Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Court Of Appeals Affirms Health Care Law  
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11215 posts, RR: 52
Posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1615 times:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Tennesee, and Kentucky) has affirmed the constitutionality of the ACA health care law as an appropriate use of Congress's powers under the plenary Commerce Clause.

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/appeals-c...hcare-law-win-obama-172433945.html

Quote:
A federal judge in Michigan upheld the law as legal and the group appealed.

'SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE'

By a 2-1 vote, the appeals court affirmed that ruling. It said those who opt out of buying health insurance were still engaging in commerce because they were paying for healthcare services on their own and thus the law was constitutional.

"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that, in the aggregate, the practice of self-insuring for the cost of healthcare substantially affects interstate commerce," the court majority ruled.

"The provision regulates active participation in the healthcare market, and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity," wrote Judge Boyce Martin, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979.

And before people complain that this was a liberal judge making a liberal ruling, you should take note who the third judge on the panel was:

Quote:
The other panel member who upheld the law was Judge Jeffrey Sutton who was appointed in 2003 by President George W. Bush.

You might remember him as one of the conservative judges on the short list for the US Supreme Court.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1615 times:

This is going to end up in the Supreme Court no matter what so any lower court ruling is just a check point on the road there.

User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1610 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dxing (Reply 1):
This is going to end up in the Supreme Court no matter what so any lower court ruling is just a check point on the road there.

Process wise - who needs to make the next move?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1605 times:

Quoting dxing (Reply 1):
This is going to end up in the Supreme Court no matter what so any lower court ruling is just a check point on the road there.

Exactly this is a non-issue. Ultimately it ends in the SCOTUS and 5-4 it goes down. You can't force us to buy this crap.


User currently offlinesan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4941 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1590 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):
You can't force us to buy this crap.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: why would ANYONE not want health insurance? You'd have to be a complete idiot to not want health coverage, especially knowing how incapacitating an unexpected crisis or accident can be financially. It's not crap, it's called being responsible.



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1590 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 2):
Process wise - who needs to make the next move?

There is at least two other case working its way through the courts. In both of those the initial Judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional. On this case Thomas More Law Center was the plantiff so they will have to decide if they wish to pursue it.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1578 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dxing (Reply 5):
On this case Thomas More Law Center was the plantiff so they will have to decide if they wish to pursue it.

OK so what if they don't? then it stops here?

Not counting the other 2 cases..



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5232 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1574 times:

Quoting san747 (Reply 4):
I've said it before and I'll say it again: why would ANYONE not want health insurance? You'd have to be a complete idiot to not want health coverage, especially knowing how incapacitating an unexpected crisis or accident can be financially. It's not crap, it's called being responsible.

You won't get anything resembling a satisfactory answer. Believe me, I've tried. I recall when the health care bill was initially passed, and people were griping about a loss of freedom (i.e. the freedom to not buy health insurance). Like now, all I could do was shake my head. What sort of BS freedom is the freedom to not buy health insurance?

Regardless, don't forget that many of those who are most vehemently opposed to the health care bill already have health insurance coverage through their employer, so it's not as though they actually have to worry about a hypothetical situation in which they are diagnosed with a catastrophic illness and must pay for all care out of their own pocket.

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
And before people complain that this was a liberal judge making a liberal ruling, you should take note who the third judge on the panel was:

Quote:The other panel member who upheld the law was Judge Jeffrey Sutton who was appointed in 2003 by President George W. Bush.
You might remember him as one of the conservative judges on the short list for the US Supreme Court.

Funny how this part has been completely ignored.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5428 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1565 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):
Exactly this is a non-issue. Ultimately it ends in the SCOTUS and 5-4 it goes down. You can't force us to buy this crap.

The funny thing is that this is what the Republican's were calling for during a previous universal healthcare push. Why is it now not desired? The other option is to just create a tax that everyone has to pay to cover their cost, at least in the "you buy it" option, you can decide more for yourself what you want.

