It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama administration appeals healthcare ruling!:(Ignores Judges order to Stop implimentation!)

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by MindSpin
 



Question...which law overrides the other...State or Federal???

I would guess it would depend on which one is constitutional, if either is.

That part is up to the courts. There are plenty of laws struck down as unconstitutional by lower courts that never make it to the US Supreme Court.




Let's say they are both are declared Constitutional...which overrides the other?


And I would love some examples of your other statement.




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 
Federal laws obviously override state laws as long as they are constitutional.




And I would love some examples of your other statement.


#1
Gaming Law Unconstitutional
#2, in this one the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.
Child online protection Act

#3 Here Oklahoma's repeated attempts to pass a law against abortion were struck down by lower courts. It costs a state a lot of money to appeal these to the Supreme Court, so they don't a lot of the time. Especially when they know ahead of time that it is unconstitutional.This was accomplished in a county court.

Oklahoma Abortion Law struck down

edit on 9-3-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 



I really don't think you will when you realize that you can buy insurance for the same or lower price.

Of course, you realize that it will actually have to happen before you statement is true, right?

It still remains to be seen if they can pull off that magic act.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by MindSpin
 
Federal laws obviously override state laws as long as they are constitutional.


Yes...Federal law overrides State law. So Mr. Idaho is all excited about nothing...he is being fed propaganda.





As for your examples.



#1
Gaming Law Unconstitutional


In this case, a federal judged ruled against a state law. Not the same as a federal judge ruling against a federal law.



#2, in this one the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.
Child online protection Act


In this case, the Supreme Court already ruled on it, then refused to hear appeals. The Supreme Court still had the final ruling.


#3 Here Oklahoma's repeated attempts to pass a law against abortion were struck down by lower courts. It costs a state a lot of money to appeal these to the Supreme Court, so they don't a lot of the time. Especially when they know ahead of time that it is unconstitutional.This was accomplished in a county court.

Oklahoma Abortion Law struck down


Again, this is dealing with a STATE law...not a FEDERAL law.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by MindSpin
 



I really don't think you will when you realize that you can buy insurance for the same or lower price.

Of course, you realize that it will actually have to happen before you statement is true, right?

It still remains to be seen if they can pull off that magic act.



Of course, we can only go by what is planned to take effect.

If they can't create exchanges that provide low cost insurance, the whole thing falls apart. But there should be no reason to not be able to match group rates that employers get if you pool together all self employed people and people who don't get insurance through work in the state. That will create a much larger group than any company has...the larger the group, the cheaper the rates.

It's not magic at all...it's numbers.
edit on 9-3-2011 by MindSpin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 
I heard the numbers story from the state of Pennsylvania years ago dealing with insurance. The state decided to get into the insurance racket. They were going to sell catastrophic loss insurance to the owners of all registered vehicles (except tractor/trailers and ATVs) for $5 per registered vehicle. If you were in a crash, your medical costs between $100,000 and $1,000,000 would be covered.

At the time, a friend of mine that sold insurance told me that he would sell all the policies you wanted to buy at that price, privately.

Lo and behold the state couldn't make it work. within three years, the premium price had quadrupled. People refused to pay the fee, at risk of losing their registration privileges. Enough people refused to pay that the state ended the program.

Guess what?

There is still a fund..... to pay off the debt that this program developed.

To this day, if you get a speeding ticket, you will pay a fee to the 'CAT Fund', a fund which hasn't been functional for about 20 years.

Yes, let's trust their plan. They've done so well with managing the SS Trust Fund and Medicare.... we should give them more to do.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


Its a very complicated issue and your attempts to gloss over the reality are getting rather amusing.

This legislation is flawed on many fronts including but not limited to the personal and state mandates. Regarding the state mandates, it all has to do with the Tenth amendment and the fact that it is being violated. According to the law "Each state shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange"

So, what happens if a state refuses to set up an exchange? Well, the federal government will step in to set it up for them in ADDITION to a large scale denial of tax benefits to the citizens of said state. Apparently, the right and the left are battling over semantics with regards to some intentionally vague language contained in the law.

The word in question is "Shall"

This article cited explains the situation very clearly.


“Shall” doesn’t sound like a very “cooperative” word. It sounds like a mandate. There are a lot of words available in the English language that communicate a voluntary act. “States may” or “states choose” or “states have the option” are a few examples. But the law says that the states “shall” . . . The health reform law provides income tax credits to individuals in exchanges established by states, but not to individuals in exchanges established by the federal government (in non-electing states). . .The choice of their state to establish or not to establish an exchange will impact the tax credits that citizens receive. The sovereignty of states is undermined, because the adoption of this law is hardly “voluntary.



The sovereignty of states is undermined, because the adoption of this law is hardly “voluntary.” States have been put in a bad position, and I hope that the discussion of these health care exchanges will resurface in another case.

But it seems to me, sadly, that the people who support the health reform law will do so at all costs. It’s no use talking to them about “state sovereignty” or “cooperative federalism” or even about the constitution. It seems our only hope is that words like these have not lost their meaning in the minds of our Supreme Court justices, who ultimately will make a decision on this law.


healthcarelawsuits.org...

It is quite the slippery slope and it seems that this was the intention of this poorly thought out legislation from day one. BTW. They still don't know how they will fully fund it because they still don't know how much it will cost.

