Don't have an account? To participate in discussions consider signing up or signing in
facebook connect
Sign-up, its free! Close [x]

Benefits

  • okay Create lasting relationships with other like minded women.
  • okay Blogging, let your voice be heard!
  • okay Interact with other women through blogs,questions and groups.
  • okay Photo Album, upload your most recent vacation pictures.
  • okay Contests, Free weekly prize drawing.
  • okay Weekly Newsletter.

  • If Obamacare is so good....

    +1
    Love it
    21 posts, 11 voices, 949 views, started May 10, 2011

    Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2011

    •  



    • inactive
      Diamond
      Offline

      Why are there so many lawsuits against it and why are there so many groups, states, individuals, and hospitals against it? If it doesn’t represent the will of the people, should it be??

      Check out this article from Reuters. It lists the suits and issues against Obamacare - very informative:
      ________________________________________

      (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court in Virginia will hear on Tuesday two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the healthcare reforms signed into law by President Barack Obama a year ago. One of the suits, filed by the state of Virginia, could reach the U.S. Supreme Court during its 2011-12 term, which begins in October.

      More than half the states are challenging the law in court, and individuals, advocacy groups and hospitals have also sued.

      The following are details of the current lawsuits:

      LAWSUITS BEING HEARD IN VIRGINIA

      • A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will hear oral arguments challenging the recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson that the federal government cannot compel a person to buy health insurance. In a twist, both the federal government and the state of Virginia appealed Hudson’s decision. Virginia says the judge erred by not throwing out the entire law. Hudson said the penalty charged for not having health insurance is not a tax, shooting down the federal government’s argument that the penalty is based on its power to levy taxes.
      • The court will hear another appeal in a lawsuit filed by Liberty University, the Virginia college founded by conservative evangelical leader Jerry Falwell. In November, a federal judge ruled the requirement to have health insurance and a requirement some employers buy coverage for employees was legal under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The judge also said the law did not illegally permit federal funding for abortion.

      MULTI-STATE CHALLENGE

      • In a lawsuit filed by more than half the states and led by Florida, Judge Roger Vinson said the requirement that individuals buy health insurance is unconstitutional. A U.S. appeals court will hear arguments on June 8 in Atlanta. While Vinson said the entire healthcare law “must be declared void” because the requirement is inextricably linked to other parts of the law, he put his decision on hold pending appeal. This suit could also reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

      OTHER RULINGS

      • In June, a U.S. appeals court in Cincinnati will hear an appeal in one of the first suits, filed by Michigan’s Thomas More Law Center. Last October, a federal judge partly dismissed the suit, ruling Congress had the authority to enact the law under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
      • In April, the U.S. District Court in New Jersey decided two individuals who said they represented “we the people” did not have any standing to sue, primarily because they could not establish they had been harmed by the law. The suit had said the law is illegal because it originated in the U.S. Senate, which cannot create revenue-raising measures on its own. The court had already dismissed on December 9 a lawsuit filed by a cardiologist, a patient and a physicians’ advocacy organization that had alleged the law violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and the Fifth Amendment.
      • A California federal court dismissed a lawsuit, now before the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court, that said the healthcare law violates individual rights, increases taxes and violates physician-patient privileges, along with violating the Commerce Clause.
      • In November, U.S. District Court Judge David Dowd partially denied and partially granted a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Citizen’s Association in Ohio. While he dismissed arguments that the law violates freedom of association, due process and privacy protections, Dowd is considering arguments that the law exceeds federal authority granted by the Commerce Clause.
      • At least 24 lawsuits have been filed in federal courts by states and private parties. One suit, Shreeve vs. Obama, was filed by a group of approximately 25,000 individuals and entities.

      WHAT IS AT ISSUE?

      • States like Virginia have passed, or are considering, legislation declaring that the healthcare law cannot be enforced in their states. State legislators in Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, Texas and Wyoming have introduced bills that establish penalties, including fines and jail time, for any agent seeking to enforce the healthcare law within their states’ borders. North Dakota’s legislature passed a “nullification” bill in April authorizing it to enact any measure necessary to prevent enforcement of the law.
      • The states’ main concern is that the law permits the federal government to force people to buy things, in this case requiring that all Americans purchase health insurance or pay a penalty under the “individual mandate.” The federal government counters that everyone will inevitably pay for healthcare, whether through insurance or during an emergency, and that without the individual mandate premiums will rise.
      • If the courts decide the individual mandate is unconstitutional, it is unclear if the mandate can be cut away from the law while leaving the other requirements intact. The states say that without the individual mandate the law is rendered toothless.
      • Parts of the U.S. Constitution that have come into play are the Commerce Clause, which regulates commerce among states, the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal power supreme to states’ power, and the 10th Amendment, which leaves to states all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government.
      • Some of the suits also focus on whether abortions are funded with taxpayer dollars under the law.
      • When Obama lobbied for the bill, he said there would not be a new tax associated with the individual mandate. The penalty for not having health insurance, though, is collected through tax filings and the federal government argues the fine is indeed a tax it is empowered to levy. States say the U.S. government does not have the authority to charge the fine and point to the discrepancy between Obama’s statements and the U.S. government’s arguments.