As a responsible Republican I continue to support universal access to healthcare. It should not be a burden on business and as more and more businesses are reducing and abandoning their employee healthcare the USA becomes more disadvantaged in the world market. It also greatly impacts the USA capability as the more people that have access to healthcare, they more likely they are to be healthy and productive and the better the USA can compete in the world market.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1566 times:

Quoting san747 (Reply 4):
I've said it before and I'll say it again: why would ANYONE not want health insurance? You'd have to be a complete idiot to not want health coverage, especially knowing how incapacitating an unexpected crisis or accident can be financially. It's not crap, it's called being responsible.

It's not Obama's decision. It's mine. You want the government telling what you eat? What light bulbs to buy? That you have to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle? I believe in liberty. I believe a person should decide what he does to his or her body. I believe a person has the right to die with dignity if they are terminally ill.

What I won't stand for is the government passing a health care law that does nothing to lower costs, nothing to promote over state line competition to give me chance to get it cheaper and then tax me when I don't buy theirs.

The SCOTUS majority also believes this and that is why this will die there which it should.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11215 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1561 times:

Quoting dxing (Reply 1):
This is going to end up in the Supreme Court no matter what so any lower court ruling is just a check point on the road there.

You underestimate the power of the US Courts of Appeals.

Appellate courts don't have the powers to just all willy-nilly redo a case from start to finish. Especially the Supreme Court.
The rulings of a lower court are generally reviewed for legal errors.

Additionally, the Supreme Court rarely takes up cases from the Courts of Appeals without a circuit split (the exception being the Federal Circuit, which handles cases that other Courts of Appeals do not get, so there are no possible circuit splits).

Quoting OA412 (Reply 7):
Funny how this part has been completely ignored.

Not surprised. But they should realize that if one of the finest and most respected conservative constitutional scholars put his stamp of approval on this, 1) they should to, and 2) they should expect other courts to follow.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5428 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1554 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
It's not Obama's decision. It's mine.

It is NOT your decision, it is societies. And the society that is the USA has decided that we cannot just let you die after an auto accident, and that you cannot run around with deadly infections such as pneumonia, measles, and Tuberculous. That is not your choice, it is important that the USA protect its people and not let them "just die".

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1540 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):
You can't force us to buy this crap.

By "crap" I assume you mean private health insurance. We are in agreement that private insurance in the medical arena is crap.

So let's move to universal care for core level care. Then your rights will be totally protected, employers will have a better, healthier P&L and we can focus on improving some of our unacceptable performance levels, like being down with Cuba on infant mortality.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1532 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
You want the government telling what you eat? What light bulbs to buy? That you have to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle? I believe in liberty

But you are OK with Arizona telling you that you need to have proof that you are legally in the country at all times?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1532 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 6):
OK so what if they don't? then it stops here?

That case would. But as noted there are two others, one in which a majority of States are involved.

Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
You underestimate the power of the US Courts of Appeals.

On smaller caes you would have a point, on this, I highly doubt it.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1521 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 13):
But you are OK with Arizona telling you that you need to have proof that you are legally in the country at all times?

Yep, I am sure am. Especially in a state that is under seige by illegal immigration.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1516 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 15):
Yep, I am sure am. Especially in a state that is under seige by illegal immigration.

So you are OK, with the concept of government forcing you to act...

Quoting dxing (Reply 14):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 6):
OK so what if they don't? then it stops here?

That case would. But as noted there are two others, one in which a majority of States are involved.

Got it.. thanks!

[Edited 2011-06-29 14:21:36]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2988 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1501 times:

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
It said those who opt out of buying health insurance were still engaging in commerce because they were paying for healthcare services on their own and thus the law was constitutional.


What, dead people engaging in commerce?
That would be a pretty weak argument.

Okie


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11215 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1501 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
It's not Obama's decision. It's mine.

not according to the Sixth Circuit!

