Saturday, December 18, 2010

Health Care Law HR34590- #2485 - The Effects of Obamacare - Lisa Cummings - Investor's Insight (2) Judge in 20 State Obamacare Case Expresses Skepticism over Mandate - Hot Air (3) Judge Hudson's Ruling Only Delays the Inevitable - American Thinker

Have you ever seen a television commercial touting diet pills, weight loss in a bottle, and bought them, thinking, “The ad seems reasonable, with a nice actor I’ve seen,” and then get the bottle home and read the side effects? Although you were promised a return to the slim, beautiful you, the side effects on the bottle warn of “potential for heart attack, broken bones, upper respiratory infection, edema, loss of balance, and death.” Talk about the cure being worse than the condition! Health-care reform as signed into law is a prime example of the cure prescribed by Dr. Obama being worse than our current condition of rising health-care costs and uninsured Americans. We all know that health care in America is on course to change significantly with the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”) on March 23, 2010. Most of you may think of this as “health-care reform,” though some refer to it as “ObamaCare.” You may have heard about what ObamaCare was intended to do, but have you heard about the unintended outcomes of this massive restructuring of US health care? As of the date of this writing, over 55% of Americans would like to have ObamaCare repealed,[1] and that’s based on what they know about it. Let’s also consider the challenges that aren’t commonly known.
This is one of the most comprehensive articles on the impact of the Health Care Bill that I have seen, complete with charts and graphs that help to illustrate this research. This is definitely an article to print out and keep.   Read more........... Article contributed by Steve Peters.

(2) Judge in 20-State Obamacare Case Expresses Skepticism Over Mandate - Hot Air - If the White House hoped for a better outcome from the 20-state lawsuit over ObamaCare in Florida than it got this week from the federal court in Virginia, early observations from the arguments may dash those hopes. The Wall Street Journal reports that Judge Roger Vinson expressed considerable skepticism about the argument from the states that ObamaCare represents an overreach of federal authority by mandating expanded coverage through Medicaid, a program from which Vinson noted states could withdraw, at least legally. However, Vinson called the individual mandate “a great leap” on the notion of economic activity that falls within the Commerce Clause’s parameters:
A federal judge in a 20-state lawsuit against the Obama administration’s health overhaul signaled Thursday he is sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ argument that requiring Americans to carry health insurance violates the Constitution.  But Judge Roger Vinson seemed skeptical of the second plank of the states’ suit: that the law forces states into a costly expansion of their Medicaid insurance programs for the poor. …  Judge Vinson, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, signaled he saw the requirement as unprecedented and a potential imposition on Americans’ individual liberties. The case is one of some two dozen federal lawsuits that are ultimately expected to be decided by the Supreme Court.  Read more.........

Judge Hudson's Ruling only Delays the Inevitable - American Thinker - Opponents of the health-care overhaul may want to think twice before getting too encouraged by Monday's court ruling that a key component of the health care legislation enacted this year is unconstitutional. While the decision certainly increases the possibility of a Supreme Court rejection of the law, it could ultimately open the door to even more far-reaching government involvement in health insurance.  U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson's ruling that the requirement to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty exceeds Congress's constitutional authority, if it survives appeal, certainly puts a limit on the increasingly expansive interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. But while the ruling asserts that the government may not compel individuals to purchase a product from the private sector, the irony is that the government's authority to compel individuals to purchase a product from the government has withstood the test of time. Thus the long-run impact of this ruling could be outright nationalized health insurance, the very thing conservatives fear most in the spectrum of health care policy.  Read more..........

No comments:

Post a Comment