ACA upheld

[winsor 236]

The Atlantic has an interesting take on the ruling.

[RonD1120 62]

The real winners with ACA are the attorney's. Fox news reported that many recent law school grads could not find positions. Now they can be hired by law firms because health insurance can be provided. Where do you think they are going to get the funds?

What the world needs now is more lawyers.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Now they can be hired by law firms because health insurance can be provided.

That makes no sense. Are you sure you understood what they were reporting? Can you provide a link?

- Dan G

[kallend 2,117]

I don't see that a tax on freeloaders like Mary Brown is a bad thing at all.

She could afford insurance, chose not to have it, and then stiffed her doctors when she got sick.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 871]

In other words, if someone is so inclined to not be responsible enough to carry insurance nor pay their bills......no amount of new law will ever make this happen.

Every time a dishonest person fucks up, the honest people pay.

This will change nothing except to make us all pay more.
Deadbeats are deadbeats. This did not change yesterday.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

Now they can be hired by law firms because health insurance can be provided.

That makes no sense. Are you sure you understood what they were reporting? Can you provide a link?

It was a recap through huluplus on my DSL TV link. The panel was discussing the lack of legal employment because law firms and corporations were uncertain about their future medical insurance costs. Now they know.

My take is that lawsuits regarding ACA will flock like seagulls to tourists on the beach with bags of popcorn.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I don't see that a tax on freeloaders like Mary Brown is a bad thing at all.

She could afford insurance, chose not to have it, and then stiffed her doctors when she got sick.

I doubt Mary Brown is a real person. She is likely a "composite".

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

I don't see that a tax on freeloaders like Mary Brown is a bad thing at all.

She could afford insurance, chose not to have it, and then stiffed her doctors when she got sick.

I doubt Mary Brown is a real person. She is likely a "composite".

Mary Brown was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Very real, very freeloading, willing to stiff her doctors (and by extension, those of us responsible enough to have health insurance).

www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=h9&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=cflSZJQ2NAXJqEebRS95rw&cp=20&gs_id=6&xhr=t&q=mary+brown+plaintiff&pf=p&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=mar

The poster child for why the ACA is needed

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Now they can be hired by law firms because health insurance can be provided.

That makes no sense. Are you sure you understood what they were reporting? Can you provide a link?

It was a recap through huluplus on my DSL TV link. The panel was discussing the lack of legal employment because law firms and corporations were uncertain about their future medical insurance costs. Now they know.

My take is that lawsuits regarding ACA will flock like seagulls to tourists on the beach with bags of popcorn.

As a lawyer at a pharma and as a law professor who teaches law students about life sciences law (many of which are looking for gigs), this is the goofiest thing I've heard in the last 24 hours, and I've heard a metric ton of goofy things in the last 24 hours. Congratulations. This wins the prize.

The PPHCA is way more complicated than just the mandate (that opponents talk about) and the five or six insurance regulatory changes (that proponents talk about). (Curious about what they are? Here's a simple summary: http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm.)

There's going to be a decent amount of regulatory work for highly specialized insurance regulatory lawyers. But I'd strongly question the credentials of anyone who claims that this is going to create a boon for plaintiff's lawyers - or lots of employment opportunities for new lawyers - as you imply.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[RonD1120 62]

Thanks for the link. And, as everyone knows, attorneys live by the CYA code.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't see that a tax on freeloaders like Mary Brown is a bad thing at all.

She could afford insurance, chose not to have it, and then stiffed her doctors when she got sick.

I doubt Mary Brown is a real person. She is likely a "composite".

Mary Brown was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Very real, very freeloading, willing to stiff her doctors (and by extension, those of us responsible enough to have health insurance).

www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=h9&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=cflSZJQ2NAXJqEebRS95rw&cp=20&gs_id=6&xhr=t&q=mary+brown+plaintiff&pf=p&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=mar

The poster child for why the ACA is needed

Sorry, thought you would have gotten the humor.

[normiss 871]

nah, they go by CMA....you're on your own with YOUR ass.

[lawrocket 3]

Do you recall the oral arguments? When the Solicitor General was asked what the limits would be on this? The broccoli argument.

The Solicitiro General coulldnt state any. His argument was that the government wouldn't do that.he wouldn't identify anything that prevented the government from doing it, just that it wouldn't do it.

Now picture President Cheney with that power. That's what worries me. Identify for me how this decision prevents it. It's like saying our government would never hold people indefinitely without trial or habeas corpus.we know how vbalid that accusation is.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't see that a tax on freeloaders like Mary Brown is a bad thing at all.

She could afford insurance, chose not to have it, and then stiffed her doctors when she got sick.

I doubt Mary Brown is a real person. She is likely a "composite".

Mary Brown was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Very real, very freeloading, willing to stiff her doctors (and by extension, those of us responsible enough to have health insurance).

www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=h9&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=cflSZJQ2NAXJqEebRS95rw&cp=20&gs_id=6&xhr=t&q=mary+brown+plaintiff&pf=p&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=mar

The poster child for why the ACA is needed

I still dont get why health care free loaders bother you some much and all the rest dont.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 871]

Do you hold dual citizenship and are able to obtain free UK healthcare?

I know a few Brits that live here in the States, but travel home for medical and dental work.

