Healthcare Ruling: Individual Mandate Ruled CONSTITUTIONAL, entire law upheld.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

i was responding directly to several posters who claimed they will never need a doctor, not just insurance

a clue for you, i AM one of those posters

A liar?
And you seem kind of proud of it.
Why?

Originally posted by PaxVeritas


The OP of this thread seems to be cheering and dancing for both a poorly written bill and poor decision by SCOTUS. Why? I have no clue. I think it's because it's an "Obama doing". But evidenced by the zealots under the former Administration (Bushistas) every Administration has their wild eyed zealots which clap and cheer nonsensical, and worse, damaging legislation.

For all those else who would like to be rational and look into truth about Obamacare's main points of interest, here is a well written and sourced article on Fire Dog Lake ( A LIBERAL website).

fdlaction.firedoglake.com...

It is just a blog. What makes it credible for you? Because you say it is liberal?
Seems full of errors from the get go.

Many families who are already struggling to get by would be better off saving the $5,243 in insurance costs and paying their medical expenses directly, rather than being forced to by coverage they can’t afford the co-pays on.

Yeah, ok. This opinion is fully sourced and fact checked, right? Oh, no. One good night in the ER wipes that 5 grand out right quick.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Classified Info
No it does not bother me at all because Judge Kagan never promised to recuse herself.

Yes, she did -

No, she didn't.

This is what she promised:

“First, I would recuse myself from any case in which I served as counsel of record. Second, I would recuse myself from any case in which I played a substantial role.

cnsnews.com...

reply to post by Classified Info


Yes, she did.

She was solictor General when Obamacare was challenged in court by the States.

She is subject to the law when it comes to recusal and as such, she should have kept her word, complied with the law, and recused herself since she was the Solicator General who oversaw the governments response to those legal challenges.

Im not quite sure what your point is so if you can help me understand.. She stated she would recuse herself and she failed to do so.

As far as this -

“First, I would recuse myself from any case in which I served as counsel of record. Second, I would recuse myself from any case in which I played a substantial role.

cnsnews.com...

I supplied the link to the actual transcript from her Senate confirmation hearings. She stated she we recuse herself. She also told the committee there were at least 10 cases heading to the Supreme Court where a conflict would exist.

She also stated she would comply with not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law as well (28 USC 455).

Again - The transcript from her hearing.

Ms. KAGAN. Senator Leahy, I think certainly as I said in that
questionnaire answer that I would recuse myself from any case in
which I have been counsel of record at any stage of the proceedings,
in which I have signed any kind of brief. And I think that
there are probably about ten cases—I have not counted them up
particularly, but I think that there are probably about ten cases
that are on the docket next year in which that is true, in which
I have been counsel of record on a petition for certiorari or some
other kind of pleading. So that is a flat rule.

In addition to that, I said to you on the questionnaire that I
would recuse myself in any case in which I have played any kind
of substantial role in the process. I think that that would include—
I am going to be a little bit hesitant about this because one of the
things I would want to do is talk to my colleagues up there and
make sure that this is what they think is appropriate, too. But I
think that that would include any case in which I have officially
formally approved something. So one of the things that the Solicitor
General does is approve appeals or approve amicus briefs to be
filed in lower courts or approve interventions.

Her own, full, complete wording is above.

reply to post by Classified Info


What do they do with people who are in auto accidents and severely injured if they don't accept medical help? Just wondering. The Amish don't use cars (or they didn't used to). Scientologists do. What's the hospital policy? Kill them? Let them die on a stretcher somewhere without care? Do they let the family take the mangled person home to let them die?

reply to post by Xcathdra


It comes down to what she actually promised and what a law professor thinks she should have done.

Was she the council of record of any cases?

Did she play a substantial role in any case?


If she was, she broke her promise.

reply to post by RainbeauBleu


Beats me.

I suppose that the hospital and the doctors are going to treat any life threatening injury no matter how much the injured person objects for a host of different reasons....lawsuits being just one of them.

Originally posted by Classified Info
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

It comes down to what she actually promised and what a law professor thinks she should have done.

Was she the council of record of any cases?

Did she play a substantial role in any case?


If she was, she broke her promise.