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
The SCOTUS majority also believes this

False. SCOTUS is charged with answering this question and this question only: does Congress have the power to enact the health care law.

It does NOT have the power to answer whether it is a good idea.

Quoting dxing (Reply 14):
Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
You underestimate the power of the US Courts of Appeals.

On smaller caes you would have a point, on this, I highly doubt it.

On ALL cases, dxing.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1484 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 16):
So you are OK, with the concept of government forcing you to act...

So you think there is a direct comparison to proven you haven't snuck into the country illegally and being forced to buy something from the government... Ok..

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
not according to the Sixth Circuit!

For now. SCOTUS will have the final word.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1473 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 19):

So you think there is a direct comparison to proven you haven't snuck into the country illegally and being forced to buy something from the government... Ok..

Yes. The concept is exactly the same. The government is forcing you to perform an action. Is it not? Why is it different?

You yourself are comparing the mandate to other stuff:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
You want the government telling what you eat? What light bulbs to buy? That you have to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle?

Why is it comparable to "forcing you to wear a helmet" but not to "forcing you to carry proof of citizenship"?

[Edited 2011-06-29 14:53:36]

[Edited 2011-06-29 14:54:08]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5428 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1470 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 19):
So you think there is a direct comparison to proven you haven't snuck into the country illegally and being forced to buy something from the government... Ok..

You are not being forced to buy something from the government. You are being to required to go to the free market and buy your own healthcare based on your preferences.

Now one thing I do wonder is what happens to foreigners in say Canada or Germany that are injured and have to seek medical care there? Since those nation provide healthcare to their citizens, how do the individual non-citizen seeking care get billed and how do those nations ensure they are paid?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinesan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4941 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1470 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
You want the government telling what you eat? What light bulbs to buy? That you have to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle?

Apples and oranges. Your choice on light bulbs/food affects no one but yourself. And the government already does all those things. You and I aren't eating meat with mice parts and dirt in it anymore because of government regulation. We're using light bulbs that last longer and use less energy, therefore lowering our costs, because of government regulation.

No one, including yourself, lives in a vaccum. Sometimes a little personal sacrifice and personal responsibility in the name of the greater good of all of your compatriots is a good thing- or have I lost sight of what it means to be an American?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
I believe in liberty. I believe a person should decide what he does to his or her body. I believe a person has the right to die with dignity if they are terminally ill.

So do I, especially on that last point. I also believe that your liberty shouldn't infringe on others. Not having insurance puts unnecessary financial strain on everyone else. It's selfish and irresponsible, not "freedom."



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1457 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
On ALL cases, dxing.

Are you seriously suggesting the Supreme Court won't take this case up?


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1455 times:

Supreme Court has gotten very political. I'm betting they'll step in on this one.

