: clever but completely, inanely stupid.
Out here in the real world, the vast majority of people in the rich countries pay 10% of GDP for health care. In the USA you pay 14%. Out here, everyone gets a basic level of care. In the US: NO. Who are the christians now, huh?
The fiscally responsible Republicans (does GOP really stand for ‘Grand Old Party’?) have done their level best to beggar the US and with healthcare they’re dancing the same dance. I’m sure any American with with one eye & half a brain could come up with a dozen more examples. Education, for one, is an example many readers would sympathise with.
(I hate to be blunt but) When are you morons going to start looking at what you gain in terms of socal cohesion, greater intelligence & greter health and stop looking at the loss of some internal competitive advantage based on an unfair system? Why not say ‘My Fellow Americans’ and really mean it? Instead of bastardising the concept of democracy, extend it beyond pure political power into the field of personal power. That all sounds pretty hippy trippy. But you have the greatest proportion of poverty in the OECD. Don’t ‘Give us your poor’: you are creating your own wholesale.
Jan 31, 2011 9:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SharpShtik wrote:
Democrats’ direct & indirect forced wealth (healthcare/insurance) redistribution violates:
(1) US Const. Art. 1, Sec. 9, Clause 4 – “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census.” The penalty and forced policy purchase to pay for others isn’t an income tax under 16th Amendment.
(2) US Const. 5th Amendment – “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
(3) US Const. 9th Amendment – “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
(4) US Const. 10th Amendment – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” US Const. 10th Amendment
(5) Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 1 – “general Welfare of the United States” (requires national not local welfare)
(6) Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 3 – “regulate Commerce . . .among . . . States” (requires economic activity & inter (not intra) state activity – insurance is only intrastate).
Congress cannot misuse its power to regulate interstate commerce as a means to an end (goal) of directly or indirectly redistributing wealth (health care or insurance or subsidies) for local welfare or a private purpose because it has no power to do so. “[T]he attainment of a prohibited end may not be accomplished under the pretext of the exertion of powers which are granted.” U.S. v Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 68 (1936). “Congress could not, under the pretext of raising revenue, lay a tax on processors who refuse to pay a certain price for cotton, and exempt those who agree so to do, with the purpose of benefiting producers.” 297 U.S. 70. “[T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare. . . . It does not help to declare that local conditions throughout the nation have created a situation of national concern, for this is but to say that, whenever there is a widespread similarity of local conditions, Congress may ignore constitutional limitations upon its own powers and usurp those reserved to the states.” 297 U.S. 67, 70.
Jan 31, 2011 9:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Parker1227 wrote:
There is an inverse relationship between dependence upon government and individual freedom.
When someone else provides all of your needs for you – they can much too easily tell you what to think, and do, and say.
Jan 31, 2011 9:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Larry2012 wrote:
NOW we’re on the right track. I hope this tells Mr. Obama and his back pocket corporate puppeteers that we deeply resent his arrogance in shoving this legislation down our throats. We desperately need healthcare reform but, a)don’t MANDATE it and then use the IRS as your own personal gestapo to enforce it’s provisions. b) Throw out all the provisions that don’t have anything to do with healthcare. NO MORE EARMARKS! c) Include language that would deny healthcare to illegal aliens and their (our) dependents. d) Actively pursue and prosecute welfare cheaters. DRUG TEST THEM! e) Prosecute any and all doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, attorneys and anyone else who is involved in fraud. Obama promised to change things but doesn’t seem to understand that it’s the WAY things are being done that is resulting in digging us deeper and deeper into into a hole that will someday collapse. God bless America! God bless freedom! God bless the Bill of Rights and our constitution!
Jan 31, 2011 9:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
locklime wrote:
During the Eight years of Bush, far smaller legal setbacks were constantly portrayed by Reuters as either a “stinging rebuke” or “stunning setback” for the Bush Administration. No such descriptive language for the stinging rebuke and the stunning setback Obama has now received…
Jan 31, 2011 9:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
timwithabo wrote:
Obama doesn’t care what you think. Democrat Congressman Alcee Hastings, “Rules? There are no rules here. We make them up.” Pelosi: “You have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.”
All of those thousands of polite people who opposed the unconstitutionality of the Health Care debacle mean nothing to the Democrats, and Pelosi paid a price as she is gone, along with her 7% approval rating.
Obama doesn’t even care that Old Harry Reid said, “he’s a light skinned African with no Negro dialect.”
I am utterly stunned that 2,400 Americans were never warned by the State Department to stay away from Egypt. Mubarak has been there for 30 years, and I believe that Obama is behind the troubles in Yemen, Tunis, and Egypt. He, and this government, have not mentioned that radical Muslims have been pouring into Egypt to foment the upheaval. It makes sense now that Obama went on his “Apology Tour” and stopped in Cairo.
