Butch Femme Planet - View Single Post

MissItalianDiva · 01-31-2011, 03:10 PM

While I agree with everyone's irritation and perhaps even disgust with the attempted disposal of the new Health Care Reform, I have SLE and happen to personally shell out over 500 bucks a month on my insurance since I am considered high risk in the eyes of the insurance companies, and to some even considered not eligible for insurance.

However, with that being said I have a few points in the aritcle Greyson posted that are good points and honestly something everyone really needs to think about on a deeper level and I will explain why in my points.

Point One
“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.,” he wrote in his ruling.

The Judge obviously does not have an issue with the Act due to his later statement regarding his decision but from a LEGAL standpoint the Judge I feel made the appropriate and necessary ruling. The individual mandate within the Act is absolutely unconstitutional without a doubt. You can not require anyone to buy anything and to do so is not constitutional especially when this is still considered a consumer affair.

Point Two
"The states and NFIB argued during oral arguments in December that the Congress has no constitutional right to force Americans buy insurance coverage. They said that while Congress is authorized to regulate activity, they can’t regulate inactivity— or not buying insurance."

Here is the worry with allowing this provision within the Act to pass, it establishes precedence within the legal world for EVERY other single lawsuit and we will lose our protection for the government to not be able to mandate us into purchasing anything they so see fit. If this was to have passed without being shot down or addressed we would never be able to argue another point such as this without losing. Once precedence is set within a court of law it is used as a reference for ruling and to establish if something even needs to be allowed into a courtroom.

I just don't see any good coming out of this mandate being allowed. It is going to open a can of worms that will follow us and cause issues as well as government intrusion for years to come.

01-31-2011, 03:10 PM	#1133
MissItalianDiva Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Miss Twiggy Preferred Pronoun?: Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious and that shit doesn't sound atrocious! Relationship Status: divorce happens..all that glitters ain't gold Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: SLC Utah Posts: 2,284 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 2,768 Thanked 7,159 Times in 1,793 Posts Rep Power: 21474854	While I agree with everyone's irritation and perhaps even disgust with the attempted disposal of the new Health Care Reform, I have SLE and happen to personally shell out over 500 bucks a month on my insurance since I am considered high risk in the eyes of the insurance companies, and to some even considered not eligible for insurance. However, with that being said I have a few points in the aritcle Greyson posted that are good points and honestly something everyone really needs to think about on a deeper level and I will explain why in my points. Point One “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.,” he wrote in his ruling. The Judge obviously does not have an issue with the Act due to his later statement regarding his decision but from a LEGAL standpoint the Judge I feel made the appropriate and necessary ruling. The individual mandate within the Act is absolutely unconstitutional without a doubt. You can not require anyone to buy anything and to do so is not constitutional especially when this is still considered a consumer affair. Point Two "The states and NFIB argued during oral arguments in December that the Congress has no constitutional right to force Americans buy insurance coverage. They said that while Congress is authorized to regulate activity, they can’t regulate inactivity— or not buying insurance." Here is the worry with allowing this provision within the Act to pass, it establishes precedence within the legal world for EVERY other single lawsuit and we will lose our protection for the government to not be able to mandate us into purchasing anything they so see fit. If this was to have passed without being shot down or addressed we would never be able to argue another point such as this without losing. Once precedence is set within a court of law it is used as a reference for ruling and to establish if something even needs to be allowed into a courtroom. I just don't see any good coming out of this mandate being allowed. It is going to open a can of worms that will follow us and cause issues as well as government intrusion for years to come.