Another judge claims Obamacare's mandate doesn't violate the Constitution

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
A judge appointed by Bill Clinton wrote, "Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin."

So deciding not to engage in commerce the Fed govt can regulate, is engaging in commerce the fed govt can regulate???

Was this "judge" recently released from a lunatic asylum?

In the 1995 Supreme Court case US v. Lopez, the govt lawyers tried to pretend that bringing a gun to a school (not necessarily firing it) affected "interstate commerce" enough that the Fed govt could regulate that, too, despite the 2nd amendment's flat prohibitions. The long, tortured chain of "logic" they tried to cite to justify this, was amazing. Finally then-USSC Chief Justice Rehnquist stopped the lawyer, and asked him if he could name one activity in all of human experience, no matter how small or innocuous, that could not fall under the regulative ability the lawyer was trying to give Congress with his incredibly twisted "logic". The lawyer thought for a while, and admitted he couldn't name one.

Would that Rehnquist were alive today and in this nutty judge's courtroom, to ask her the same question.....

kessler.jpg


----------------------------------------

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ays-some-arguments-ignore-reality.php?ref=fpb

Federal Judge In D.C. Upholds Health Care Reform, Says Some Arguments 'Ignore Reality'

by Ryan J. Reilly
February 22, 2011, 7:51PM

A federal judge on Tuesday upheld the health care reform law signed last year by President Barack Obama and found that Congress had the clear authority to regulate health insurance under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler's 64-page ruling (below) takes aim at the argument espoused by many conservatives which holds that the passive act of not purchasing health insurance does not constitute an activity that can be regulated under the Commerce Clause.

"It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not 'acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice," Kessler writes. "Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin."
 
Werbung:
I LOVE it - not engaging in commerce is engaging in commerce. HEE HEE HEE! :D
 
See!!! Another liberal judge. You see Republicans dont get tough when Democrat president nominate their judges as their chosen,But when George Bush nominates his judges Democrats fillabuster them. Now When i see Obama naming more liberal judges i want RNC and Mr Speaker get tough with the GOP congressmen and say if you dont fillabuster them we wont fund towards your re-election campaign.
 
So every single thing is commerce and every single thing can be regulated and the writers of the constitution did not know what they were talking about when they thought they were creating a limited government.
 
So every single thing is commerce and every single thing can be regulated and the writers of the constitution did not know what they were talking about when they thought they were creating a limited government.

See my note about the 1995 US v. Lopez case in the OP.
 
Let me know when you have a choice not to get sick.....


And this matters how ?

Getting sick need not assume a requirement for insurance as one of the administration lawyers purported. You can pay for it yourself or you can forgo treatment. You may not feel its an acceptable alternative but others might.

And of course you can directly impact the chances of sickness.

Everything you or I do is the result of a choice.
 
And this matters how ?

Getting sick need not assume a requirement for insurance as one of the administration lawyers purported. You can pay for it yourself or you can forgo treatment. You may not feel its an acceptable alternative but others might.

And of course you can directly impact the chances of sickness.

Everything you or I do is the result of a choice.

so becuse Bill Gates can afford to pay for his medical bills out of his checking account...the millions who can't, but do get health care paid for by the tax payers should not have to get insurance?

If I make 50,000 a year...I can pay for health insurnace..

I can not pay for the costs of a triple Bypass surgery..

If I have a heart attack and end up in the ER...and need one...it will be done to save my life..

I can't pay the costs....so guess who does.?

you

the tax payer..

But don't worry, it was my choice for you to pay for it right?

Funny thing is...this is why the idea came about in the first place....FROM REPUBLICANS.
 
so becuse Bill Gates can afford to pay for his medical bills out of his checking account...the millions who can't, but do get health care paid for by the tax payers should not have to get insurance?

If I make 50,000 a year...I can pay for health insurnace..

I can not pay for the costs of a triple Bypass surgery..

If I have a heart attack and end up in the ER...and need one...it will be done to save my life..

I can't pay the costs....so guess who does.?

you

the tax payer..

But don't worry, it was my choice for you to pay for it right?