Jan 31, 2011 9:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
greyflc wrote:
Trick being, the way the law is written, it’s not a mandate. It’s a tax.
Along with a tax exemption if you choose to purchase a qualifying healthcare plan.
Now if they want to take a court case all the way to the top federal level which says “Taxes and Tax Exemptions are illegal”, I’m sure they’d just get laughed out of court.
Jan 31, 2011 9:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
r1ghtm1nd wrote:
The fed has required insurance since the time of the founding fathers that wrote the constitution.
Jan 31, 2011 9:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
vikings4123 wrote:
Now that’s ironic….”"We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling today and continue to believe — as other federal courts have found — that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional,” Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.” A justice department in obama’s administration. Who gives a rat’s *ss what the obama administration thinks about today’s ruling. It’s a rogue, invalid administration.
Jan 31, 2011 9:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sinbad1 wrote:
If you look at it from purely an economic perspective, the idea of having medical care for the poor is bad for business. Medical care means that poor people live longer and cost even more in pensions etc. As the poor are generally poorly educated manual labor is the only way they can earn a living. Once past fifty most people are past their prime productivity and younger people would be more efficient.
For the rich things are different they are educated and earn a living with their brain not their body so they can maintain their productivity for much longer and of course they do not cost the taxpayer a red cent.
If the US abolished all Government and employer based subsidies to health care the US economy would be in much better shape.
Sure initially a lot of people would die from the lack of medical care and the life expectancy would decline but the economy would be much more productive, and that is what seems to be important to most Americans.
Well that’s the economic argument,thank god I live in a compassionate country with a real health care system.
Jan 31, 2011 9:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KennyWest wrote:
The left always considers court decisions as the last word when the ruling goes their way (Roe vs Wade for instance). Now let’s see how they respond when the ruling is against one of their sacred cows. My guess is they won’t let this be the end of Obamacare.
Jan 31, 2011 9:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
larryPTL wrote:
This is only the beginning. Since the law that is in effect (or was until today first passed in the Senate, and since the Constitution specifies that all bills raising taxes must originate in the House, it is also unconstitutional in that regard.
Thank goodness no judge touched this until the previous Congress had been voted out of office!!!
Jan 31, 2011 9:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
vikings4123 wrote:
March 31, 2009: “Legal eagle Tracy Schmaler, formerly the senior director, global public affairs at Yahoo! Inc, is joining the Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs as Deputy Director where she will work alongside Director Matt Miller. Previous to working at Yahoo!, Schmaler ran the show at the Senate Judiciary Committee where she was communications director to the Committee for Senator Leahy. During her time on the Committee, Schmaler made life difficult for the Bush Administration’s Supreme Court nominations and her work is both feared and well-respected by both sides of the aisle.” So, she jumped ship just when she realized she needed to be in the federal government in order to avoid being part of obamacare? Guess what, Tracy, we are not going to comply with what you want…you join obamacare if it is so good. We are not sheeple and we will not be told what to do nor made to join this joke legislation…. not going to happen. No way.
Jan 31, 2011 9:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
loragog wrote:
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – one man will decide whether Obamacare is constitutional, and that man is Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. We all know how every other Justice will vote:
Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia will vote that it is unconstitutional.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor will vote that it is constitutional.
The only unknown is what side Kennedy will take.
Jan 31, 2011 9:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Chuck247 wrote:
Everybody wants healthcare, if you don’t have it. If everyone contributes to the program has anyone figured out if would fund the system or knot. Lets get our services down in cost doesn’t any one feel when they receive their hospital bills they seem to have movie show snack prices. Right now the system is go to hospital with no insurance get what medical services you can, get out and not pay. Lack of follow up is a death sentence for some. Is it more constitutional to let people die for lack of care. This health care program has the potential to help everyone. Let’s not bankrupt the country in the process but lets start making exceptions that will allow the system to work.
Jan 31, 2011 9:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
nosmtrthanu wrote:
self serving jackalopes. i pray nobody in your families find themselves on the end you’re trying so hard to defeat.
Jan 31, 2011 10:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SpreadTheWealth wrote:
In 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that “if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house”.
Interesting how Obama always seems to forget what he supported after he was elected.
Jan 31, 2011 10:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
drtom312 wrote:
1 Nov 2010
Obama’s GAME (Great American Marxist Experiment) is over, a failure. Marxism goes against the basic human instincts that freedom is a natural, God-given right, that what you make (or earn) is yours to keep, that family, not government, is the basic social unit. Democrats have historically been the party to raise taxes and increase the size of government, but Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have taken these mistaken policies to the extreme. Republicans, Independents, and Tea Party members will now be forever vigilant of the Left and we will vote.