25 GuitrThree : Blah blah blah. When Obama has it handed to him, and the Senate goes right in 2012, all this becomes a non-issue when the budget busting bill gets vot
26 goblin211 : It makes perfect sense but the wealthy don't like it. That's why any of this has any backing. Also, the doctors hate it because of some reason but I
27 Post contains images N867DA : From what I gather, the court has always been political. The problem is that the court has been packed by people I disagree with on most issues. The
28 dxing : You get car insurance because you own a car. You could ride a bicycle on public roads and have no insurance.
29 Ken777 : On any case as long as the USSC does not rule against their decision. If they elect to take up the case(s). If this is a clean decision they might ta
30 D L X : Without a circuit split, it is unlikely. That has been my experience. And even with a circuit split, the Supreme Court will not poo-poo the ruling of
31 dxing : As I asked DLX, are you seriously suggesting they will not take this case? Name your bet. Name your bet.
32 WarRI1 : I have to wonder, I know many people are kind of uniformed. I am trying to be kind here. I would have to say that for the Presidency and congress to
33 exFATboy : I have two problems with this logic: (1) There's a difference between "commerce" and "interstate commerce". If I pay the doc-in-the-box down the stre
34 cws818 : Then you have the liberty to stay out of California on your motorcycle.
35 StarAC17 : Considering how this current court tends to rule in the favour of corporate interests they might rule in favour of it because it grants insurance com
36 Post contains links Dreadnought : What part of Unconstitutional do you not understand? I agree, everyone should have insurance, and I even support the idea of individual mandates - bu
37 texan : Very likely indeed. Also of note is Judge Sutton's comment on p. 51 of the opinion. "Not every intrusive law is a constitutionally intrusive law. And
38 exFATboy : So far, every court ruling that I've seen, whether it upheld or rejected the mandate on the interstate-commerce-clause argument, has rejected the tax
39 OA412 : So you're going to ignore the fact that the healthcare actl has not yet been determined to be unconstitutional, and that a conservative justice just
40 texan : I admit to not having read all of the lower court arguments. Did the lower courts also explain how a law such as this could be constitutional under t
41 D L X : The part where the US Court of Appeals said it was Constitutional. No, you have it correct.
42 Dreadnought : So you think that the concept of enumerated powers is BS, and that the Constitution allows the federal government to pretty much do anything it wants
43 D L X : No. We've had this discussion verbatim before, so you should know what I believe. I believe three things: 1) regulating interstate commerce is an enu
44 GuitrThree : Remember now, that the economy was humming along until the Democrats took over the Senate and House in 2006. Then it tanked. That is fact. Now, on to
45 BAKJet : So I take it you don't like the "click it or ticket" laws. I mean who wouldn't want the freedom to die in a car crash that they might otherwise walk
46 DeltaMD90 : You obviously don't understand his argument, he isn't talking about laws affecting others. Wearing a motorcycle helmet or not only kills yourself, wh
47 BAKJet : Then how does his argument apply to the healthcare reform bill?
48 nonrevman : Here is the Webster definition of commerce: The exchange or buying and selling of commodities; esp. the exchange of merchandise, on a large scale, be
49 JakeOrion : Easy. First, we must either modify or eliminate the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 and stipulate to the states that insurance companies should have th
50 DeltaMD90 : The government making you buy insurance. I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this whole issue, but I'm at least trying to get you to understand wha
51 BAKJet : But, the government making you buy health insurance does affect everybody. First off, it saves everybody money because if you get sick, don't have in
52 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : Well that makes more sense than your other reply, and honestly, I don't know how I got sucked into this threesome argument because I agree with you o
53 cws818 : Don't worry, DLX, if Dreadnought ever read Wickard v. Filburn, his head would implode AND explode. To people like him, law only matters if it comport
54 D L X : In Bizzaro World, perhaps. That is very true. The funniest thing about this whole episode is that this is not remotely a new idea. This has been sett
55 Post contains images WarRI1 : I might ask, who was President in 2006? I might ask who was President when the financial crisis took place. I might ask, who was President who first
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
If Air Travel Was Like (US) Health Care... posted Sat Sep 26 2009 09:28:44 by Mikey711MN
Idea For Lowering The Cost Of Health Care posted Fri Oct 17 2008 08:21:13 by Dreadnought
Why Is Socialism A Bad Word In US Health Care? posted Sat Nov 10 2007 07:41:34 by Mbj-11
Dangers Of Government Health Care posted Wed Mar 28 2007 13:42:10 by Cfalk
Ban Of Health Care For Same Sex Partners Fails. posted Fri Nov 5 2004 20:10:07 by Gigneil
US Has World's Worst Health Care posted Tue Dec 17 2002 00:17:14 by Airworthy
US House Of Reps: Vote In Favor Of Repeal Dadt posted Wed Dec 15 2010 16:43:16 by UH60FtRucker
Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States. posted Mon Dec 13 2010 13:37:00 by dxing
Health Care Reform Passed (Part 3) posted Sun Mar 28 2010 04:16:25 by SA7700
Health Care Reform Passed (Part 2) posted Mon Mar 22 2010 18:18:06 by starac17