Obama has a good grip on his ankles

[Loyal]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

actually thats probably it, americans just like to fight. But never want to be the ones to start it.

Most likely, yeah.

[Marc v4.0]

Originally Posted by Loyal

Most likely, yeah.

Always a classic

[Mannix]

Never been a fan of the foul-mouthed Andy Rooney. In this case I prefer the episode of South Park where Cartman "travels" back to 1776. The relevant part starts around 16:50.

[RobinStarwing]

We just don't like to start wars but we are good at it because all our arguing and infighting is just for show.

[Jagos]

Well crap...

There goes Obamacare...

[Kim]

It will most likely be overruled, though I find it hilarious that conservatives are celebrating this despite their cries of protest at how a judge ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional was violating the will of the people.

[shiney]

They ruled one part of it unconstitutional; the mandate, which forced no price restrictions on the health insurance providers, so this isn't exactly a terrible thing yet. I have heard there's a no severance clause which means if one part is invalidated the whole thing is, but the bill will survive the appeals process regardless.

Having a mandate is an idiotic idea anyways with A) no public option and B) no premium controls. What's stopping insurance companies from raising premiums 50, 60, 90% year to year? Nothing! With the mandate in place people are required to have insurance or be denied a tax credit, and without a public option there is no competition to keep prices down.

[P-Sleazy]

Originally Posted by NonCon

I want the Green Party to start winning shit.

Howabout the "The rent is too damn high" party?

[Wigmund]

Originally Posted by shiney

They ruled one part of it unconstitutional; the mandate, which forced no price restrictions on the health insurance providers, so this isn't exactly a terrible thing yet. I have heard there's a no severance clause which means if one part is invalidated the whole thing is, but the bill will survive the appeals process regardless.

Other bills that lack a severability clause survived having parts of their regulations judged unconstitutional.

From RedState blog:
But the lack of a severability clause wouldn’t necessarily result in the overrule the rest of the legislation, which mostly have to do with spending and rationing — the expansion of Medicaid, Medicare cuts, and sweeping regulatory authority — and isn’t wrapped up in the mandate. This has been the Court’s approach to other issues, such as the recent Sarbanes-Oxley ruling, another law which lacked a severability clause, where they invalidated a portion of the law and allowed the rest to stand.

Some things that the Court would likely leave unaffected would include the expansion of Medicaid, reporting obligations for businesses and hospitals, expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, funds for “family planning,” expansion of state aging and disability resource centers, expanded funding for prevention programs and workplace education, reforms to inpatient rehabilitation and hospices, the addition of value-based payments for physicians and hospitals, and many provisions relating to Medicare services in rural areas… And that’s just for starters. The point is that the overwhelming portion of this legislation is not tied directly to the individual mandate.

Oh look at this, in the Washington Post, the Judge specifically said the rest of the law still stands and didn't put an injunction on it. So the portions telling the insurance industry that they can't dick with the ill, deny coverage for previously existing conditions, shall cover people up to 26 under their parents' coverage and so on all still stand.

And I like this bit from RedState:

Yet even if the Court behaved in the same way when deciding the constitutionality of the individual mandate, in practical terms, judging the mandate unconstitutional would set off a domino effect throughout the insurance industry. The mandate is the only thing which made other anti-market regulatory demands (such as guaranteed issue and community rating) workable for the industry. Despite Howard Dean’s argument that the individual mandate is unimportant (the reality is that Dean agrees with me — people will simply game the mandate) in the larger scheme of things, removing it and leaving other requirements intact would bring the entire insurance industry to the point of collapse.

So even if the lack of a severability clause doesn’t turn out to matter, elimination of the individual mandate as unconstitutional will create an untenable situation for insurers and eliminate many of the aspects of the legislation President Obama has touted. The push for further reform, at that point, would be inevitable.

You know, if Bill Clinton was in office I would legitimately wonder if this all went exactly as that crafty bastard planned.

[Kim]

House just passed DADT repeal apparently. Now we get to wait for the Senate to not pass it.