Tom Johnson, Largo, Florida
PS 19 Jan 2011
Obamacare is illegal. The original, very short, Commerce Clause is too loosely interpreted. Obamacare will NOT reduce total US health care costs by bringing an additional 30-50,000,000 people into the health care system, especially without tort reform. Democrats do NOT believe in the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
1. Federal health care is not one of the enumerated powers in the US Constitution, therefore, Obamacare is illegal. This only matters if you believe that the USA is a nation of laws and that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is clear that Democrats do NOT believe in the US Constitution. Obama supposedly taught US Constitutional law for 12 years, so he must understand the US Constitution. Since health care, as he signed it into law, is illegal, the only conclusion left is that Obama, and the Democrats who voted for health care, do not believe in the US Constitution.
2. The commerce clause was never intended to have such broad scope. These powers have been made up by the Democrats out of thin air.
Jan 31, 2011 10:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WeatherRusty wrote:
Let’s carry out the conservative ideology to a logical conclusion. No health insurance? Choose not to or can’t pay for insurance? Fine, NO health care for you. To bad. NO free healthcare. Let them suffer. Why should conservatives have to pay even indirectly for what someone else gets for nothing. You conservatives should be arguing just as passionately against free emergency room treatment just to be logically consistent. Make the patient pay on the spot, prove ability to pay, or NO service.
Jan 31, 2011 10:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
oparoberts wrote:
Health care reform is too simple. Congress can tax for the general welfare; that is how we have SS and Medicare. Slap the tax on us; handle it just like Medicare.
The Dems had a Royal Flush for 2 years Jan 2010-Jan 2011; why didn’t they implement reform this way? Because they know the American people overwhelmingly reject such a plan and it would have been/still would be political suicide to advocate and fight for it.
So instead of doing what they are empowered to, tax us for the “general welfare”, they chose this end run, mandate approach hoping they could get the reform and keep their jobs.
Bottom Line: Congress doesn’t have the moral courage to lay what would be an unpopular tax on us for what they assert is a “right”, health care.
Jan 31, 2011 10:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
txgadfly wrote:
Hurrah for the AMA and the insurance industry! Victory! No affordable health care for the USA. Just what they wanted.
Jan 31, 2011 10:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dhunt81 wrote:
These activist judges need to be put out on the street. We are tired of these judges legislating from the bench and overruling the will of the people. Who do they think they are?
Well that is what your argument should be if you are a conservative….right
Jan 31, 2011 10:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RachelC wrote:
You mean there is STILL a judge left in America who believes in the Constitution? Well, whaddyaknow! Good for him….good for America.
Jan 31, 2011 11:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sxactive wrote:
The article written by Tom Brown is not a clean piece of journalism. Mr. Brown’s transparancy in his bias leaves the reader without a true picture of the situation. While it is true that Mr. Reid would make such a luricrous statement, the reality is the complete oposite. Fact: Mr. Reid is well know for lack of truth or facts in most of his statements. Mr. Brown should have offered the truth next to Mr. Reid’s statement thereby giving the public a sense of reality. The article attempts to somehow diminish the authority of over 50% of our country’s states and well respected judge by repeatedly indicating that the majority were Republicans(giving no statistics) or that the judge was appointed by Republican Reagan, as if this would nullify the validity of the lawsuit and decision. I’m sick and tired of this type of irresponsible reporting. It just shows that journalism schools are not doing a good job in teaching ethics in their profession.
Jan 31, 2011 11:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
billybob1 wrote:
It’s clearly unconstitutional and yet will end up in the hands of the US Supreme Court, which remarkably will pretend to struggle with what’s obvious to everyone with half a brain — it’s unconstitutional! It’s sad what we’ve sunk to as a nation. Bottom line: It’s not about stupidity in high places, it’s about power and greed.
Jan 31, 2011 11:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LouannO wrote:
Jan 31, 2011 11:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jimfact wrote:
This is a law that is supported by almost every union in the country. They have a pension crisis and can’t afford to pay for the promised health care of retired union members. This law would allow them to drop coverage on all their retired workers and have the government pick up the tab. Think about it!
Jan 31, 2011 11:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
billybob1 wrote:
To txgadfly: Thank you for mentioning the AMA, which is comprised of alleged physicians, who all took an oath to help the sick and never do harm to people in need of medical assistance. I guess money talks — morals walk.
Jan 31, 2011 11:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Re-Tired wrote:
Didn’t Obama say in 2008 (CNN interview) that if mandates were constitutional you could solve the homeless problem by mandating everyone had to buy a home?
