Judge to Prez: You Have 1 Week to Save Obamacare!: (that's what you get for blowing off a Judge!)

The clock is ticking on the Obama administration’s plans to implement Obamacare.

That was the bottom-line result following a federal judge’s ruling Thursday giving the administration just seven days to file an expedited appeal either to the U.S. Supreme Court or the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. If the administration misses that deadline, it could face an injunction that would bring its implementation of Obamacare to a screeching halt in 26 states.

Judge Roger Vinson’s 20-page ruling chastised the government for dragging its feet before seeking a stay, or temporary suspension, of his January ruling that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. Vinson previously ruled that requiring individuals to make a federally mandated purchase -- buying a healthcare plan -- exceeds the federal government’s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Vinson said he had expected the government to ask for a stay of his ruling. “It was not expected,” he wrote in his opinion Thursday, “that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to ‘clarify.’”

Source: www.newsmax.com...

Well, finally someone with some ba--s. Seriously. If this dam Obamacare is so good and right for everyone-Get infront of that Judge (OR ANY Judge) and defend your law/actions. Put it out there for all to see-in the bright lights.

No, you can-can you Obama. You and you cronies can't affort to have this law brought to full light----not now... it's too early.

No Obama. It's too late for you. This Law will be stopped in it's tracks and Once Again be ruled/deemed Un-Constitutional. Obama will only be able to ignore for so long.

Remember, we are a nation of laws. It's Game Time. Get your A Game on. Gonna be a wild and crazy ride between here and 2012.

Clearly, this administration does not think to highly of laws and directives that they don't care for. To them, its all open to interpretation by them, for them. The DOJ has become a laughing stock... blah blah... You know how I feel about this.

The tailspin has to stop at some point...Pehaps impeachment as a result of ignoring the law should would do...

reply to post by anon72


How long are you Americans going to allow your Muslim leader to screw your country. I remember now how many of you voted for him. The great savior. Pfft please.... What a joke.

i am really getting tired of people calling the health care bill Obamacare. people like that are the reason why health care system is so messed up. what is that scares people about universal health care for all or medicare for all. well i guess if you listen to the right wing of this country they have all their ignorant answers like "death panels" or some stupid reason. yes us american will have to pay for it but that is better then paying for private health care that all is about profit and dividends for their investors on wall street, but in the long run the price of heath care will go down it's ridiculous that we live in such a rich country a middle class man like me, if i get sick with cancer or some other sickness even with insurance i would go bankrupt and would be un-able to pay the huge doctor bills i would produce. to me it's selfishness in this country when peaple go " i got my healthcare insurance screw you if you don't have any it's probably your fault you did'nt work hard enough".

reply to post by adam76


To me it's selfish to demand others to pay for your problems. Cancer or anything else. This world is hard, this world is not fair, and sometimes people get rotten deals.

IMO, all you people who think that you're going to "eliminate" the new health care reform bill from being enacted, should really think again. All this judge is saying is, that part of the health care reform bill that requires all U.S. citizens to purchase health care from a "private insurer" is un-constitutional.

The only reason that the bill has that requirement today is due to the fact that, as part of their effort to protect the private healthcare insurance industry, the republican minority at the time would not allow a seat at the table for either "public option" and/or "single payer" representatives which led to the bill we have today. I have always been confident that prior to the 2014 mandate to purchase private insurance taking effect, we would fix that little defect and allow for a P.O. and/or S.P. plan to be implemented in it's place. I'm confident that this judge's ruling is nothing more than "step one" in that process and in the end we will get the health care reform bill that we democrats voted for in the first place.

So before you go off patting yourself on the back for accomplishing total repeal of the law, you might just want to wait and see what happens, lest the last laugh may be on you.

It all boils down to this:

The faster the review of Obamacare’s constitutionality, the greater the likelihood that the Supreme Court could issue a final ruling on it in 2012.

If the president’s primary legislative accomplishment were to be ruled unconstitutional before the 2012 election, it could prove a very costly setback for the administration politically.

