Virginia Appeals Court Dismiss Health Care Challenges
Email
Getty Images
A federal appeals court in Virginia today dismissed two cases challenging the Obama administration’s signature legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act.
In one case a unanimous three judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Commonwealth of Virginia did not have the legal right or “standing” to bring the case challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform law.
Virginia had argued it could challenge the individual mandate–a key provision of the law that requires individuals to buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a tax penalty– because the provision interfered with a state law already on the books that says residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance.
But the court said today “To permit a state to litigate whenever it enacts a statute declaring its opposition to federal law” would “convert the federal judiciary into a forum for the vindication of a state’s generalized grievances about the conduct of government.”
At oral arguments a lawyer for the Obama administration had argued that the case “fails at the outset” because the mandate is applicable to individuals and not the state.
After the release of the decision , Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli expressed “disappointment” that the case was thrown out on the standing issue.
In a statement he said, “the Court did not even reach the merits on the key question of Virginia’s lawsuit–whether Congress has a power never before recognized in American history: the power to force one citizen to purchase a good or service from another citizen.”
In the second case brought by Liberty University , a private christian school, the court said it had to block the case because a federal tax law stripped it of jurisdiction to decide the issue.
In a 2-1 ruling the Court became the first court to rule that the individual mandate functions as a tax. Because the mandate will not be enforced until 2014, the Court said that the Anti-Injunction Act “strips us of jurisdiction” from hearing a pre-enforcement challenge.
“What the Court said is that the penalty for not complying with the mandate functions as a tax that cannot be challenged until it has been assessed. ” says Kevin Walsh law professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.”
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said that the Court was wrong to apply the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) to the case.
“Every court which has considered this question has found that the mandate is a ‘penalty,” not a tax, ” he said in a statement “and the AIA does not apply. Even the federal government defendants argued that the AIA does not apply and that the statutory intent clearly indicated that the AIA was inapplicable.”
But supporters of the law praised the ruling. “The procedural obstacles that the plaintiffs tried to hurdle in bringing these cases in the first place show their challenges to be far more about politics than constitutional law” said Elizabeth Wydra Chief Counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center.
The Department of Justice released a statement welcoming the dismissal of the two challenges. “We also continued to appreciate the rulings of other courts on the merits upholding the constitutionality of the Act.”
Today’s ruling does not change the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States is likely to take up the issue because two other appeals courts across the country have reached the merits of the case and split on whether the core provision of the law is constitutional.
Read about other challenges to the health reform law.
The panel in Virginia consisted of Judge Diana Gribbon Motz who was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton, Judge Andre M. Davis and Judge James A. Wynn Jr.. Wynn and Davis were both appointed by President Barack Obama. The judges were chosen by a random computer model. Motz wrote the majority opinions in both cases.
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012 
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
Two of the panel were Obama appointed judges
OBAMA______VS______AMERICA
Posted by: Yep I said that | September 8, 2011, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm
How the #$%^ is it constitutional for the government to force me to purchase a service and what else can they force me to buy under the excuse that I will inevitably need it? We will always be paying for the uninsured because hospitals have an obligation to treat anyone but I don’t want the government forcing me to buy anything.
Posted by: BCT | September 8, 2011, 2:12 pm 2:12 pm
In the legal community, this is simply called “washing one’s hands” of the issue, anticipating that no matter what decision it renders, it will go to the Supreme Court.
Posted by: wantingbalance | September 8, 2011, 2:14 pm 2:14 pm
If this goes to the SC, it may well go against the President’s Act but if it sits and takes some time then it still has a chance. Republican’s heads must be spinning by now. They’ve got a very sorry group running against the President and now this little setback. Heck, even those two jerks Vitter and DeMint have to show up for work tonight. Yup, not a good day for the Republicans!
Posted by: demnme | September 8, 2011, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm
What is the difference between being forced to buy car insurance, which Virginia requires, and being forced to buy health insurance? They are both mandates to buy insurance. I am also required by my mortgage lender to buy flood insurance, homeowners insurance, and earthquake insurance. So exactly what is the difference? There isn’t any!!!
