OT: Health care struck down

Page 1 of 16  
A Florida federal judge, responding to a suit brought by 26 state Attorney's General, has struck down the entire health care plan.
Here's the sequence of events:
The House of Representatives reached into several members filing cabinets and cobbled together a health care and insurance plan. The experts knew it wasn't perfect, but due to time constraints, they figured the Senate would apply a protective polish. The bill passed the House last March 21st by 4 votes.
But Scott Brown was elected March 19th. His presence in the Senate provided the 41st vote to sustain a filibuster by Republicans.
So the Senate had two choices: 1. Pass the bill as it stood, needing only 51 votes to do so, or 2. Open the bill to amendments which were subject to filibuster.
The Senate chose the former, passed the bill, and sent it to the president.
But the bill did not have its contents perfected. In particular, it lacked a "severability clause." A severability clause is boilerplate, usually part of a bill, that says if any part of the resulting law is found unconstitutional, the remaining parts will continue to stand.
Now to today: A federal judge concluded that the "individual mandate" part of the health care law was unconstitutional and, in the absence of a severability clause, he is compelled to strike down the whole thing.
The blame for the failure rests entirely with Ted Kennedy. Had he not died, Scott Brown would not have been elected, ...
Hi, ho, hi, ho, to the Supremes we go...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

the conservatives on the SCOTUS will ask 1 question, and 1 question only:
does this enable the rich to get richer. that's how they'll make their ruling
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If that is the case they will reverse the decision. The current health care bill is the insurance company relief act of 2010. All it really does is deliver 15 million new customers to the system, at the point of a government gun, with no real limit on their profits.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Speaking of guns, if the Congress can mandate everybody buy insurance, Congress can require that everybody must buy a gun! Universal gun ownership will go farther to guaranteeing a healthy and prosperous citizenry than mandatory insurance.
So said Ann Coulter tonight on TV.
One may like or dislike Coulter, but what she said gets one to thinking...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

At least 90% of drivers on the road are not and never will be competent behind the wheel, and you think everyone should own a gun?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/31/2011 10:31 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

There is driver training available to those who need it and there is also firearms training available to those who need it. I don't remember reading anything in The Constitution about a right to drive.....
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Driver training is not the issue unless it involves waterboarding along with electricity applied to sensitive areas of the body.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:42:20 -0600, The Daring Dufas

Remember, the Constitution is not a listing of individual rights, rather limitation on government's powers. ...or is supposed to be, anyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

YET.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

YET.
============ While at the gun range, I've never seen anyone talking on a cell phone or reading a map while shooting or otherwise handling a gun. Never.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:38:18 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"

Everyone at a range is exceedingly polite, as well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

No, I don't think everyone should own a gun.
But as I said - it gets one to thinking. For example, if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided by the government because legal representation has been found to be a right guaranteed by the constitution. It would seem, therefore, that if you cannot afford a gun ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/1/2011 5:42 AM, HeyBub wrote:

On some level, aren't most of us considered part of the civilian militia? I'd like to receive training with military weapons. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia#21st_Century:_Federally-organized_or_not
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4mjsvwx
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 06:47:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas

True, but you're supposed to muster with your own weapon. There is justification for requiring ownership of said weapon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Yes. The meanings of words change over the centuries.
In 1787, "militia" meant the entire body of the citizenry fit for military service. That is, all free males between 18 and something. It did NOT mean an organized military body as it does today. Likewise, the word "regulated" meant equipped with a functioning weapon, not subject to the "regulations" of a federal government (in 1887 there were no federal "regulations"). There are vestiges of the word in use still, as in a "well regulated timepiece."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/1/2011 8:28 PM, HeyBub wrote:

It's been a couple 3 years since I looked it up, but IIRC US Code has a definition of 'militia' in it that pretty closely hews to the 1787 definition. I don't care enough to search it out right now, but I'm sure one of the regulars on here has a link handy.
--
aem sends...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There is also an argument occasionally made that the RKBA shall not be infringed BECAUSE the state needs a militia or army. i.e., so that the individual, if necessary, may be armed to defend himself from a state controlled miliatia or military that has gone wrong or is used to oppress.
--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

It had to happen...
"Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm 'sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.' " http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

While I think it is almost the most stupid thing I have ever heard of, it is not without preceedent since the Federal Government thinks it can mandate purchase of Health Insurance from private companies to provide for medical care.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.