[airdvr 210]

Roberts actually did R's a favor with his ruling. Barry will be on record as supporting an extremely large tax increase.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't see that a tax on freeloaders like Mary Brown is a bad thing at all.

She could afford insurance, chose not to have it, and then stiffed her doctors when she got sick.

I doubt Mary Brown is a real person. She is likely a "composite".

Mary Brown was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Very real, very freeloading, willing to stiff her doctors (and by extension, those of us responsible enough to have health insurance).

www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=h9&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=cflSZJQ2NAXJqEebRS95rw&cp=20&gs_id=6&xhr=t&q=mary+brown+plaintiff&pf=p&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=mar

The poster child for why the ACA is needed

Sorry, thought you would have gotten the humor.

I'm sure you think it funny to stiff your doctor for medical care.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Roberts actually did R's a favor with his ruling. Barry will be on record as supporting an extremely large tax increase.

Are you freeloading on the rest of us then? How much more will you be paying?

Rushmc avoided the question when he made the same claim yesterday.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Do you hold dual citizenship and are able to obtain free UK healthcare?

I know a few Brits that live here in the States, but travel home for medical and dental work.

No, I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Insured, like any responsible person should be.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I shall explain my beliefs on this...

For those who say it won't happen, you're probably right. For now, I see little chance of a law being passed that requires a person to purchase broccoli. Or purchase legal services from lawrocket. That kind of thing.

The problem is that a system has been confirmed that authorizes such things. It is not beyond the scope of the federal government to do it.

These federal powers are a double-edged sword. Sure, they can be used for those things that people "feel" are good. Superman had laser vision. That's a good thing. Unless superman goes evil, in which case laser vision is really not a nice thing.

The system was set up with limited federal powers. Of course, these have changed. Income taxes were ruled unconstitutional in 1895. The 16th Amendment then was ratified in 1913 so change is inherent in the system. Federal power has grown and while I can argue that this is a system set up of limuited government it can be reasoned that the tax power is broad and bigger since 1913.

Still, I am concerned with grants of power. I do not trust governments to keep themselveves in check. I do not trust a government to stay within bounds. I do not trust government to do whateber it can. We know that government has a long history of even doing things it can't or is against its own rules.

The same usurpation of power that can be used for good can be used for bad. I want that freedom and power to go to individuals and not have the balance of power shift from the individual to the government.

What can the government make us do? What are the limits of that power? Anybody have an answer that you can back up?

I don't. That thought alone is cause for my concern.
.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

I shall explain my beliefs on this...

For those who say it won't happen, you're probably right. For now, I see little chance of a law being passed that requires a person to purchase broccoli. Or purchase legal services from lawrocket. That kind of thing.

The problem is that a system has been confirmed that authorizes such things. It is not beyond the scope of the federal government to do it.

These federal powers are a double-edged sword. Sure, they can be used for those things that people "feel" are good. Superman had laser vision. That's a good thing. Unless superman goes evil, in which case laser vision is really not a nice thing.

The system was set up with limited federal powers. Of course, these have changed. Income taxes were ruled unconstitutional in 1895. The 16th Amendment then was ratified in 1913 so change is inherent in the system. Federal power has grown and while I can argue that this is a system set up of limuited government it can be reasoned that the tax power is broad and bigger since 1913.

Still, I am concerned with grants of power. I do not trust governments to keep themselveves in check. I do not trust a government to stay within bounds. I do not trust government to do whateber it can. We know that government has a long history of even doing things it can't or is against its own rules.

The same usurpation of power that can be used for good can be used for bad. I want that freedom and power to go to individuals and not have the balance of power shift from the individual to the government.

What can the government make us do? What are the limits of that power? Anybody have an answer that you can back up?

I don't. That thought alone is cause for my concern.
.

Rather like having a mortgage then? The govt. wants you to have one, so you pay a tax penalty if you don't.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 871]

Thanks John, I was just curious if that had impact on your perspective.

I also agree. I've always carried good insurance (especially when court ordered for my girls!).

I honestly hope this new approach will fix many of our healthcare problems, but I seriously doubt it.
The costs and tort reform seem to me to be a serious prerequisite.
I make a comfortable living and it HURTS to pay medical bills. I cannot imagine what a poor family goes through nor how the hell they can afford it. Nor how forcing them to will 'fix' anything.

[billvon 3,090]

>Now picture President Cheney with that power. That's what worries me. Identify for me
>how this decision prevents it.

It doesn't. Neither does their recent decision over the Stolen Valor act. How will that decision prevent "President Cheney" from taking more power?

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I shall explain my beliefs on this...

Honestly I am very suspicious of government power as well (in general). I am still digesting this opinion and haven't fully formed views.

I believe at least some of the concerns you are pointing to are precisely why Roberts held that the act is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. I am not sure that ruling it is applicable under the taxing authority changes anything substantially or not as I am less up on my taxing authority jurisprudence. My first response is that powers in this area were pretty well unlimited already, but I don't know for sure.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[davjohns 1]

Madison:

Quote:
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.

Quote:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.

Quote:
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

Jefferson:

Quote:
The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed.

Quote:
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

I guess the current government's extended reach is one of those things we signed up for when we voted for 'change'. We've changed from anything the Founding Fathers envisioned. I guess people are ok with that. I preferred the less intrusive government model.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.