Lets try this again - She stated she would comply with 28 USC 455, both letter of the law and spirit of the law. Her comment about it not binding to Justices is wrong as the code was amended in the early 1900's to include all Federal Judges, including Supreme Court Justices. This has nothing to do with what the law professor said, albeit his input is valid and correct. It has everything to do with what SHE stated to the Senate about recusing herself.

What does 28 USC 455 say -

The text of 28 U.S.C. 455 states: “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: … (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”

The law goes on to define a “proceeding” to include the “pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation.”

While I admire the attempt to parse words, using the term substantial, it does not mean she is exempt from the remainder of the law.

Letter and Spirit...


During the confirmation hearing they heard from -

Prof. Ronald Rotunda of the Chapman University School of Law, a legal ethics expert, told the Senate Judiciary Committee during Kagan’s confirmation hearings that 28 U.S.C. 455 requires Kagan to recuse herself from any case that she so much as expressed a verbal opinion about when serving as solicitor general.

She stated she would recuse herself from any case she was involved in.
She stated she would comply with the law.
The law, above, is specific and states she should have recused herself based on the criteria / elemnts of that law.
She failed to do so.

She was involved in the ObamaCare challenges as Solicator General for the Obama Administration.
She should have recused herself like she said she would.
She lied.

Please show me how she is exempt from recusal.

28 USC 455 - Entire Text

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States
shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following
circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter
in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law
served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter,
or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness
concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such
capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness
concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the
merits of the particular case in controversy;

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his
spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial
interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to
the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially
affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of
relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or
trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material
witness in the proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and
fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to
inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse
and minor children residing in his household.

(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or
phrases shall have the meaning indicated:

(1) "proceeding" includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or
other stages of litigation;
(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the
civil law system;
(3) "fiduciary" includes such relationships as executor,
administrator, trustee, and guardian;

(4) "financial interest" means ownership of a legal or
equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director,
adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party,
except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that
holds securities is not a "financial interest" in such
securities unless the judge participates in the management of
the fund;

(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable,
fraternal, or civic organization is not a "financial interest"
in securities held by the organization;

(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual
insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings
association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a "financial
interest" in the organization only if the outcome of the
proceeding could substantially affect the value of the
interest;

(iv) Ownership of government securities is a "financial
interest" in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding
could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the
parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for
disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for
disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be
accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record
of the basis for disqualification.

(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if
any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a
matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial
judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the
appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or
her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her
spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a
financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not
required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge,
spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or
herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the
disqualification.

Final question for you.
If her involvement in the governments defense of Obamacare was not "substantial", why is the DOJ refusing to turn over documents relating to her involvement? Several FOIA requests were made and were all refused by the DOJ.

Per the FOIA law there is a limited number of circumstances where the government can deny a FOIA request. There is nothing in this request that meets any of those established exemptions.

Why is the DOJ hiding her involvement if it was not substantial?

reply to post by Classified Info


I wonder if the Amish pay taxes.
It's a tax, right?

I've seen American hospitals send people home with some Tylenol when they can't close their mouth because their jaw has been broken and dislocated. That I saw in the 4th emergency room they went to. The family was begging the hospital to fix the jaw. They didn't want to. They probably didn't have any insurance. University of Michigan Hospital. (It's one of the best!)

Originally posted by RainbeauBleu
I wonder if the Amish pay taxes.
It's a tax, right?

They are a religious group so no.

Originally posted by RainbeauBleu
I've seen American hospitals send people home with some Tylenol when they can't close their mouth because their jaw has been broken and dislocated. That I saw in the 4th emergency room they went to. The family was begging the hospital to fix the jaw. They didn't want to. They probably didn't have any insurance. University of Michigan Hospital. (It's one of the best!)

edit on 30/6/12 by RainbeauBleu because: (no reason given)

EMTALA prevents what you described.

Originally posted by Indigo5


Try this...pick an item you would like me to address...and be prepared to respond...and respond based on cited facts and evidence...and I will respond honestly to anything that he claimed in the laundry list

edit on 29-6-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

No I won't 'try this'. I already presented a simple video (you don't have to watch the whole thing...even half gives you the basic idea) wherein Schiff cited facts and evidence so his work is done. If you want to rebut it have at it but I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through the process.