Current estimates suggest that it will actually cost twice as much as the figure so widely touted.


President Obama’s health care law will cost state taxpayers at least $118.04 billion through 2023, about twice the Congressional Budget Office estimate of $60 billion through 2021, Republican members of Congress said today. …

“Governors of both political parties were clear when Congress was debating the $2.6 trillion health law that they could not afford a massive expansion in Medicaid. Washington didn’t listen and plowed forward instead by putting 16 million Americans onto the Medicaid rolls to keep the federal price tag down,” said Hatch. “With this report, we see the true cost to states, who are already facing a collective $175 billion budget shortfall, of this unsustainable expansion.


www.nationaljournal.com...

So, let's bankrupt states that are already bankrupt?? Sounds kind of silly. I feel sorry for California if all of this gets under full steam they will be on the hook for nearly $20billon. Sounds like Obamacare will end up being just a massive expansion of Medicaid to absorb the bulk of so many "new" enrollees.

Time to start over and do it right and put it to a national referendum if need be.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


The difference here is that the State or the Federal government isn't going to be selling any insurance...it is all private insurance being sold.

And just because in your example the program wasn't run efficiently, doesn't mean that a similar program won't ever work.


If you want to compare the Federal health care reform bill to something...compare it to Massachusett's health care reform bill...because they are almost identical and it is, so far, a success.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


I mentioned constitutionality, not specifically federal laws.
Here are my words:



There are plenty of laws struck down as unconstitutional by lower courts that never make it to the US Supreme Court.

Show me where I said 'federal' before the word laws, and I will admit that you are correct. Until then< accept that I provided examples of what I was talking about, not what may have been going on in your mind.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin

Originally posted by beezzer
I'm jut trying to figure out the logic here. Obamacare has NOT been implemented yet.

But if it doesn't pass, it'll cause irreputable harm? To whom? What harm, where?

I'm already saving up just to pay the damned fine, because the ONLY way I'll be signing up for Obamacare is at gun point!


You do understand there is no "Obamacare" to "sign up for"....RIGHT? Saying so just sounds completely ignorant.

Do you have health insurance already??? If so, then you are "signed up for Obamacare" already.

If you don't have health insurance...fine, pay the fine...and still not have health insurance....that will show em


I have health insurance that I choose. Not insurance that is mandated that I have to have. THAT is the difference.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 



The difference here is that the State or the Federal government isn't going to be selling any insurance...it is all private insurance being sold.

Yes, they will just 'oversee' the program. And they force you to pay money to a company that you may never get a return on. Should the feds force us to invest in the stock market also???

If the Massachusetts plan is such a beacon, why does the federal govt need to stick their money-losing paws into it on a national level. Let the states handle it.

edit on 9-3-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


I have edited Mindspin's quote immediately below this line. I split it in two, removing the words 'so far' and placing them as a separate quote immediately below, for effect.


and it is, a success.





so far,


Here is the original quote, as mindspin wrote it:



it is, so far, a success.


Yes, so far. So was Social Security. The Interstate Highway System. Medicare. The Vietnam War. Iraq. Afghanistan. The war on poverty. The war on drugs.

Darn! You are soooooo right, they have an awesome track record.....

Let's give them more!

edit on 9-3-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 



#2, in this one the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal. Child online protection Act In this case, the Supreme Court already ruled on it, then refused to hear appeals. The Supreme Court still had the final ruling.

Wrong. The US Supreme Court upheld an injunction, reviewed what another court had done.......

but they never heard the case to rule on the constitutionality of the law!


edit on 9-3-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Butcherguy... you own this thread.

I would flag you if I could!



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
Does anyone really find this surprising?
Lord Obama and the Fed truly believe that they are above the law.


....hmm, then how do we factor in Steven Seagel?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


I realize I'm kinda late to the game on this but I believe there's a portion of the health-care law that says you get extra money from the government to pay for health insurance if you make less than $60k/year.

So as a self-employeed person making $25k/year you would not only qualify for the insurance exchange at a lower rate but you'd also be able to recieve extra money from the fed to cover the costs. Sounds like a win-win to me: You get health insurance, it's cheaper and it's already partially paid for. Where is the downside?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Ooops! I commented earlier in this thread about how Pelosi and company don't know how this will be funded. I guess I spoke to soon. Apparently they buried funding $105 billion, into this bill which is a big no no because they circumvented the congressional appropriations process. They knew they would lose the 2010 elections and knew the Republicans would try to defund Obamacare. So, they buried the funding into the bill.

Pelosi's little flub about not knowing what is in this bill until the bill passes doesn't seem like such a flub any longer. The arrogant wench was taunting with a little foreshadowing. She, Reid and Obama knew what they were doing and ignored our legislative process along the way. What else is new. The rules only apply where they want them to.

Thread on the topic.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


They deserve to be arrested and charged with crimes agains the American People!

But, it will be turned into some twisted sit/com TV show or mini-series.





posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 



Anyway you can change that picture to make Pelosi look more like Shemp?


I'm not sure of anything these days because just when you think it can't possibly get worse, it does. This new revelation should be an eye opener for the MSM and the die hards on ATS. However, I doubt that this will get even a minute of air time on the nightly news nor will the lemmings even attempt to defend it here.

I can't wait to see if the White House or Pelosi even comment on it.

Cheers!!



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join