Jan 31, 2011 11:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sbenard wrote:
A small victory against the tyranny of progressivism!
Feb 01, 2011 12:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
RachelS wrote:
@psloyan and others who support this bill: Please explain to me how the health care mandate is any different than Congress passing a bill that would require every citizen to buy hybrid cars. Based on arguments from the Left, both would be beneficial to the citizenry and would save money. However, both are also unconstitutional. (Maybe I shouldn’t be giving the Left ideas.)
Feb 01, 2011 12:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
RG4nd wrote:
While many see this as a Rep vs Dem issue, it is really a lesson in civics and I am surprised that many seem to miss this. I read most of the 78 page brief. I will finish it later. The judge has put forward a very well thought out reason for rejecting this as not meeting the commerce clause. He states in his ruling clearly that Congress has the ability and power to enact controls, but sites the mandate for purchase as being beyond the scope of power.
This is not whether or not HC reform is needed, it simply states that the path Congress chose exceeds its powers granted to it by the Constitution.
For me I was pleased with the ruling even though there are many provisions of the HC bill I like. However the lack of a severance clause in the bill leaves the entire bill in jeopardy. If any portion of the bill is found unconstitutional the entire bill is void! Now I wonder why for the first time in modern history a bill was written without this clause? Could it be that they knew it would not pass the courts, but wanted for political reasons to pass something simply for the potential gain in stature they thought it would bring?
Feb 01, 2011 12:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
tehrdbl wrote:
psloyan wrote:
“That evil Obama – the nerve of him to want to give 40 million unfortunate, uninsured people healthcare.”
Are you talking about the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants and the estimated 16 million – mostly young, healthy adults – who could pay for health insurance, but choose not to do so. (I did the same when I was that age and paid my way as needed.) That leaves approximately 12 million – out of a population of 300+ million – who could actually use some help.
Why do we need a 2500 page bill, which screws up our whole U.S. health system, to help those 12 million folks?
Feb 01, 2011 12:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
THANK YOU RONALDUS MAGMUS. I voted for Reagan, and you should thank whatever god you worship for his wise leadership of our country. This judge, in his decision to gut this piece of garbage, has given us hope that we can stop this destructive march to Socialism without having to take up arms against tyranny like our great Nations founders had to do. OUR CURRENT GOVERNMENT MUST NOT BE SANCTIONED TO USURP OUR FREEDOMS! We must continue to vote these hippie morons out of office at every level of Government. Turn off the liberal liars, shout them down, do not but the product they are selling! I will not be forced to purchase something that O’dunno cobbled together with his cronies from that bastion of liberalism known as Chi-town and his now “exempt from it” back stabbing union losers. Show me where Socialism works and I will gladly buy you a ticket there. It doesn’t work, it can’t work and it won’t work and that fact doesn’t change no matter what the willing accomplices in the media have to say. Thank You Ronald Reagan, Thank you to this Judge and to be fair, thank you Big Dummy Obama, you have single handed accomplished the destruction of the Democrat party by spotlighting liberal stupidity. On to the Supremes! I only wish they would televise the battle.
Feb 01, 2011 12:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
AldonSamaha wrote:
The “Rule of Law” means we have to obey the law of the Constitution no matter how much we wish it means something else. I have every confidence that the Supremes will see it the same way that the Federal Judge in Florida does. Of course this looks bad for our Constitutional “expert,” Obama.
Feb 01, 2011 12:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:
So we don’t need to buy car insurance either? I have to wonder how all of these critics think the emergency room visits by all of these uninsured is paid for? I guess all of you screaming about these people being made to buy some sort of insurance are happier with paying for them via the high costs that are incurred because the healthcare industry has to make up these losses somewhere. Do you actually think they are just sucking it up and taking the hit themselves?
Feb 01, 2011 12:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
Apeon wrote:
It will be 5 to 4, , Unconstitutional, no sense in naming the Supreme’s you know which ones believe in the Constitution, and the ones who vote their opinion!
Feb 01, 2011 12:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
nccsa1862 wrote:
Sen Reed: “…now that Americans see its benefits, a majority of them oppose Republicans’ dangerous plans to repeal a law that put patients in control of their own healthcare”
I have yet to see a poll where a majority do not favor outright repeal.
What planet is this man living on? Does he see Elvis too?
More to the point, sounds very fascist. Keep telling the lie often enough and big enough, and hope eventually people believe it.
Feb 01, 2011 1:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
Prezero wrote:
Actually you don’t need to buy it fromthecenter. You can walk. You can ride a bike. You can ride the bus.