You apparently gleaned that it's all half truths and BS (pot meet kettle), but instead of addressing anything he said directly, you went off on some silly tangent about Newt Gingrich and also Romney's debating tactics?!?! That's quite some rebuttal to Schiff's argument that the Supreme Court shouldn't have upheld the legislation!!

You talk like a typical politician who can't address anything directly. You obviously have no way to refute what Schiff says in the video or else you would have done so.

reply to post by Honor93

should you choose to surf through some of the info provided last year, i'm sure you'll find a few msm snips where she was interviewed and agreed recusal may be necessary.

That's your job...you make the claim...you back it up. You don't ask everyone else to go prove your own claim.

The reason you aren't given a direct quote from Kagan saying she promises to recuse herself is because it never happened. You made it up in your head, and now that you have gone to look for proof and failed to find it, you tell me and others to go find it.

How many times now have I proven you wrong and you refuse to admit it???

It's very simple...give the direct quote of Kagan "promising to recuse herself".

what about Justice Thomas ?? imho, he should have recused himself on the grounds of spousal affiliation but if the public were to push for both votes to be voided, wouldn't that leave the balance of the decision as 4/3 oppose ??
(didn't Thomas concur (vote yes) ?)

are you sure you want to continue developing a stronger basis for repeal ??

This is why it is difficult to have a conversation with you...you don't even know the facts. You clearly went to go look them up because you asked "what about Thomas"...and then came back with information about his wife.

And then you claim that Thomas voted to uphold the law :shk:

Go get your facts straight...then maybe we can talk.

reply to post by Xcathdra

They only argued the tax point when the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper clause arguments started coming under increasing pressure. The administration spent a LOT of time refuting the concern that this was a tax, and Obama went on ABC in 2009 and stated this bill is not a tax. Apparently, had they all read it first before they passed it they would have seen the 22+ taxes included in the bill.

Go watch the ABC interview...Obama rejected that it was a TAX INCREASE on the American public.

He never once said that this is not a tax.

Correct and to clarify the comments the person you were responding to. The individual mandate was valid only in the sense of the bill working as a tax, where Congress has the authority.

No...no where in the ruling do they say the entire bill is a tax.

The bill already had many taxes in it, saying one more part of the bill is a tax (which it always was), does not re-define the bill in any way.

Secondly the law IS reclassified as a tax as its the only way its legal and constitutional per the ruling.

Wow...propaganda works well.

The enforcement of the mandate is a tax.

Tell me...how is a regulation on insurance companies a tax? How is the government telling states to expand medicaid a tax? How is telling states they must create State exchanges a tax?

The entire bill isn't magically converted into a revenue bill...one part of the bill was upheld Constitutional because it is a tax, and always was a tax.

Answer me this...why was the IRS always going to be enforcing the penalty if it wasn't part of the tax code???


I understand that you are desperate, just like all others against this law, and you are twisting and turning looking for something to claim as a victory....but this is not it.

If the bill is not a "tax" then please justify its legality under the SCOTUS ruling, who stated the bill is lawful as a "tax". Secondly, petr the above procedure, there is no super majority needed to do anything to the bill.

The penalty for the mandate is a tax...always has been...nothing changed.

The only thing Congress can do to the bill with 51 votes is pass a reconciliation bill to remove the tax penalty. They can't do anything to the other parts of the bill.

If they want to do that...more power to them...but they are doing more harm than good. Like it or not, they still need 60 votes to repeal the entire bill. They can pass reconcile bills to remove taxes from it...but the regulations stay...and if they do that they will collapse the insurance industry.

reply to post by Xcathdra


All court justices promise to recuse themselves in a case that they have a conflict in.

She never specifically promised to recuse herself from the ACA ruling.


Such dishonesty and mis-information. :shk:

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Classified Info
No it does not bother me at all because Judge Kagan never promised to recuse herself.

Yes, she did -

4 posts above yours is the info where she stated it.

edit on 30-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

No she didn't.

You posted a quote of hers where she said she promised to recuse herself from cases where she has a conflict...THE SAME THING ALL JUSTICES PROMISE.

She never said that she is recusing herself from the ACA ruling.

Originally posted by Classified Info

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Classified Info
No it does not bother me at all because Judge Kagan never promised to recuse herself.

Yes, she did -

No, she didn't.

