Florida Federal judge declares Obama Care unconstitutional

I believe the ruling is just that the mandate is unconstitutional. And I don't believe the next stop is the SC.

I believe the ruling is just that the mandate is unconstitutional. And I don't believe the next stop is the SC.

No, as usual, you are right. The "next stop the Supreme Court" was a "generalization" subject to wide interpretation because after the appeal process that is where it will end up. Sorry for being so inprecise. Watch Fox News for up-to-the-minute details...Oh, wait I forgot you don't get your news from Fox, do you?

No, as usual, you are right. The "next stop the Supreme Court" was a "generalization" subject to wide interpretation because after the appeal process that is where it will end up. Sorry for being so inprecise. Watch Fox News for up-to-the-minute details...Oh, wait I forgot you don't get your news from Fox, do you?

No, I don't get my news from Fox. If I did I would evidently end up believing that the health care reform law is called "ObamaCare", that it was just ruled unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court was getting ready to hear the case.

:lolabove:

I believe the ruling is just that the mandate is unconstitutional. And I don't believe the next stop is the SC.

[While Geo might be mistaken, let's try discussing this a different way, shall we?]

Actually, the judge did throw out the entire law, which in my opinion was a little overreaching and will be the undoing of this finding on appeal (which may be been his intention, who knows). His conclusion was:


It is a shame that this will be tied up in the courts for a while. Congress may continue trying to amend the law in the meanwhile to make it more workable, I am afraid they will shy away from messing with it at all while the appeals continue.

I don't think this is a victory for anyone, really.

And, the cynical side of me expects the insurance/pharma lobby to kick it in high gear and get this overturned. I wish I could be more optimistic about a reasonable solution.

we are ruled by corporations..they own the airwaves and the supreme court green lights their unlimited bribing of capitol hill. we sit and watch news sources that parrot our biases and nothing changes, but the gulf between rich and poor. go packers!

Pretend I never commented, people.

Pretend I never commented, people.

The same goes for me. I created the thread for informational and comment purposes. Nothing more, nothing less.

I guess all those 75 year old people that are still working for health care can keep their jobs. Something to look forward to.................

No, I don't get my news from Fox. If I did I would evidently end up believing that the health care reform law is called "ObamaCare", that it was just ruled unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court was getting ready to hear the case.

:lolabove:

A rare "perfect" post.:clap:

[While Geo might be mistaken, let's try discussing this a different way, shall we?]

Actually, the judge did throw out the entire law, which in my opinion was a little overreaching and will be the undoing of this finding on appeal (which may be been his intention, who knows). His conclusion was:

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time
when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled 'The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.' "​

It is a shame that this will be tied up in the courts for a while. Congress may continue trying to amend the law in the meanwhile to make it more workable, I am afraid they will shy away from messing with it at all while the appeals continue.

I don't think this is a victory for anyone, really.

And, the cynical side of me expects the insurance/pharma lobby to kick it in high gear and get this overturned. I wish I could be more optimistic about a reasonable solution.

How am I mistaken? I said that it was the mandate that was cited as being unconstitutional. That's what the judge said. No? You quoted him yourself as saying that.

Andy, you posted something factually incorrect. And then you get all passive aggressive on me for pointing it out with- "you're right, as usual". What is your deal lately?

I believe the SC can wait until 2014 when the individual mandate becomes law, but I am guessing it will set up nicely for 2012 when the Presidential race is in full swing.

So how long before insurers start tossing children with pre-existing conditions off their rolls here?

And for the record, I am against the mandate and can't say I disagree with the argument that it is unconstitutional...

The ruling certainly raises some interesting points. Obviously requiring people to buy health insurance has been a contentious issue - If it is decided (which could take years) that it is not within Congress's power, I don't have a problem with that aspect being removed.

But I'm not sure how else to address the issue of people not having medical insurance and the rest of us paying for their care through increased costs.

Reducing health care costs is a good idea, but getting rid of $30 boxes of Kleenex still won't help those who have had major medical treatments and have bills in the hundreds of thousands.

First Read - Florida judge rules health care law unconstitutional

"Judge Roger Vinson, a Reagan appointee serving in Pensacola, Florida, ruled that key components of the law are unconstitutional and that the entire law "must be declared void."In the decision, Vinson writes:
Today?s decision is the second ruling by a federal judge against the constitutionality of the health care legislation. Two other federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of the law, including its requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty.While the lawsuit addressed in Vinson?s ruling is the largest of its kind ? with 26 states having signed on ? today?s decision is likely just one more step in the law?s march to the United States Supreme Court.


Opponents of the law claimed that while the government can regulate the activities of people engaged in commerce, like the insurance industry, it cannot regulate someone's inactivity -- that is, someone's refusal to buy insurance. It's an argument the judge found persuasive."

Thank God. Now lets write a law that everyone wants to be a part of. When the President started issuing hundreds of exemptions for Unions and big businesses you knew this was crap on a cracker.

Perhaps this is a blessing for Obama. I guess the SC could purposely drags this out making it a major election issue. 2012 could very well be 2010 all over again.

I'll trade you a mandate for a public option.

I'd like to see a real conservative speak against an action by the sort of 'activist judge' they usually set up as the perfect strawman.

I'd like to see a real conservative.

I don't know that you can call this guy an activist judge - the only reason he was issuing an opinion was because he had to rule on the case brought before him (by 26 states).

I (and this judge too BTW) still think the health care bill has a lot of good and long overdue changes in it.

If there is some aspect of it you don't like, it can be amended - throwing out the entire bill is stupid. Especially when your reasons for doing so are misleading or false talking points and politricks.