States can force you to show you have the financial ability to pay for costs incurred that you are responsible for from driving. Now where is that particular authority granted to the Federal Government under the Constitution? Answer: It isn’t. Why are you so eager to grant more extra-Constitutional control to the Federal Government?
Oh and eat it Obama.
Feb 01, 2011 1:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
Tonylord wrote:
If the Health care law is unconstitutional then Federal and State taxes, social security, medicare and medicaid are unconstitutional as well. All these functions that the government performs are forced on all the citizens to participate and buy into to benefit all Americans. It is the obligation and duty of the government to protect all it’s citizens form enemies external or internal. Sickness and disease is the internal enemy.
Feb 01, 2011 1:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
4mommy wrote:
I guess that’s bound to happen when you have no sound principles and everything is a calculation and triangulation– eventually your scheming comes full circle. BJ Clinton would be proud.
Feb 01, 2011 1:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
LEEDAP wrote:
Leave it to conservative activist judges to override the rule of the people!
Feb 01, 2011 2:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
luv2ski wrote:
Why is it that Tom Brown, et. al. and Reuters choose to go out of their way in this article to point out the political affiliation of the state attorneys general and the president that appointed Judge Vinson? Funny how they don’t mention that the only thing that was bipartisan about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was the opposition in congress that voted against it. I wonder why they failed to mention that the only two judges that have upheld the individual mandate were Democrat appointees or that the majority of Americans opposed the act during passage and still oppose it now as all respectable polling has shown.
Feb 01, 2011 4:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
HeatherGirl wrote:
A majority of Americans oppose repeal of the law? Reid is a lier. Americans like some things in the law, but the majority still oppose the law as a whole!
Feb 01, 2011 6:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
Jeff_L wrote:
Hopefully this will stop the Socialists and Communists in the White House from gaining more power.
Feb 01, 2011 6:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
HenryMiller wrote:
Is the Article I, Section 8, power of Congress to levy taxes an open-ended power that can be used for any purpose whatsoever? Or can that power be used only to raise revenue to exercise one of the enumerated powers? It’s a key question. Of course, if the Supreme Court decides the former, Congress has essentially unlimited power that can be exercised simply levying confiscatory taxes on behaviours, positive or negative, contrary to any mandate it cares to impose. That clearly violates the intent of the Constitution.
Is the power to “regulate Commerce” an absolute power to regulate all American economic activity whatsoever? Unbelievably, it’s been interpreted that way: in 1942, the Court found that a farmer growing wheat for his own use, not even remotely to be sold even locally, let alone across state lines, could be forced to stop doing so, and destroy the wheat already grown, because, by growing his own wheat, he wasn’t buying wheat on an open market, thereby affecting interstate commerce. This also clearly violates the intent of the Constitution, if only by its pettiness.
The point is that the federal government seems always to be looking for ways to evade the limits imposed on it by the Constitution and, if that’s allowed to happen, every protection the Constitution offers Americans from the abuse of power by government vanishes. The First Amendment says, in part, that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. But Congress also has the power to tax. Is therefore Congress empowered to impose a $1 billion tax on any newspaper that prints views with which it disagrees? Some years ago, a US Senator has proposed doing an end-run around the Second Amendment by imposing a 10 thousand percent tax on the sale of handguns. Is that permissible? Boarding an aeroplane, an exercise of “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” is being taken these days as an implied voluntary waiver of a right to be secure against unreasonable searches.
The Obamacare decision is going to have a lot of ramifications, and I truly hope it at least takes a big step toward ending interpretations of the Constitution that are so broad as to make the document essentially meaningless.
Feb 01, 2011 7:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
Delphinus13 wrote:
On the Social Security question, why can I and other younger workers not opt out. I did the math a few years ago when I received that annual Social Security statement on my 30th birthday. I figured out that even if I forfeit ever penny I’d paid in up to that point, and were able to opt out and invest my 6.2% SS tax + the 6.2% my employer pays in on MY behalf, into a private, FDIC-insured savings account, that I could build up a nest egg of about $400K by age 59. Then, I could earn 4% interest ($16K/yr) for life. If I died at age 59 like my dad did, I could leave that $400K to my wife, children, or other heirs. Instead, as SS stated, I HAVE to work until 62 1/2 (3 1/2 years LONGER to earn ~$12K/year (33% LESS), and if I die at age 59, it all goes POOF! and disappears.
None of my Senators or representatives could give a satisfactory answer to this question. Repeated letters only elicited the same canned response that they couldn’t allow younger workers to opt out and still pay SS benefits to current retirees. In other words, they admitted that Social Security is a federally-mandated Ponzi scheme.
