Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
Coming February 6, 2024 . . . MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
.
The have mores bring lawsuits while those in need get screwed?
After the Michigan ruling last week upholding the mandate we now have this other challenge that came on the wire today ...
And just over a year ago, at the old stomping grounds, I had posted the following in my blog:
There are some interesting comments there in the thread. And thanks to Josh and the staff for maintaining the links as active and all.
Now onward , , ,
The first path to establishing the public option:
If the individual mandate is eventually ruled as unconstitutional under the frame work of the Commerce Clause and people are forced to buy a policy that costs more than 8 percent of his or her income, it could open the door for Congress to revisit the law and provide for a public option.
From Maggie Mahar after the Michigan ruling last week upholding the mandate
The Individual Mandate Maggie Mahar, The Century Foundation, 10/12/2010 Last week, a federal District Court judge in Michigan rejected a constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).This is the first time that a court has gotten to the merits of the case against the ACA. Below, excepts from analysis by Timothy Jost of the Washington and Lee University School of Law, explaining the decision. Jost’s piece, titled“A Victory for Health Reform and Good Law” appeared on the HealthAffairs blog today. Continue Reading on the Taking Note blog. |
The following excerpt is Maggie (in italics) speaking of excepts from a analysis by Timothy Jost of the Washington and Lee University School of Law:
(Note: Those are my highlights and undelines.)
The second path to the public option:
For those individual states (such as the 20 states in the Florida case) that are allowed to refrain and not conform to the existing law that includes the individual mandate, the following could happen.
Under the existing law the Department of Health and Human Services at the direction of the President could be directed and mandated to establish within those states federal health department offices that would be separate from the state's health departments. These federal offices can then offer the public the Government Assistance Subsidies (here's an improved updated calculator), and offer policies established on a federal Insurance Exchange that would also include a public option to compete with the for-profit insurance companies in that particular state. If any for-profit companies wish to encluded on the Insurance Exchange they can do so in the meet the criteria as set forth in the law.
Only time will tell how all of this political posturing will shake out.
But one thing is for sure, the lawyers are dancing in their suits.
Ain't that right DD?
~OGD~
.
Comments
The pinnacle of the anti-health reform pyramid . . .
One needs to go no further than here . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU7-G50Xvus&
And below are the various lawsuits either pending to be heard, those allowed to proceed, and/or those dismissed:
Note: The links below will take you to the The Independent Women's Forum "Health Care Lawsuits" site that is a basically a front for the Heritage Foundation. Here is the Wiki source of funding link of the IWF and this IWF.org should NOT to be confused with the International Women's Forum.
March 2010:
April 2010:
May 2010:
June 2010:
July 2010:
August 2010:
September 2010:
*cases no longer active
Can you imagine the monies flowing from the corporate insurance greed merchants through the hands of the above mentioned conservative organizations to help push these suits through court?
It's mind numbing...
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 3:27am
Not nearly as much as the corporate insurance greed merchants put into Democratic coffers to get it passed in the first place. You genuinely think insurance companies are fighting a mandate that everyone must purchase their product? In some alternative bizzaro universe maybe. The insurance companies aren't the ones fighting this - they got a multi-billion dollar payday - their stocks didn't soar on HCR's approval because it was a bad thing for them.
But pro vs. anti sniping over the recently passed legislation (not "health reform") aside, why the hell would people be suing Geithner (or Holder) over the HCR bill? And Orly Taitz is on the list too. Wasn't her deal birther nonsense?
by kgb999 on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 2:50am
Maybe you should invest your own time . . .
Why the hell would people be suing Geithner (or Holder) over the HCR bill?
Those are actual links up there. Take the following case as one example -- try this one:
You see, if you really wish to answer your own questions maybe you should try following those links to the actual petition PDFs. And read the complaint. Then if you still have questions you can always contact the attorney(s) directly at the contact information provided on page 34 of the complaint.
In closing: Other than that -- you in particular -- are on your own.
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 3:13pm
I have to be honest. The inclusion of Orly Taitz on that list kind of discredited it in my mind ... saw no reason to waste more time on it than jot off a comment inquiring to your sourcing. Nice to see you can (sort of) explain the Geithner thing. You could have just said "Because they are challenging taxation and that's Geithner's job." ... but I'm not sure you read your own links deeply enough to understand that.
I really don't have time to follow up every damn thing you decide to copy-pasta. That's why there is a little comment box down here with which I can make inquiries.
by kgb999 on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 4:18pm
Hey . . .
You'll find my reply below Dick's following post.
Oooo ... copy-pasta? That's cute.
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 2:59am
The lawyers are dancing in their suits.
You betchya Ducky!!
Again, thank you for all the info.
by Richard Day on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 4:58pm
Hey KGB... Naw . . .
It's so much nicer to see you doing your own leg work to find out about the Geithner thing. And if I were you, and I'm quite happy I'm not, I wouldn't be so smug thinking that I didn't read the particulars of those lawsuits.
This issue will all come down to one over-riding principle and that is the question as to whether or not the Commerce Clause can be used in relationship to the mandate requiring a person to purchase a health insurance policy.
From the WSJ Law Blog:
Here's the entire 65-page opinion:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/101410healthcareruling.pdf
And about Oily? There's a total of nineteen (19) other separate lawsuits and Oily Titz' on that list "kind of discredited the list" in your mind? No doubt I find her a certifiable whack-job related to her birther BS but she did file a challenge on the basis of the constitutionality of the health reform legislation.
Her challenge was dismissed-- but her constutional right to file was valid.
~OGD~
.
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 3:02am
Actually, thanks for that. Really. I truthfully am too busy to do much research right now and don't know much about the specifics of the challenges. I don't have energy to process all of this tonight - but I will.
BTW. I'z just playing snarky ... you seem to be one of the few who can play that game without freaking out. So, I take advantage sometimes.
[Edit: Really?? Taitz actually challenged HCR too ... nice to see she did it in a consistently loony fashion. Her stuff didn't have any links in your list, I just assumed it was her birther shit ... off base on that one!]
by kgb999 on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 5:15am