Posted by: NPMike | September 8, 2011, 2:27 pm 2:27 pm
The hypocrisy from the Right about the Individual Mandate is astounding. THEY came up with the concept themselves, back in the early 90′s. THEY used to believe in individual responsibility. THEY said that the IM helps address the practice of the ‘free rider effect’, which essentially says that uninsured sick people WILL get treatment and SOMEONE will pay for it. THEY didn’t want people free-loading on the charity of others. Back when they supported individual responsibility……………
Posted by: Searambler | September 8, 2011, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm
“The panel of three judges in Virginia –all Democratic appointees –heard the combined cases on May 10th.”….Yeah, that’s what I love about the legal system – impartial. Let’s keep ramming things up where the sun don’t shine on all the populace and do it under the name of law.
Posted by: Tired of Idiocy | September 8, 2011, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm
There is no doubt the SCOTUS will find it unconstitutional. I just hope they fast track it and get it over with. It would be nice to fast track the 2012 race and get Obama “over with” too!
Posted by: Gunner_1959 | September 8, 2011, 2:41 pm 2:41 pm
Can we really believe that there are those who still challenge the right of Americans to have healthcare insurance? It must be the big insurance corporate lobbyists at work. Go figure!
Posted by: NoFlyZone2 | September 8, 2011, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
The same arogant people asking the difference between being required to have car insurance verses Obamacare are the same stupid people that need not vote in 2012….stay home!
Posted by: Gunner_1959 | September 8, 2011, 2:48 pm 2:48 pm
GUNNER_1959, your hatred for Obama is glaring for all to see. Have a wonderful day, my friend.
Posted by: NoFlyZone2 | September 8, 2011, 2:50 pm 2:50 pm
I personally think that anyone that tries to make this some sort of left-right debate is an idiot. It is not right vs left or dem vs reb, it is freedom vs fascism. Forced by the government to buy something you don’t want or be punished. It is so unconstitutional that the only a fool or someone so corrupt it is not even funny would see it any other way.
For all you that want something for nothing, it does not even work. Even the President has admitted that it will cost even more than the system we had before. It is actually funny that people will sell their freedom so cheaply. Or in this case, Pay for them to take it from you. This is way beyond having a president that is in your preferred party.
Posted by: FreedomLover | September 8, 2011, 2:52 pm 2:52 pm
Tired of Idiocy | September 8, 2011, 2:39 pm post —— So far, every judge or court that has supported this law has been from Democrat appointees, and every judge or court that has ruled against it has been from Republican appointees. So you tell me, which side is “impartial”…..?
Posted by: Searambler | September 8, 2011, 2:52 pm 2:52 pm
“Let’s keep ramming things up where the sun don’t shine on all the populace and do it under the name of law.” —— Like the Citizens United ruling? The one that says ‘corporations are people, too’? Done by the uber-Conservative activist Supreme Court………
Posted by: Searambler | September 8, 2011, 2:54 pm 2:54 pm
“There is no doubt the SCOTUS will find it unconstitutional. I just hope they fast track it and get it over with.” ———- A) Yes, there is still a helluva lot of doubt about this. And B) the SC has already said they WON’T fast track it………
Posted by: Searambler | September 8, 2011, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
I am not sure how people can be forced to buy insurance, but the insurance companies of this country have its citizens over a barrel. Unless you are in perfect health, you cannot get personal insurance coverage for a reasonable price, if it all. People with pre-existing health conditions will be barred from obtaining insurance altogether, if insurance companies have their way. This country must address the growing insurance problem. There are more than 50 million people who do not have coverage, and it is not because they do not want insurance, its because they cannot afford coverage.
Posted by: RohnertPark1 | September 8, 2011, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
The Universal Health idea was actually a plan that Nixon tried back in the late 60′s, early 70′s. It started as a repub plan.
Posted by: raggmopp | September 8, 2011, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
“What is the difference between being forced to buy car insurance, which Virginia requires, and being forced to buy health insurance? ” —– The difference is, you do not have to own a car, and if you don’t, you aren’t required to carry car insurance. Owning a car is a choice you make. I guess, just like being healthy is a choice you make. If you choose to get cancer, and you choose to not have insurance, then you choose to die. At least, that’s what I think the Republicans are saying…………
Posted by: Searambler | September 8, 2011, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm
The irony about the Republican position is, they also fought tooth and nail to kill off any attempt at a single payer system, which would have been TRUE cost-reduction health care reform…………….