Feb 01, 2011 8:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
Delphinus13 wrote:
Reid, Pelosi, and the gang repeatedly threw around this number “30 million uninsured.” IN a nation of 300 million people, this means 10% were uninsured. THe converse is that 90% ARE insured. So the Dems want to ruin the best health care system in the world that adequately serves 90% (270 million people), to make sure we get to the 10% (30 million) uninsured. The fact that about half of those 30 million are affluent young people in their 20s and 30s who just choose not to purchase insurance also was conveniently ignored.
It seems more and more that this law was never about insuring more people and was always about nationalizing a major segment of the U.S. economy.
Feb 01, 2011 8:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
MrsBerry wrote:
Do I want my 23 year old college student with serious medical issues to have access to good healthcare? Do I want my children to never be denied health insurance based upon pre-existing conditions?
Yes, and yes, BUT all law must pass muster with the U.S. Constitution and healthcare reform does not.
I will not trample on the U.S. Constitution in order to satisfy my own personal needs no matter how dire they are.
Feb 01, 2011 10:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
Josie09 wrote:
@Abkisa…..Why is it then that so many Canadians come to America for medical treatment? Is it because if they waited for treatment in Canada that they’d be dead by then? Your problem is that your brain is short-circuiting before you take all the issues involved into consideration. Or maybe, since you lived in Canada all those years, you’re not really an American who believes in our CONSTITUTION.
Feb 01, 2011 10:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
MartySomoco wrote:
Virginia has a law which requires drivers to purchase auto insurance or pay a penalty. If the healthcare law’s similar requirement is unconstitutional, the Virginia law (and similar laws in other states) must also be unconstitutional.
Feb 01, 2011 1:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Pmummy wrote:
Correction – Canadians going to America for medical treatment do so because it is for elective surgery that they do not want to wait for and can afford to pay to have it done sooner. If you have an emergency/urgent situation, you are taken care of immediately. And no one asks to see proof of insurance or that you can pay before you are treated.
I hope this reform goes through. You will all have to start paying more taxes if you don’t want to buy insurance. The people objecting to this reform have obviously never been ill. Wait until you are older and have to decide whether you can afford to pay for health care to treat a life-threatening illness. It happens to almost everyone.
Your Constitution needs updating. You have more and more people who can’t afford health care. That was not anticipated when the Constitution was written.
Feb 01, 2011 1:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crawdaddy wrote:
You know what is DEFINITELY Constitutional? The Public Option.
You Tea Baggers and Birthers need to get a clue, for one Hawaii has produced Obama’s birth certificate many a time. And for all you rich tea baggers with health insurance show some compassion for those with bad health problems that cant afford it, and for the poor tea baggers that don’t have health insurance that this bill would help, your too stupid to understand the rich people and corporations trying to avoid paying $$$ to help out the poor is actually what runs the tea bagger movement. I feel sorry for those that do not even have the basic intelligence/observational skills to realize this and they just buy into the big govt. hysteria.
PUT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES OUT OF BUSINESS!!!!!!! They are the true evil here, making $$$ off people’s misery.
Feb 01, 2011 3:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CPA1976 wrote:
I am not a Republican and I was raised as a Democrat. You know as well as I do that this bill was a bait and switch for the people who trust Democrats and voted for them. There was no mention of being forced to purchase anything while the election was happening nor while the Healthcare debate was happening. You need to drop the partisanship and start looking at reality. Both parties are wrong for what America needs right now and as a citizen making assumptions that only Republicans oppose this is rediculous. Now as for you statement equating Health insurance to Auto insurance. It is like comparing apples to oranges. Driving is a privilege, life is not, therefore the need for healthcare is passive and not something that can be avoided.
Stop believing Democrats won just because your party tells you that they won. Nobody is a winner when the party tells you that this change will decrease costs and makes that same claim as you see costs increase in what you pay. Read Orwell’s “1984″ to understand how brainwashing works. How can you rectify the fact that the Democrats claim it was a compromise when in reality they had the majority and could pass what ever they wanted? How can you rectify Democrats campaigning for Healthcare reform by demonizing Health Insurance companies and their executives only to turn around and give them 20 million new customers on a silver platter? How can you rectify claiming to help the poor with this bill and then making a law that penalizes the poorest Americans because they can not afford what the law says they must purchase? You need to get a grip on reality when it comes to your sentiments for the party you protect.
Feb 01, 2011 3:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CPA1976 wrote:
@MartySomoco 2/1/11 1:46 PM:
1. Virginia has a different constitution than that of the Federal Government, so your logic is incorrect.
2. Driving is a privilege, life is not, so you should have to purchase insurance in order to drive. You should not have to purchase anything in order to live in this country.
