Healthcare bill lets states opt out of mandate

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If it is part of the law now, then the idiots and ###### bastards are Pelosi and her minions for not pointing this out to begin with/allowing the full legislation to be read beforehand...

Ah, I see. Because the dumbfcuk state attorneys got all carried away and sought to ride the wave of anger into their next office while failing to study the law they want to challenge in the courts, it's the fault of the authors of the bill. Yeah, that makes sense.

So, you are actually one of those that would sue the builder of that house I described earlier just because you happen to be oblivious of the fact that there's actually a door for you to use if you wanted to go outside. The builder should have put up exit signs for you and explained to you the function and purpose of the device that is known to everyone as a door?

Edited March 25, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Ah, I see. Because the dumbfcuk state attorneys got all carried away and sought to ride the wave of anger into their next office while failing to study the law they want to challenge in the courts, it's the fault of the authors of the bill. Yeah, that makes sense.

So, you are actually one of those that would sue the builder of that house I described earlier just because you happen to be oblivious of the fact that there's actually a door for you to use if you wanted to go outside. The builder should have put up exit signs for you and explained to you the function of the device that is known to everyone as a door?

Hey a stupid ###### sued McDonalds over hot coffee and won.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hey a stupid ###### sued McDonalds over hot coffee and won.

Yes, and people of that quality and caliber are serving as state attorneys. What a fcuking embarrassment.

[scandal 951]

I'm rather glad there will be court challenges to such an important piece of legislation. It's inevitable that there would be, and it's better that they arise now, early, so that they can also be settled by the court once and for all, early. I'm reasonably confident that the framers of the bill did their due diligence and that it will pass scrutiny. But better to have a ruling that makes everything crystal clear to all. I wonder how quickly it can get on the Supreme Court docket? Presumably there can be federal circuit court rulings within months, and maybe a federal appeals court ruling by the time the next SCOTUS session begins in Oct. Could it a Supreme court hearing be held as soon as next year? I hope so.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No, Paul. The provision is the law of the land today. It was signed by the President on Tuesday. The provision which Wyden discusses is part of the very bill the states are looking to sue over. Which shows that rather than studying the content of the law, they took their cues from Hoax News and went on suing. It's like suing the builder of your home for depriving you of the liberty to leave your house while, really, you just refuse to use the fcuking door the builder put in there for to leave at your own convenience. If that ain't an embarrassment and a testimony of incompetence on part of the attorneys general, then I don't know what is. Frenzied idiots.

Awesome post.

I'm rather glad there will be court challenges to such an important piece of legislation. It's inevitable that there would be, and it's better that they arise now, early, so that they can also be settled by the court once and for all, early. I'm reasonably confident that the framers of the bill did their due diligence and that it will pass scrutiny. But better to have a ruling that makes everything crystal clear to all. I wonder how quickly it can get on the Supreme Court docket? Presumably there can be federal circuit court rulings within months, and maybe a federal appeals court ruling by the time the next SCOTUS session begins in Oct. Could it a Supreme court hearing be held as soon as next year? I hope so.

From what I read, SCOTUS typically won't hear a case about a new law until it's actually in effect and has had a "ripening." It could be 2014 before we hear any decision on the constitutionality of it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No, Paul. The provision is the law of the land today. It was signed by the President on Tuesday. The provision which Wyden discusses is part of the very bill the states are looking to sue over. Which shows that rather than studying the content of the law, they took their cues from Hoax News and went on suing. It's like suing the builder of your home for depriving you of the liberty to leave your house while, really, you just refuse to use the fcuking door the builder put in there for to leave at your own convenience. If that ain't an embarrassment and a testimony of incompetence on part of the attorneys general, then I don't know what is. Frenzied idiots.

I doubt that even Pelosi and Obama knew.

Idiots.

[SMR 368]

The problem with this is that unless states can also op out of the requirement that everyone be covered regardless of pre-existing conditions, health, or any other factors, removing the personal mandate just means that insurance companies will not be able to function in that state. Even with the mandate there have been suggestions that the healthy should simply pay the fee and wait until they get sick to get insurance since they can't be denied. Now they just won't have to pay the fee.

While the mandate is the problem with this legislation from a personal liberty point of view, the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions is one of the problems with the bill from an economic point of view. Removing the mandate makes the system even less functional. In reality, the legislation does not really give the states the necessary room to be "innovative."

[NickD 203]

What a weird country this is with this state system, each with their own laws, statues, and procedures. We are not one country, but 50 different countries where each state is in competition with one another. The states with the most liberal healthcare, the best welfare, and the weakest immigration laws will certainly attract the kind of people that will only come to take advantage of that, causing the rest of the people of that state to pay the bill. Wisconsin certainly attracted a group of people by paying women to have babies to get more welfare. A hell of a mess today with one of the worse cities in the nation for crime and murder rates. And the politicians back then thought they were doing good for the state.

[mawilson 2,133]

They can, and routinely do, complete assignments requiring the reading of thousands of pages. Who's the idiot, those who can or those who can't?

2700 pages, each referring to a previous 2700-page book. Tried reading it?

[SMR 368]

They can, and routinely do, complete assignments requiring the reading of thousands of pages. Who's the idiot, those who can or those who can't?

Even if this is true, there are a couple important differences. The average thousand page paper doesn't have things inserted and removed in the early hours of the morning. The average thousand page paper is well indexed and at least has an accurate table of contents. The average thousand page paper contains information instead of references to other documents that contain the information. And even considering this, I doubt these theoretical assignments to law students require reading and comprehending the entire thousand page paper. Sure, you may have to skim, or read the index of a thousand page paper. That's a little different.