Posted by: Searambler | September 8, 2011, 3:09 pm 3:09 pm
If everyone must purchase health insurance, will emergency rooms then start turning away people without? Of course not. So people who show up without insurance either because they can’t afford it or because insurance limits treatment or they are ‘undocumented’, will still be at the door getting everything on Medicaid. The individual mandate does not change the economics for the poor and chronically ill. They will still be the cause of the vast majority of healthcare spending. So who gets hurt by the new tax essentially – everyone in the middle. What a surprise.
Posted by: BCT | September 8, 2011, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm
NoFlyZone2…”They came up with the concept in the early 90′s”….So what?! It didn’t pass and become a law that is going to encumber everyone with potential problems. It did pass with a trmendous amount of additional regulation and need for Federal Government employees, namely IRS agents, to administer the stupid thing under this administration by no one reading the stupid thing. I support no party that wants to inflict more Government on us. If you would bother to read my past posts you’ll see I am not partial to either party. If you can’t afford something that free enterprise has to offer – do without until you obtain capability to get it for yourself. Government can’t run anything well, never has and never will and the proof is the mess that we are now in.
Posted by: Tired of Idiocy | September 8, 2011, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm
“They will still be the cause of the vast majority of healthcare spending. So who gets hurt by the new tax essentially – everyone in the middle. What a surprise.” ——– The vast majority of health care spending? You have stats to back that up? And are you calling health insurance a tax now? That’s new………..
Posted by: SearamblerOne | September 8, 2011, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm
People are up in arms about the government “forcing” them to pay for healthcare, but they are not up in arms about the government “forcing” people to pay for those without healthcare through their taxes. What is the difference?
Posted by: carole | September 8, 2011, 3:20 pm 3:20 pm
In the late 19th century and early 20th century education for our youth was debated much like the Affordable Health Care Act is now. The result was a system implemented throughout the USA for primary and secondary education to be provided at no cost to the families of the students attending. It was seen as something for the good of the country. Ever since I owned property, I’ve paid approximately half of my tax bill to the school district, regardless of whether I had children in school or not. At least with health care, I can have direct benefits for my investment of a premium. I have no choice when it comes to education. How is this ‘forced’ tax/cost different? Isn’t health care for the betterment of everyone and won’t it actually decrease costs as prevention of illness and disease is one of the key factors?
Posted by: Rob Dent | September 8, 2011, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm
Just like everything else…people will go healthcare for all is amazing and wonderful until someone comes to your door and makes you pay for it. And the car insurance thing is a joke. Because you don’t have to have car insurance because you don’t have to have a car… On health care you have no choice.
Posted by: Mark | September 8, 2011, 3:26 pm 3:26 pm
SearamblerOne….When will you object to Government interference in someone’s personal life? Will it be okay for the Government to dictate the clothing you must buy – like the Catholic Church is objecting to the way it’s parishoner’s dress? Their forcing people to do things is getting very old – just as Nixon using “National secuity” to not disclose his actions, Bush doing what he felt like in getting us into two wars, and Obama getting us into another war under the guise of NATO. These “rulers” don’t know what’s best and their actions typically cause hardship on many others.
Posted by: Tired of Idiocy | September 8, 2011, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm
Liberal activists judges. Libs are immoral at every level. Why do you think they hate people who believe in God?
Posted by: Chino | September 8, 2011, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm
___“What is the difference between being forced to buy car insurance, which Virginia requires, and being forced to buy health insurance? ” —– The difference is, you do not have to own a car, and if you don’t, you aren’t required to carry car insurance. Owning a car is a choice you make. I guess, just like being healthy is a choice you make. If you choose to get cancer, and you choose to not have insurance, then you choose to die. At least, that’s what I think the Republicans are saying…………POSTED BY: SEARAMBLER | SEPTEMBER 8, 2011, 2:59 PM 2:59 PM__________________SEARAMBLER, just as when I was endorsing your messages, you have posted the most idiotic message I have ever read on this board. How do you equate “choosing to own a car” and “choosing to get cancer?” For God’s sake, do people choose to have a physical body, and do they choose to have prostrate cancer or breast cancer? Do people wish or pray for these things?. That is insane. Things happen, and because of life uncertainties, people purchase health insurance to safeguard these eventualities. Too bad, there are free loaders who expect the government to pay for everything. So, why shouldn’t government mandate that people buy insurance? We are talking about personal responsibility; those who refuse to take it, should be required to do so.