Feb 01, 2011 4:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Janeallen wrote:
The ultimate decision will be made by the Supreme Court.
Here, Obama may be caught by his own self-serving intentions in choosing Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens.
Obama picked Kagan in part because she’s a sophiscated “kiss ass”.
At Harvard, she wrote at length, in twisted logic about how the President’s power should be more unbridled. This was when President Bush was widely criticized to have misused presidential power, and Kagan called herself a liberal!
Kagan is a self-serving jerk who wrote that with the aim of being named Sup. Ct Justice by future president. She is somebody who will abandon all principles and morals to kiss ass, except for areas of strong self interest. An exception would be her opposition to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell because she is gay, not because she was standing up for anyone or any principles.
When this case goes to the SUpreme Court, Kagan will have to recuse herself because she was working for Obama at the time the case was filed.
Without Justice Steven’s vote, and without a replacement, the court will be more conservative than it’s been in the past 3 or 4 decades.
Obama will be caught by his own self-serving interest to pick a Justice whom he thinks will side with him on everything. He picked a dog who wagged his tail all the time at him, and held her head up high, using all her intelligence to misrepresent in increasingly sophiscated way to help herself climb the ladder.
OBama’s cornerstone legislation will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because OBama, a constitutional lawyer, was thinking more for himself than for America’s longterm interest in picking Elena Kagan, who was in bed with Goldman and all the sleazy Wall Street bandits who robbed America. She sold America’s interest out and defended the crooks as long as they made large endownment to Harvard.
Another guy less knowledgeable about constitutional law might argue that his choice was due to ignorance about Kagan’s history of self-serving, power-grabbing, all-for-herself track record. But, with Obama’s credentials in constitutional law, Obama has no excuse.
Obama is guilty of putting himself over the country in picking Kagan, and will get his ass (which has been polished smoothly by all the kissing by Kagan) finally kicked badly at the Supreme Court.
Feb 01, 2011 5:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CPA1976 wrote:
Your points are very interesting. It seems that egos always win out over goals and living up to the stated mission of the political campaign. When egos of our politicians outweigh the good that they do, it is time to consider a different form of Democracy.
Feb 01, 2011 5:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BHOlied wrote:
if one more lib mentions car insurance I think I’ll scream
are you people really that stupid? So you think cars and houses have become rights do you?
Wow is all I can say…
Feb 01, 2011 5:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RedScourge wrote:
How can you neo-con extremists say that the Democrats are spitting in the face of the taxpayers when over 60% of taxpayers support the health care reform bill?
This bill is about LOWERING healthcare expenses, which will help prevent having to RAISE the taxes. Aren’t you guys always talking about how important it is to not raise taxes?
American healthcare is currently well behind the developed world in almost all aspects. The American system costs twice a much per capita than the one right next door to you in Canada, where the government provides coverage to all citizens. This allows Canada to LOWER THEIR TAXES.
Let me get this straight, you believe that if you drive a car uninsured it’s illegal, but that it’s unconstitutional for the government to make sure that all the citizens driving those cars have health insurance?
Feb 01, 2011 8:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RedScourge wrote:
You crazy neo-cons forced the Democrats to take out the public option that would ensure that all Americans are insured without forcing them to buy a policy, now you criticize them for forcing Americans to pay for insurance. You guys are quite the piece of work.
You should see this bill for what it is supposed to be: a declaration that all citizens have the RIGHT to healthcare coverage regardless of how many donuts they have scarfed down.
“Oh no, healthy americans are forced to buy coverage! He’s clearly Hitler!”…give me a break. First of all, Where’s this alleged “healthy American”, and is there more than one? All I see when I go to the US are fat people.
This bill is supposed to protect morons from themselves, so their entire family doesnt end up bankrupt if someone suddenly gets Cancer, or gets in a car wreck. This is just like how a mandatory retirement fund protects those too stupid to plan for their own retirement from themselves. It would be nice if these sorts of things were not necessary, but as long as there are stupid people there will be laws designed to protect stupid people from themselves.
Feb 01, 2011 8:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RedScourge wrote:
@BHOlied: actually, the point of those car and house arguments is that it’s pathetic that your houses and cars MUST have insurance because it’s unsafe not to, yet it’s considered perfectly fine for PEOPLE not to have any sort of health coverage.
Don’t you think you should have the right to health care? A health care system where everyone is insured means nobody risks going broke if they get sick, which means you can get better and get back to work, which keeps the economy working, you know, that thing you guys love, no not that politician Reagan who ALSO tried to pass health care reform, the OTHER thing you guys love.
