dagblog - Comments for "Two Possible Paths to the Public Option"

Actually, thanks for that.

kgb999 — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:15:21 +0000

In reply to Hey KGB... Naw . . .It's so

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!]

Hey KGB... Naw . . .It's so

oldenGoldenDecoy — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 07:02:18 +0000

In reply to Two Possible Paths to the Public Option

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:

Second, and perhaps more importantly, Vinson declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim that Congress, in passing the individual mandate, overstepped the authority granted to it by the Commerce Clause, which allows Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Wrote Vinson:

At this stage in the litigation, this is not even a close call. . . This case law is instructive, but ultimately inconclusive because the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause have never been applied in such a manner before. The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent.
Vinson noted the difference between regulating an economic activity and attempting to regulate an economic non-activity. Most Commerce Clause cases deal with the former, not the latter.
[I]n this case we are dealing with something very different. The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive.

. . .

Of course, to say that something is “novel” and “unprecedented” does not necessarily mean that it is “unconstitutional” and “improper.” There may be a first time for anything. But, at this stage of the case, the plaintiffs have most definitely stated a plausible claim with respect to this cause of action.

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.

Joining a distinguished group of state attorneys general in challenging the constitutionality of the health reform legislation, now comes Orly Taitz, who in a new federal court filing argues that the bill violates her "right" to practice dentistry. Link @ Muckraker

Her challenge was dismissed-- but her constutional right to file was valid.

~OGD~

Hey . . . You'll find my

oldenGoldenDecoy — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 06:59:35 +0000

In reply to I have to be honest. The

Hey . . .

You'll find my reply below Dick's following post.

Oooo ... copy-pasta? That's cute.

~OGD~

I have to be honest. The

kgb999 — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:18:39 +0000

In reply to Maybe you should invest your

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.

Maybe you should invest your

oldenGoldenDecoy — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 19:13:47 +0000

In reply to Not nearly as much as the

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:

4/02/10 – Walters v. Holder – case filed
8/01/10 – Walters v. Holder – Defendants file Motion to Dismiss

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~

Not nearly as much as the

kgb999 — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 06:50:34 +0000

In reply to The pinnacle of the

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?

The lawyers are dancing in

Richard Day — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:58:51 +0000

In reply to Two Possible Paths to the Public Option

The lawyers are dancing in their suits.

You betchya Ducky!!

Again, thank you for all the info.

The pinnacle of the

oldenGoldenDecoy — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 07:27:20 +0000

In reply to Two Possible Paths to the Public Option

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:

3/23/10 – Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed
3/23/10 – Florida v. DHHS – case filed
3/23/10 – Virginia v. Sebelius – case filed
3/23/10 – Liberty University, Inc. v. Geithner – case filed
3/23/10 – Thomas More Center v. Obama – case filed
3/24/10 – Bellow v. Sebelius – case filed
3/24/10 – New Jersey Physicians, Inc. v. Obama – case filed
3/25/10 – Taitz v. Obama – Motion to Consolidate Cases*
3/26/10 – Assoc. of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Sebelius – case filed

April 2010:

4/02/10 – Walters v. Holder – case filed
4/07/10 – C alvey v. Obama – case filed
4/08/10 – Shreeve v. Obama – case filed
4/14/10 – Taitz v. Obama – case dismissed*
4/12/10 – Goudy-Bachman v. DHHS – case filed
4/22/10 – Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots, LLC v. Sebelius – case filed*
4/27/10 – Burlsworth v. Holder – case filed*

May 2010:

5/04/10 – Peterson v. Obama – case filed
5/12/10 – U.S. Citizens Association v. Obama – case filed
5/14/10 – Baldwin v. Sebelius – case filed
5/24/10 – Virginia v. Sebelius – Defendants file Motion to Dismiss

June 2010:

6/03/10 – Physicians Hospitals of America v. Sebelius – case filed
6/09/10 – Mead v. Holder – case filed
6/14/10 – Goudy-Bachman v. DHHS – Defendants file Motion to Dismiss
6/16/10 – Florida v. DHHS – Defendants file Motion to Dismiss
6/16/10 – Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots, LLC v. Sebelius – case dismissed*

July 2010:

7/07/10 – Kinder v. Dept. of Treasury – case filed
7/09/10 – Kinder v. Dept. of Treasury – Missouri AG files Motion to Intervene
7/21/10 – Thomas More Center v. Obama – Hearing for Motion for Preliminary Injunction
7/26/10 – Sissel v. DHHS – case filed
7/28/10 – New Jersey Physicians v. Obama – Defendants file Motion to Dismiss
7/29/10 – Assoc. of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Sebelius – Defendants file Motion to Dismiss

August 2010:

8/01/10 – Walters v. Holder – Defendants file Motion to Dismiss
8/02/10 – Virginia v. Sebelius – Ruling against Motion to Dismiss
8/12/10 – Coons v. Geithner – case filed
8/13/10 – Liberty University, Inc. v. Geithner – Defendants file Motion to Dismiss
8/16/10 – Virginia v. Sebelius – Defendant files answer to Complaint
8/16/10 – Coons v. Geithner – case reassigned to Judge G. Murray Snow
8/16/10 – Peterson v. Obama – Defendants file Motion to Dismiss
8/17/10 – Physicians Hospitals of America v. Sebelius – Motion for Summary Judgment filed
8/17/10 – Physicians Hospitals of America v. Sebelius – Defendants file Motion to Dismiss
8/20/10 – Mead v. Holder – Defendants file Motion to Dismiss
8/23/10 – Kinder v. Dept. of Treasury – Court Order for MO AG to withdraw Motion to Intervene
8/23/10 – New Jersey Physicians v. Obama – Plaintiffs file Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
8/27/10 – Florida v. DHHS – Defendants file Motion to Dismiss
8/27/10 – Shreeve v. Obama – Defendants respond to Motion for Preliminary Injunction
8/27/10 – Baldwin v. Sebelius – case dismissed
8/27/10 – Taitz v. Obama – Motion for Reconsideration*
8/31/10 – U.S. Citizens Association v. Obama – Defendants file Motion for Summary Judgment
8/31/10 – Shreeve v. Obama – Defendants modify Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction
8/31/10 – Independent American Party of Nevada Eagle Forum v. Obama – case filed

September 2010:

9/01/10 – Thomas More Center v. Obama – Defendants file Notice of Supplemental Authority
9/02/10 – U.S. Citizens Association v. Obama – Plaintiffs file Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment
9/03/10 – Liberty University, Inc. v. Geithner – Plaintiffs file Support to Oppose Motion to Dismiss
9/08/10 – Burlsworth v. Holder – case dismissed*
9/10/10 – Mead v. Holder – Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss due
9/10/10 – Liberty University, Inc. v. Geithner – Defendants’ Response due
9/14/10 – Florida v. DHHS – Motion to Dismiss heard
9/20/10 – Purpura et al v. Obama et al – case filed

*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~