Posted by: NoFlyZone2 | September 8, 2011, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm
I’m calling it a tax because that is what the constitution allows – the raising of revenue; not the compulsory purchase of services. As far as where the majority of healthcare costs lie, it’s a BCG study that found unsurprisingly, that the vast majority of public healthcare costs come from the poor and chronically ill mostly from diabetes and heart disease (much of it from obesity) and all the associated ills that go along with those two conditions. The individual mandate will not change the costs associated with this population.
Posted by: BCT | September 8, 2011, 3:34 pm 3:34 pm
I don’t want to pay for your healthcare, period. Pay for your own healthcare. I pay for mine. I choose to pay for mine so I don’t become a burden on society. Why should society pay for me when I get sick? For those who truly cannot afford healthcare … that’s another story, but many people opt out because they would rather put that money in their pockets. It’s a choice they make. Fine. What about my choice not to pay for them when they get sick and raise hell if the ER turns them away because they don’t have insurance. Please! I am so tired of being responsible for people who are irresponsible. Where is my right to choose?
Posted by: carole | September 8, 2011, 3:42 pm 3:42 pm
So it’s ok to preemptively challenge laws liberals disagree with (immigration law), but not ones they don’t (Obamacare). Go figure.
Posted by: Ken | September 8, 2011, 3:42 pm 3:42 pm
NoFlyZone2 | September 8, 2011, 3:31 pm post ———- LOL! I guess my sarcastic comment wasn’t taken as sarcasm by you. If you knew my history here you’d know I am a supporter of the Republican concept that is the Individual Mandate. It’s the Republicans who no longer believe in individual responsibility………
Posted by: Searambler | September 8, 2011, 3:50 pm 3:50 pm
Demme, you made a very good observation, and you in fact stated the problem. There is a huge difference between what is allowed in the US constitution and what the constitution allows states to do. You probably never studied the constitution but it specifically says that anything that is not expressly allowed in the constitution is not allowed. Put simply, the federal government is not allowed to force you to buy health insurance or anything else. Individual states are allowed to perform that function. That is why Obama care is completely un-constitutional. It takes the powers that have been granted to the states. So either the US government has to somehow get the 50 states to all enact the provision that forces you to buy health insurance, or they have at amend the US constitution to allow them to do it. As everything is now, they are not allowed to do it themselves. Obama should have understood the limits of the constitution as President of the US, or someone should have advised him. My understanding is that he in fact taught constitutional law. So it seems he has chosen to ignore the US Constitution in this case. I believe ultimately the courts will not allow him to do that
Posted by: Bill Leathen | September 8, 2011, 4:01 pm 4:01 pm
Searambler,
There are miles of difference between individual responsibility and forced individual obligation. I’d hope you’d be able to discern between the two. Maybe we should be forced to vote then? It is perhaps a citizen’s sole constitutional responsibility to do so? Why didn’t the Founders force it upon us then? Because it’s a bad idea. Just because the individual mandate was a Republican’s idea at one time, doesn’t mean it isn’t a bad idea.
Posted by: Ken | September 8, 2011, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
If there is one business owner out there who hopes this thing finally passes SCOTUS and AND that you will keep the same benefits as now offered to your employees, let us know. You have enough to worry about with EPA, DoE, OSHA, HUD, and all those other govt agencies which are presently causing enough problems without having to worry about OBC. And we wonder why nobody is hiring.
Posted by: Choppy Seas | September 8, 2011, 4:31 pm 4:31 pm
Your paying for people’s health care whether you know it or not. When a person goes to an emergency room and has no health insurance, the state, usually from money given to them from the federal government pays the bill, rather than letting that person die.
At least under the new health care plan, those that can afford it will have to pay something thereby lowering the cost to all of us.
Posted by: tmferretti | September 8, 2011, 4:36 pm 4:36 pm
At least under the new health care plan, those that can afford it will have to pay something thereby lowering the cost to all of us.