They know it's unconstitutional. They just want an accomplishment to tout for Obama in the next election. It doesn't matter if that accomplishment is later found to be unconstitutional and not really an accomplishment... they just need an accomplishment, just one...

reply to post by adam76


Obama's health care plan, mandates that all people buy healthcare insurance. I know people right now who choose not to participate in their work sponsored insurance in order to save money and effectively roll the dice with their health care and financial future.

How do you view the mandate? What will happen to those who currently buy healthcare through their companies when the companies then choose to eliminate coverage to save money? They will have to purchase insurance personally without the added contribution from their employers. Will their personal costs increase?

On and on it goes... This panacea approach that was forced up the nations anus is garbage. Tackle the health care problems one at a time. Step by step... We typically crawl before we can walk and figure it out as we go.

Originally posted by Flatfish
IMO, all you people who think that you're going to "eliminate" the new health care reform bill from being enacted, should really think again. All this judge is saying is, that part of the health care reform bill that requires all U.S. citizens to purchase health care from a "private insurer" is un-constitutional.

Really? I guess that's why the judge says this:

In January, Vinson ruled the individual mandate is so integral to the act that without it the entire legislation becomes null and void. He reiterated that view in his ruling Thursday providing a seven-day stay, on the condition that the government file not just an appeal, but a request for expedited adjudication.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Judge to Prez: You Have 1 Week to Save Obamacare
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

reply to post by adam76


You do realize that it was Obama's own cabinet of administrators who labeled it " Obamacare " right? You do understand that label was a marketing ploy?


EDIT TO POST: Those of you who don't believe it will get repealed in its entirety, may want to hold that thought. In 2012 when we vote in a new POTUS, most likely that President will repeal the Obama care anyhow. The only one good thing about Executive Orders.

One week ..? In other words .. "you have one week to pay up .. " ... this is a very very corrupt justice system ... they all have a price ..

Originally posted by jibeho
Clearly, this administration does not think to highly of laws and directives that they don't care for. To them, its all open to interpretation by them, for them. The DOJ has become a laughing stock... blah blah... You know how I feel about this.

The tailspin has to stop at some point...Pehaps impeachment as a result of ignoring the law should would do...

That's the beauty of it! If they don't like the law, they don't have to persue enforcement because to "them" it's a "waste" of money. So if they don't "waste" that "money" enforcing laws... which I think, by definition the "Executive Branch" of the government is supposed to be doing... the laws in question must not be all that important and worthy of enforcement and therefore "no one else" should concern themselves with enforcing the "laws" they took "oath" and "affirmations" to enforce.

I wonder how the government would take to a "Citizens' Arrest" for aiding and abetting and complacency with intent to facilitate commission of a crime in violation the Constitution and laws of the United States?

Wouldn't that be a hoot- thousands of people surrounding the Pièce de résistance of "hope and change" and his entourage, putting them under arrest.

I mean, they wasted no time trying to circumvent judgments in the BP/GOM oil spill, so why wait to do anything against this?

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


It ain't over till it's over and so far I haven't heard any fat ladies singing either. All that has to be done is to change the mandate to require that everyone participate in Medicare for all and then that judge would have to find a way to declare that Medicare is unconstitutional. Good luck with that one. Do you see where I'm going with this?

The mandate to purchase health care from a "Private Insurer" is the biggest single reason that the public at large objects to the plan. Most of the other mandates like an end to pre-existing conditions or keeping our children on our policies until they are 26 yrs. old are widely accepted as good things. There is just this one sticking point, that the republican minority insisted upon, that has caused the uproar. Just goes to show that the republican party in congress has a nasty habit of screwing things up to the point where it cost the taxpayer millions, if not billions, to correct. Kinda like deregulating Wall Street. Anyway, I knew this was coming and I thank the judge for getting the process started

Originally posted by Flatfish>snip<

The mandate to purchase health care from a "Private Insurer" is the biggest single reason that the public at large objects to the plan. Most of the other mandates like an end to pre-existing conditions or keeping our children on our policies until they are 26 yrs. old are widely accepted as good things. There is just this one sticking point, that the republican minority insisted upon, that has caused the uproar. Just goes to show that the republican party in congress has a nasty habit of screwing things up to the point where it cost the taxpayer millions, if not billions, to correct. Kinda like deregulating Wall Street. Anyway, I knew this was coming and I thank the judge for getting the process started

Sane people are against both the private insurer and the government insurer mandates. Mandate you have to buy from "one" or the "other", or "both" are one and the same, and you will either get reemed in payments or reemed in quality of service... or simply reemed, accordingly. Only when there is fair and equitable competition will the consumer triumph. And we know how the government deals with equality... unequally.