Funny thing is...this is why the idea came about in the first place....FROM REPUBLICANS.



If you are needy, the costs may be forgiven. If you are Medicaid qualified they government may pay for it. But if you are not needy, you're still going to pay and pay you should.

And there are lower cost alternatives to triple bypass.

Not to mention you dont NEED to have fried lard sandwichs five times a day...
 
If you are needy, the costs may be forgiven. If you are Medicaid qualified they government may pay for it. But if you are not needy, you're still going to pay and pay you should.

And there are lower cost alternatives to triple bypass.

Not to mention you dont NEED to have fried lard sandwichs five times a day...

the cost may be forgiven? really? how does that work? Magic pixi dust that makes the cost go away? No since its the real world, that cost is passed on to others..But I see you have come up with the great idea of just saying, well if your not needy pay for it...because the DR will have time to figure out your income level you lay dieing of a heart attack...and well since you just say pay for it...it will be done! Its magic! here sir...pay us 45,000...even if you can't work right now becuse of it...and other expenses that go with your surgery and health....

And as for your stupid , don't need to eat 5 lard samwitches a day...outsides showing your compleat ingnorance for the fact that people who eat healthy..still get sick...Do you want health care to also be based on your diet? Your dieing , and the DR should check your income to make sure you can pay for it, then ask about your diet?

Also what about Cancer? Liver Problems? Kidney failure?
"The average cost of a 30 day cancer drug prescription was more than $1,600 in 2006"
http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Fin...gInsuranceIssues/the-cost-of-cancer-treatment

So you think someone making 50,000 a year...is going to be able to pay
$20,000 a year...just for the drugs, not counting all other costs...and that you may not even be able to work anymore, or far less for a long period of time while you deal with it...so you made 50,000 past tense...not make....

Wait no...I know...the mystical fairy will pay for it.....not everyone else right? or do you advocate that the person just die for lack of money to pay for it?
You don't want goverment to have anything to do with your health care, and you don't want it to cost you anything...yet you support having to pay for people who choose not to get covererage...and for a Medical system that tells you how you must live your life in order to have your cost covered....
 
so becuse Bill Gates can afford to pay for his medical bills out of his checking account...the millions who can't, but do get health care paid for by the tax payers should not have to get insurance?

If I make 50,000 a year...I can pay for health insurnace..

I can not pay for the costs of a triple Bypass surgery..

If I have a heart attack and end up in the ER...and need one...it will be done to save my life..

I can't pay the costs....so guess who does.?

you

the tax payer..

But don't worry, it was my choice for you to pay for it right?

Funny thing is...this is why the idea came about in the first place....FROM REPUBLICANS.

If the costs of your refusal to get insurance are going to get passed on to me either through higher costs for my care (some of which is optional, well technically all of it is optional) or through higher taxes which are coercive then I chose the less coercive direction.

However, in your example if you are a person making 50K per year you would not simply have the hospital pay for it. You would be billed and could only avoid paying his costs if you declared bankruptcy in which case the sale of your assets would pay the costs. Far fewer people than some pretend actually have the hospital pay as your example implies. The costs to me are far less than the costs of Obamacare and I can avoid paying at least some of the costs by avoiding elective care or even going out of the country for my medical care to avoid all of the costs.
 
Werbung:
If the costs of your refusal to get insurance are going to get passed on to me either through higher costs for my care (some of which is optional, well technically all of it is optional) or through higher taxes which are coercive then I chose the less coercive direction.

However, in your example if you are a person making 50K per year you would not simply have the hospital pay for it. You would be billed and could only avoid paying his costs if you declared bankruptcy in which case the sale of your assets would pay the costs. Far fewer people than some pretend actually have the hospital pay as your example implies. The costs to me are far less than the costs of Obamacare and I can avoid paying at least some of the costs by avoiding elective care or even going out of the country for my medical care to avoid all of the costs.


Note that when indigent care was factored into paying customers (and it is today only to a lesser extent) there was no overhead of government bureaucrats to pay for nor regulation as to what HAD to be offered. Needy people got what was required and costs were contained. You all see what we have now. Unchecked costs on China's dime.
 
Back
Top