Posted by: tmferretti | September 8, 2011, 4:36 pm 4:36 pm ++++++Not when Pelosi and her little band of merry liberals are handing out waivers like they are M&M’s…
Posted by: ALLEN | September 8, 2011, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm
Carole, I’m with you on the frustration but the Individual Mandate does absolutely nothing to reign in Medicare and especially Medicaid. Those are the costs we need to get under control. We cannot collectively pay for everything for everyone. The level of services provided through public programs is bankrupting the entire system and you will continue to pay for all that with or without the individual mandate plus the new mandates raise the cost of existing private insurance. You will pay more but the real source of rising costs is untouched. And bonus, because employers have not been able to gauge the coming costs of these new mandates, they cannot estimate the costs of hiring new employees. That’s just what we needed with 9+% unemployment.
Posted by: BCT | September 8, 2011, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm
Obama can take his Obamacare and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.
You compare it it buying car insurance? Not everyone owns a car!!
Posted by: Kat | September 8, 2011, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm
If Obamacare is so great, then why all of those waivers? The unions don’t have to have it or even Congress for that matter. This is a bunch of crap!
Posted by: Daisy | September 8, 2011, 4:54 pm 4:54 pm
Boy am I resisting the urge to type in ALL CAPS. But, what about the government sticking it’s big nose into women’s lives in Texas? Any woman seeking an abortion must listen to a sonagram, hear a speech from a script written by the government, return 24 hours later and then get an appointment. WHY AREN’T REPUBLICANS UP IN ARMS ABOUT THIS????? Okay, so in the end, I couldn’t resist. HYPOCRISY!
Posted by: MsT-mac | September 8, 2011, 4:55 pm 4:55 pm
A panel of three liberal judges threw out the case! Imagine that. I’d bet they’d find in the Constitution a woman’s right to kill her baby at any time during her pregnancy. Isn’t justice supposed to be blind? It’s not supposed to be about personal feelings or ideology. This is what we’ve turned the courts into? Shameful.
Posted by: s | September 8, 2011, 4:58 pm 4:58 pm
ALLAN
The wavers (I too don’t agree with them either) are mostly to states and companies that need more time for implementation. The plan itself makes good sense. At lot of people never go to a doctor when their symptoms begin because they can’t afford too. As a result we end up paying for catastrophic procedures that could have been avoided. A simple $500 dollar procedure ends up costing $50,000 when the patient is in an emergency situation.
If implemented correctly this plan can save, as the congressional budget office says, 200 billion dollars a year.
Also, in a few months you’ll see small, startup health insurance companies offering low cost insurance that competes with the big conglomerates. This will also drive down costs.
The real solution is a national health care system that does both things in one shot.
The only other answer is to just let people die if they don’t have health insurance; some people favor this, not me.
Posted by: tmferretti | September 8, 2011, 5:01 pm 5:01 pm
I would have no problem with individuals not being forced to buy health insurance IF they had enough money in the bank to PAY for any healthcare needs (including catastrophic occurences). The people who object don’t want to be forced to buy insurance, but they sure will expect hospitals and doctors to treat them if they cannot pay. What is wrong with the state making you take personal responsibility? Why should the state (and by extension, taxpayers) be forced to pay for people who didn’t care enough to provide for themselves?
Posted by: Catherine commentary | September 8, 2011, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm
you have got to be kidding me you guys say the dems are immoral please. corporations according to the republican dominated supreme court can buy any election they want now with no disclosure. talke about cramming
Posted by: anamericanpatriot | September 8, 2011, 5:24 pm 5:24 pm
Obama can take his Obamacare and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.
You compare it it buying car insurance? Not everyone owns a car!!
Posted by: Kat | September 8, 2011, 4:51 pm — True, but isn’t it interesting that people are willing to take financial responsibility for any damage or damages they may do to/with their car, but are unwilling to take that same responsibilitity with their own healthcare costs. Talk about entitlement. Expecting others to pay for any catastrophic costs you may incur and cannot afford is the very picture of entitilement.
Posted by: Catherine commentary | September 8, 2011, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm
you wanted people to be responsible for their own healthcare expenses so please stop with this bull this was a repubican idea they wanted put in the healthcare bill so scream to your own team. I have not heard one word about what dems put in the bill because it was for the good of the nation.
Posted by: anamericanpatriot | September 8, 2011, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm
The argument that we as tax payers have to pay for every emergency room visit vs everyone has to buy health insurance is stupid. The first allows freeloaders to keep their money and get free emergency room visits on our dime and the latter forces the freeloaders to pay their fair share. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid!!!
