What do you mean “sit back and take it”? There’s not much the insurers can do other than lobby some more.
Insurance costs are constantly going up anyway, so I’m not sure Obama has to rationalize anything; in any event, this decision will almost certainly be overturned on appeal.
Sit back and take it, in this case, meant eating the cost increases.
For a supposed revenue neutral bill that didn’t have the American Taxpayer paying anything, it sure sounds like they will be paying more…
Well, I base that on historical notes.
No matter how liberal reporters or owners can be, they cannot be as liberal with the news as they would like:
From the book: Witness to a century- By George Seldes: In the "Spain broke the heart of the world.” chapter:
J.David Stern was the owner of the New York Post. In a conversation, George Seldes mentioned that Stern was a liberal, and that liberalism was **not **being reflected at all in the obvious conservative slant that the news from the Spanish civil war were getting. Stern replied:
“What do you want me to do, take a quixotic stand, print the truth about everything including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all my advertising contracts and go out of business- or make compromises with all the evil elements and continue to publish the best liberal newspaper possible under these compromising circumstances?”
Amazingly, that that was in 1936, and it looks like things have not changed much:
As I saw in a recent Charlie Rose interview in PBS, circa 2002. Back then the New York Times knew Enron’s methods were bananas and that Enron was likely not a good investment.
The Times economic reporter interviewed by Charlie Rose had this commentary on why they did not report much about that conclusion:
Because “Other things came up!”
Charlie Rose, not making **any **follow up questions to that whitewash of an answer, just completed the picture.
It was mentioned here and I have seen it in articles about this ruling, but I am not sure I understand why this ruling is considered more signficant thant he previous ones. Would someone be willing to explain this?
Thanks.
Two reasons.
The legal challenge was considered a long shot at the outset. This ruling changes the landscape by giving added heft to the legal challenge. The previous rulings did not change the legal landscape, since they were in line with the initial assumption.
HCR is the law of the land. This ruling raises the possibility of the law being overturned, which would be a big change from the current status. The previous rulings represented no change in current status.
Or, from the NYT
Not sure what sources you were using to call the unconstitutionality a ‘longshot’; there is an awful lot of legal opinion out there saying otherwise. Here’s Forbes’ most recent take on it.
Maybe it just doesn’t enter into the liberal mind that it’s possible that government power seizures can actually be unconstitutional?
Amateur Hour: VA Judge Makes Elementary Error In Health Care Ruling
From Talking Points Memo, without which no citizen can hope to be well-informed. Lefty site advisory.
Quoth Kearsen:
If I buy a new car, and then someone comes along and slashes the tires, I don’t complain that the car is a ripoff because it doesn’t work very well. Yes, if the death panelists manage to get the individual mandate slashed out of the health care bill, then costs will go up, but that’s not because of a problem with the health care bill, it’s because someone vandalized it.
They won’t be paying anything, at least not with their taxpayer hats on. They might be paying more to insurers, of course.
Anyway, I don’t see what point you’re trying to make here. Obviously, the revenue neutrality rests on the the bill being enacted. You might as well say that a judge’s ruling blocking the F-22 from entering service means it’s a flawed program.
There is no severability in the bill. It’s all or nothing. If the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the whole bill will be struck down.
Cite?
I’ll bet you $500 you’re wrong.
What Virginia decision upheld the law?
You really think the 4th will uphold it?
Um… well, he’s suing on behalf of Virginia, and he’s suing the federal government.
What other forum could he have picked?
Virginia’s a populous state. Doesn’t it have three federal districts?
You know, with all this talk of polls, I gotta wonder WTF? The only polls that really matter are the ones held on Nov 4th every couple years. Besides, isn’t it generally viewed to be a bad thing to govern by polls? At least, I remember Clinton being crucified for doing that back in the 90’s.
The elections are not a direct referendum on legislation. Some people doubtless voted based on their opposition to or support for HCR; almost undoubtedly, most did not.
He can’t cite his first claim, except by linking to the bill, which I presume you can do just as easily as he can.
His second and third sentences together state one single claim, which is presumably what you’re asking for a citation in support of … but it seems clear to me that he’s asserting that BECAUSE there is no severability clause in the bill, it’s all or nothing. In other words, that’s his case.
It’s for you to show that the lack of a severability clause does not mean the provision is not severable. (Since this is true, you should have no problem doing so.) But you can’t demand a cite for a negative.