Why do they call it "Health Care" anyway? It has nothing to do with health care.
It's all about MONEY changing hands. It has nothing to do with the lousy
healthcare in this country. If they really wanted to address health care they might
consider the fact that a doctor is not going to prescribe the best remedy
for their patients. They prescribe pharmaceutical drugs whether it is the best
thing for their patient or not. But of course they don't care about that.
It's all about the money.

reply to post by abecedarian


What happened to all that "Personal Responsibility" stuff that the republican party is always ranting about? Shouldn't people be required to contribute for their own insurance or do you like paying a higher premium to cover the cost of the uninsured? Maybe you support paying higher state & county taxes to fund the cost of providing care to the uninsured?

No one has ruled that the requirement to carry auto insurance to be unconstitutional, why is that? Some would say that it's because there is no requirement to own an automobile and I agree with that argument except for one little catch. People can't opt out of owning a body that will, at some point, require health care.

I believe that everyone should be required to pay into the system that provides health care for all, that's what I call "personal responsibility." The problem is that "private Insurers" only exist to reap a profit out of that system and they do so by denying claims. We need to remove "private insurers" from the basic health care industry and utilize, what used to be their profits, to provide affordable basic health care for all. The private health insurers should be limited to providing coverage for those who want and/or require coverage above the level offered in national plan that covers everyone.

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

It ain't over till it's over and so far I haven't heard any fat ladies singing either. All that has to be done is to change the mandate to require that everyone participate in Medicare for all and then that judge would have to find a way to declare that Medicare is unconstitutional. Good luck with that one. Do you see where I'm going with this?

The mandate to purchase health care from a "Private Insurer" is the biggest single reason that the public at large objects to the plan. Most of the other mandates like an end to pre-existing conditions or keeping our children on our policies until they are 26 yrs. old are widely accepted as good things. There is just this one sticking point, that the republican minority insisted upon, that has caused the uproar. Just goes to show that the republican party in congress has a nasty habit of screwing things up to the point where it cost the taxpayer millions, if not billions, to correct. Kinda like deregulating Wall Street. Anyway, I knew this was coming and I thank the judge for getting the process started

You listed a couple of good elements of Obamacare. No one will argue with those. Unfortunately, with legislation this grand, we are expected to accept the bad in order to get the good. The this is what you want, this is what you get approach if you will. That approach will not work with an issue so delicate, complicated and so grand.

Time to throw this mess back on the table for a proper dissection. Address the problems separately and legislate accordingly out in the open. One of the best things they could do with health insurance would to be to open it up to interstate commerce just like auto insurance. Geico for healthcare. etc. Increase the competition, raise the bar and watch the market streamline on its own without Federal interference. Prices will fall and service will actually increase as the companies compete for business.

reply to post by Flatfish


If that was truly the case, then your quote:

pay into the system that provides health care for all,

Would defiantly have merit. But thats not what obamacare is. It's just another means to redistribute wealth.


ADD TO POST: We have the HMO's that originated years ago to thank for this atrocity. By the implementation of the HMO's, put the Physicians as " low level employees".

reply to post by jibeho


IMO, Interstate competition won't solve anything. I googled "Corporate Price Fixing Scandals" and got 261,000 hits in .20 seconds. Personally, I believe that a non-profit, "Single-Payer Medicare For All" system is the only way to go.

reply to post by Flatfish


The auto insurance mandate is regulated by the states, NOT the Federal Govt. Only New Hampshire does not require insurance coverage. But, if you are at fault for an accident they will require you to post a bond or put up cash to cover any and all damage caused by you.

Auto insurance is all about liablity and damages and can't accurately be compared to health insurance coverage. It should be compared to malpractice insurance in reality.