Posted by: focusonjobs1 | September 8, 2011, 5:35 pm 5:35 pm
because the provision interfered with a state law already on the books that says residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance.—yet hospitals have to treat them IS law. Garbage. Hey, you can’t have legal stealing, which is what we have right now. People go to the ER, becuase they have no doctor to go to, no health insurance, they take up $500 worht of resources, or more if they have xrays or tests and then walk out…and never pay. who pays? All of us who DO have health insurance in the form of much higher premiums because the hospital passes on all these unpaid bills to US to pay!!!! Seriously, I have NO PITY for hte slackers who are so upset about the concept of PAYING YOUR OWN BILLS!!!!! Who the freak do you think you are that you can walk around with this ticking time bomb of a body with zero way to pay for your healthcare costs and you think you’re entitled to get services!!! I am NOT your daddy! PAY YOUR OWN BILLS!
Posted by: whoopstheydiditagain | September 8, 2011, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm
The first allows freeloaders to keep their money and get free emergency room visits —and what do they go for????!!! Someone has a sinus infection and has an ER surgeon putting a scope in their ear!! You kidding me???? I have to pay $500 for this guy because he’s too lazy to get health insurance so a simple $20 office copay visit for a simple sickness is now a $500 bill that I have to pay!!!!! Ridiculous. Right now it is law that every hospital has to treat you no matter if you can pay or not. want to repeal the healthcare law??? Then die. Then agree to die, and do NOT go to hospitals when you are sick. Die of strep throat and colds that turn to pnemonia like it’s the 1800s again, because we’re SICK of you being sooooo willing to risk OUR MONEY!! What if the stakes were risk your LIFE…ya think you’d find the funds to buy a stupid plan then??? OH I bet you would!
Posted by: whoopstheydiditagain | September 8, 2011, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm
We will always be paying for the uninsured because hospitals have an
obligation to treat anyone but I don’t want the government forcing me
to buy anything.POSTED BY: BCT ******Lets go one step further, where
is it in the constitution, that states that hospitals have the “obligation”
to treat the uninsured? When YOUR drunk one day and get in a car
crash and identification can’t be found, let me have the honor in telling
you that you can’t be treated because you didn’t pay.
Heck they do that to people who refuse to fund their local fire
departments. The firefighters just make sure the timbres coming
from your house don’t start a fire on a house belonging to people
who do pay.
Posted by: michael | September 8, 2011, 6:43 pm 6:43 pm
Obama can take his Obamacare and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.
You compare it it buying car insurance? Not everyone owns a car!*******
Isn’t that ironic. If you look at your policy, you DO pay for uninsured drivers,
in your premiums which is mandatory, yet you don’t squat about that one
do you.
Posted by: michael | September 8, 2011, 6:58 pm 6:58 pm
If Obamacare is so great, then why all of those waivers? The unions don’t have to have it or even
Congress for that matter. This is a bunch of crap! POSTED BY: DAISY *******************Because
everyone has put their 2 cents in and over 90% of the waivers make no sense.
Posted by: michael | September 8, 2011, 7:07 pm 7:07 pm
You mean a court wholly appointed by Democrats (2 by Obama and 1 by Clinton) ruled in favor of a Democrat? Nothing wrong with that Morton. Nothing wrong with that. Riiiiiight.
Posted by: Robert | September 8, 2011, 9:26 pm 9:26 pm
Insurance in IL for getting hit by an uninsured driver is not mandatory. You only buy it for your own protection if you want.
And what about the lady that says people were discussing the necessity for public schools in the early 1800′s as well as the early 1900′s? Surely they weren’t doing this for 100 years. Does she just rambling?
Obamacare is not going to lesson the cost of insurance one bit. Medical procedures will continue to climb and climb and insurance will continue to climb at the same rate. Ways to reduce the cost for medical insurance and overall medical costs were not addressed in Obamacare.
Posted by: dadnamit | September 9, 2011, 12:03 am 12:03 am
MICHAEL
Don’t let your dislike of president Obama override your common sense. It’s far better to have people who pay nothing pay a little for their health care. It’s not a perfect plan, but it’s a start. What we need is a national health care plan similar to Canada and Great Britain.
And don’t say the Canadians and Brits hate their system, I work with both and the people I know wouldn’t trade their system for ours if you gave it to them
Posted by: tmferretti | September 9, 2011, 10:12 am 10:12 am