Feb 01, 2011 8:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CPA1976 wrote:
@RedScourge: I am no Republican, nor a neo-con extremist but your logic is flawed if you equate Auto insurance to Health insurance. Yes, it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to force you to purchase a product. Auto insurance is not the same as health insurance because driving is a privilege, living is not. Auto insurance is required by state mandate for the privilege of driving, not federal mandate. There is a big difference. It is tanamount to having your children being born in debt to an insurance company. Orwell would be turning over in his grave. No true liberal should want the law that the Democrats passed!
Feb 01, 2011 9:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:
The idea of having to buy car insurance is to protect other people from uninsured drivers. When you get hit by an uninsured driver, chances are you insurance premium will go up. Same principle with having millions of people driving to the emergency ward every time they get gas or cut a finger. Do you really think that doesn’t cost those of us who are paying for health insurance? Is this the only republican alternative? We can send billions overseas to prop up governments to protect the flow of oil, we can give a tax break to millionaires so they can gas up their yachts but we cant find a way to insure that every american can see a doctor or not have to choose between food and health?
Feb 02, 2011 5:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
Infojock121 wrote:
By reading some of these comments, it is clear that most of you are forgetting that you will continue to pay for those people who do not have health insurance one way or another. Therefore, while you gloat about the latest decision by this Florida judge, get ready to dig deeper into your pockets in order to pay for the uninsured, and when you do, please do it with a smile.
Feb 02, 2011 8:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
Delphinus13 wrote:
@RedScourge: What fantasyland are you getting your poll numbers from. All the polls the SANE world references show that at least 55% of Americans oppose this health care law passed last year. The Dems kept throwing around different numbers of uninsured. 30 million, 40 million, 50 million, now back down to 30 million. They had to revert to the 30 million when it was pointed out that they were inflating the numbers by including 15 million ILLEGAL ALIENS in their numbers. So, in a country of 300 million people, 30 million uninsured translates to 10% which means 270 million (90%) ARE insured. Of these 30 million, 10-12 million are affluent young people who CAN afford insurance, but CHOOSE not to buy it. THere already were programs in place to help those who couldn’t afford insurance.
This 2,700 page bill did NOTHING to address the root causes for why health care has gotten so expensive. 1.) A shortage of doctors and nurses coupled with growing demand. Econ 101, the law of Supply & Demand, 2.) The high R&D costs associated with developing the best medicines and technology in the world. For every successful drug on the market, Pharmaceutical companies have to invest billions of dollars and 15-20 years in R&D, FDA trials, etc., 3.) The sky high costs of medical malpractice insurance premiums. Doctors routinely spend $100K-$300K annually to protect themselves from our overly litigious society. Yet, this bill had NO tort reform in it.
The Dems did like they always do. Fabricated a crisis and then exploited it to induce fear on the population through language and ram through a horrid piece of legislation which utterly failed to address the real problems or actually solve the crisis it was supposed to solve.
Feb 02, 2011 8:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
Finndian wrote:
Enough of conservative activist judges already!
Feb 02, 2011 1:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DonkeyRider wrote:
Another stuttering obama’s mistake. Maybe he tried to push down our American throats without a teleprompter.
Feb 02, 2011 4:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DonkeyRider wrote:
Feb 02, 2011 4:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
louloizides21 wrote:
To all the people who believe that this Healthcare law is some type of government entitlement… who do you think is already paying for hospital care for uninsured/underinsured people? I’d rather have the government paying for inexpensive preventative care than $100k surgeries.
Feb 02, 2011 5:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse

We welcome comments that advance the story directly or with relevant tangential information. We try to block comments that use offensive language, all capital letters or appear to be spam, and we review comments frequently to ensure they meet our standards. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters.
© Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters
Thomson Reuters is the world's largest international multimedia news agency, providing investing news, world news, business news, technology news, headline news, small business news, news alerts, personal finance, stock market, and mutual funds information available on Reuters.com, video, mobile, and interactive television platforms. Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
NYSE and AMEX quotes delayed by at least 20 minutes. Nasdaq delayed by at least 15 minutes. For a complete list of exchanges and delays, please click here.
Chicago digging out of near record blizzardVideoGiant cyclone hits Australian tourist coastTexas weathers rolling blackouts as mercury dropsGiant cyclone pounds Australia coast; no deathsVideoWRAPUP 3-Massive winter storm slams US Midwest, Northeast250Judge strikes down Obama healthcare law162Israel shocked by Obama’s ”betrayal” of Mubarak81Obama says will not refight battle over healthcare lawRow over vote orgasm videoRow over vote orgasm videoBejeweled bra exposed in NYBejeweled bra exposed in NYAustralia: 'catastrophic' storm fearAustralia: 'catastrophic' storm fear