      Here is the original link: [Link Removed]


      Annie123, Your links have been removed, please consider upgrading to premium membership.

      +1
      Love it


      •  


        • +1 votes vote up vote up

          Vikki Hall wrote May 10, 2011
        • Annie I’m not sure what to think anymore about certain things. I know if we revised the welfare program and got some people off it, quit building new housing for people on welfare then we would money left over to fix other things needing to be fixed.

          I just wonder if fixing the welfare program would get as much heat as the healthcare?????

          I understand the reasons behind WHY we should have this. Or at least to me why it makes sense. But unless we get all the extra stuff attached taken off it doesn’t really make fiscal sense.

          Another question.... Under universal healthcare would there be better care and less malpractice?



                Report  Reply




      •         Report  Reply


        • +2 votes vote up vote up

          Vikki Hall wrote May 10, 2011
        • Annie is it the actual healthcare being opposed to? Or the things attached to it? Or the fact that govt is mandating it?

          What is the healthcare plan made up of? If it reads anything like my plan through ATT then it must be hard to understand and follow unless you are an expert. I would love to hear opinions from people who are responsible for picking healthcare for large business to see how it compares to the rest.



                Report  Reply


        • +1 votes vote up vote up

          Vikki Hall wrote May 10, 2011
        • Avid diva I’m not opposed to welfare at all. I think it’s great that it’s there as a fall back. I AM opposed to it being used as a way of life though. If someone is on it longer than 2 years than to me that has become a life choice. And the system must be broken if we are not working towards truly helping people to lead productive lives. I would rather my taxes go to support your education so you can get a job vs it supporting you to stay home and not contribute to society in a positive way. Disability is another area that is being mis uses and handled. There are those who physically can’t work and those who just don’t want to.



                Report  Reply


        • +1 votes vote up vote up

          Vikki Hall wrote May 10, 2011
        • I didn’t even think about the discrimination aspects...... Great point Annie!



                Report  Reply


        • +1 votes vote up vote up

          Kandykahne 5 wrote May 10, 2011
        • I live in the only state...Massachusetts where having health insurance is mandatory and has been for several years. I do not think it is bad and yes we do have a penalty on our state income tax of $200.00 if you do not have health insurance. If you can prove hardship for not being able to afford health insurance you can have it waived. This is only  if you do not qualify for the state insurance and cannot afford private insurance like through Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The insurance in MA is not welfare. It is through the state and the insurance is just like Blue Cross and Blue shield. It is based on your income level and family size. Income can be up to $112,000.00 a year and depending on your level this applies to your monthly premium and co-pays. There is also a separate insurance for very low incomes with children. The monthly premiums are very  reasonable. If your employer offers health insurance you cannot qualify for any insurance through the state. This plan is for people who do not have access to health insurance so they are covered. It also includes dental insurance. I am glad that we have this in our state as so many people now have health insurance who could never have it before. I believe that some of Obamas plan was taken from the way MA runs the insurance program. I don't see a problem with it.happy



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Max0125 wrote May 17, 2011
        • I think that one of the things we really need to work on as a natio is prevention. Mark Bittman wrote an interesting blog entitled “How to save a trillion dollars“. Very interesting read.

          Mary



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Msj wrote May 19, 2011
        • I am only giving my 2 cents on the welfare issue. I have been on it two times in my life. I was married at age 17 and he brought me , my 3 yr old son to california and ditched us... my neighbor suggested welfare I was horrified. But She explained it to me. So I joined up, received AFDC, medicare, foodstamps - I enrolled in college, and  the gvt had a program called The Gain Program

           any way they paid my gasoline I had to log my miles and have teachers stamp cards, they paid for two business suits, and they paid for a babysitter of my choice.

           I finished my program early with honors as Administrative Assistant and on my first “practice Interivew” landed a job as an assitant editor for a multi million dollar company.

          Many years later... things happened and I felt I had to go that route again.  I once again was on welfare, but the rules had changed and no longer was the help but more like they treated recipients as pieces of shit, that drug addicts dont want to work so you prove this you jump through this hop that hoop, meaning, one is suposed to (with schoolage child) take a bus and obtain 4 applications per day to prove you are trying to work.... then get home before your child does... to fix dinner with  less and less..

          Keep in mind the entire time I worked I paid into this system.... anyway a girlfriend and I decided we had 2 options
          1. Stay on the merry go round (no way to get a real job with these silly rules)
          2. Go for it...

          She ended up homeless and losing her boys
          I ended up landing a job as assitant to the chief legal advisor for Motown Records as a temp job - that worked into more opportunities.....

          My point is The way the GAIN program was actually helped amny people.... no I don’t have stats, yes I could prb get them but Im to busy with my life now.

          2nd, not all people on welfare are scumbag, drug addicts who want to live off the hard workers of society.

          well, just my venting, nothing at anyone here...

          I just wish SOMEone would bring back programs like the GAIN program... so many people can indeed become productive, contributing members of society.



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Msj wrote May 19, 2011
        • Annie good point about expense of medical schools and cost of doctors...



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Msj wrote May 19, 2011
        • Sarah,

          I love your list of 7



                Report  Reply



  • Lets Talk Politics View Group »

    Politics, Presidents, and Political Issues...