This is what she promised:

“First, I would recuse myself from any case in which I served as counsel of record. Second, I would recuse myself from any case in which I played a substantial role.

cnsnews.com...

edit on 6/30/2012 by Classified Info because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/30/2012 by Classified Info because: (no reason given)

Isn't it ridiculous that people are willing to tell flat out lies because they think no one will notice???

I can't believe these people keep saying she promised to recuse herself....just flat out ignorance.

Healthcare is not health insurance. They are two separate things.

Healthcare is obtained from a medical professional. It includes the diagnosis and treatment of an injury or illness. In my opinion it also includes the patient making choices about actions and their possible consequences (such as eating habits, smoking, alchoholsm, drug addiction, being physically active, etc...).

Insurance is a totally different thing. It is all about risk.

The first methods of transferring or distributing risk were practiced by Chinese and Babylonian traders as long ago as the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC, respectively.[1] Chinese merchants travelling treacherous river rapids would redistribute their wares across many vessels to limit the loss due to any single vessel's capsizing. The Babylonians developed a system which was recorded in the famous Code of Hammurabi, c. 1750 BC, and practiced by early Mediterranean sailing merchants. If a merchant received a loan to fund his shipment, he would pay the lender an additional sum in exchange for the lender's guarantee to cancel the loan should the shipment be stolen.

History of Insurance

Basically, they take your money on the gamble that something won't happen to make them pay out(benefits) more than they take in (premium). It is how they make profit. They have geniuses that are called actuaries that calculate risks based on different factors. They also calculate reserves (amounts of monies that are leveraged by what is called reinsurance (think about that as insurance for the insurance company or plan)) that the insurance companies need to keep so that they don't go broke if they have to pay out a large amount of benefits. For health insurance, some of these factors include age, sex, geographical location, occupation, your medical history and your family's medical history,

I worked for about 10 years in the insurance industry. I wouldn't consider myself an "expert", but I have more insight than the "average joe". I started out working for an actual insurance company and then worked for what is called a Third Party Administrator (think of your company that you work for as the insurance company as they take the premiums and use that and the money they set aside to make the plan used to pay the claims (the TPA does this for an administrative fee) which was made possible by something called ERISA). I have done customer service, death (life) claims, disability claims, medical claims, annuity payouts, credit card insurance amongst other things. I have written health Plan Documents for large employer groups (the things that will actually tell an individual what is and isn't covered and what is to be paid out for covered services (if they bother to read it and can understand the language)).

In my 10 years, I found out one certainty. Most people do not understand insurance. They think on the pay in/pay out ratio although it doesn't work that way.

To whoever made the comment about paying straight cash being cheaper, you are (in my experience) correct.

Also to whoever said that "if you get a paycheck, you should get insurance through your employer", you are very wrong. To my knowledge, there are no laws on the books that say that an employer must offer you insurance. (Hence it being considered a benefit).

The majority of the healthcare industry and ALL of the insurance industry is all about the almighty dollar.

This law has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with getting more people on the government teat and making those who don't qualify for the government teat buy something they may or may not use by using a stick (tax penalty).

Win for BIG MONEY Corporations, Especially the big reinsurance companies (like AIG,Hannover, Lloyds, Pacific Mutual, Shelter, etc...)

Reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Regardless of whether or not she promised to recuse herself, Outkast, what are your thoughts on a justice presiding over a case in which objective judgement is a conflict of interest? How can Kagan be impartial to the issue?
This isn't a partisan thing. It's a common sense thing. There is no proper view of the law when those who are ruling on it have an interest in the outcome.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by spinalremain
Reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Regardless of whether or not she promised to recuse herself, Outkast, what are your thoughts on a justice presiding over a case in which objective judgement is a conflict of interest? How can Kagan be impartial to the issue?
This isn't a partisan thing. It's a common sense thing. There is no proper view of the law when those who are ruling on it have an interest in the outcome.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Unfortunately it is a partisan thing.

Justice Thomas had more of a reason to recuse himself than Kagan did. His wife started organizations to oppose "obamacare" and actively lobbied to get it repealed. Thomas refused to recuse himself...so even if Kagan had a conflict...there was no way she was going to recuse herself.

People want to think the SCOTUS isn't political...but it is very political...just as political as any of the other branches.

In an ideal world, they both would have recused themselves.

Reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I find that the acceptability of this offensive as a citizen.

May as well let Fred Wilpon call balls and strikes if the Mets ever back to the post season.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com