Write Review
1,898,848 Total Reviews 3,976 New Reviews
7,939 Users Online

Politics and Religion

If you dont pay for ''free'' health-care, YOU GO TO JAIL, ...Only ,IN AMERICA FOLKangry_smile
tjrevisted 5921 reads
posted

Help me out here, IT'S NOT FREE IS IT??

---->And nothing EVER is!!!! NOT ONLY WILL IT SUCK, IT'S NOT FREE!!!!!

Related Link: This takes ''health-care freedom'' TO A WOLE NEW LEVEL!!!!!!!!

marikod914 reads

in about five minutes after it is passed, assuming we ever get a confliciting federal law passed.

ReplyQuoteReport
dncphil1240 reads

I was trying to think why it might be declared unonstitutional, and can't think of a reason.

What theory do you have in mind?

I think if the feds phrase it as a form of tax it may survive, since those are hardly ever declared unconstitutional.

Also, your expectation that it would last for five minutes is contrary to everything I know about law.  A case may be filed, but a court may very well say it is not ripe yet. They may want to see how it is applied. It may be tested in one circuit and the Supreme Court may not want to take the issue until others weigh in.  Even if it is in the D.C. Circuit, there is no guarantee what the court will do.

I have handled simple habeas cases in federal court that take 5 years.  This will be a doozy.

Finally, I never predict how a case will come out.  I have had 2 cases that were so strong the Attorney General told me he had already called the D.A. to let them know they should be ready to re-try the case.  I lost.  I have also had equally weak cases that I won.

The conservative on the current Supreme Court are very liberal in some areas.  Crawford and Apprendi are the biggest gifts to the defense bar since Miranda.  They were from the conservative side of the bench.

My point is, you just don't know. This is a totally new concept, and I would not be too free with my money when betting on it.

ReplyQuoteReport
marikod1196 reads

passed contains an opt out provision and, if so, the scope of that provision.

Maybe I missed this but I did not think there was any opt out in the House bill.    As I understand it, Senator Reid's plan will allow states to opt out of the  government-run public insurance plan but only the public option.
 
   The Virginia  law purports to preclude the State of Virginia from complying with the federal health care plan (if it ever gets passed) if said plan would interfere with the freedom of choice of Virginia citizens:


"Neither the Governor nor the Department of Health, the Department of Public Welfare or any other Commonwealth agency shall participate in the compliance with any Federal law, regulation or policy that would compromise the freedom of choice in health care of any resident of this Commonwealth."

         If the House bill passes, the Supremacy Clause will render the state law unconstitutional on its face; if the Senate opt out becomes law, the Virginia law still falls to the extent it exceeds any opt out provision in the federal law.

     I would expect DOJ to file a declaratory jdugment action  immediately to have the law nullified and to obtain a preliminary injunction to stop its enforcement.

     This is not a factually intensive habeas corpus case - it is a pure question of constitutional law-no discovery just a prelim injunction motion filed with the complaint. The prelim injunction stops the law immediately and summary judgment for the US should be entered as soon as the district judge gets time to decide the case.



ReplyQuoteReport
dncphil1391 reads

True it depends on if it is passed. But by saying it would be declared unconstitutional you have to assume it would pass to be challenged to be struck down.

You still haven't articulate a constitutional theory why it is illegal.  

If Reid's plan allows an "opt out," and that is what is passed, there is no issue. A state "opts out" as allowed by law. Why does that preclude enforecment where they don't "opt out?"

The hab cases that take five years are not factually intensive. Not one has ever required an evidentiary hearing. They are all on the initial pleadings and still take four or five years.

And you are still just assuming the ultimate law and the fast track procedure.

ReplyQuoteReport
marikod1073 reads

There is no opt out provision in the House bill and the Supremacy makes the state law opt out unconstitutional. That's your theory. If a fed law is passed that does contain an opt out clause, the Virginia law would fall only to the extent it exceeded the permissible opt out. Same theory.

I never said there would be any problem if the state opts out as allowed by law. Your other question makes no sense as I am saying only that the Virginia law would be unenforceable.

       As to your habeas corpus cases decided on the pleadings, you must be pleading yourself out of court. If you challenge any state court factual finding in the petition, you have to present clear and convincing evidence to trump the finding which is going require some discovery and a hearing in most cases.

     There is almost always some error that you can raise in a H.C. proceeding- the quality of state court prosecutions is pathetic. The ones that get dismissed on the pleading are usually pro se petitions filed by the clueless prisoner.



ReplyQuoteReport
dncphil1234 reads

Where is the conflict.  If they pass the "pay or jail," I don't know of any state law that is in conflict to begin with.  

If there is an opt out in the final version, and a state opts out, there is no conflict for the Supremacy Clause.  You say it would be invalid only to the extent it exceeds the permissible opt out, but I don't see it exceeding at all.  What part of the VA law does?

The hab cases are't pleading themselves "out of court."  Petiton, reply, traverse is four years in the fed, assuming that the various attorneys only get two or three one-month extensions.  I haven't had an evidentiary hearing yet.  I know a dozen attorneys who do the same thing, and I think I have heard of two that have had an evidentiary hearing in the past five years.  

These are good attorneys who get appointed by courts in complex cases, including capital appointments by the Supreme Court.

To say there is almost always some error in a habeas is insane if you are saying that it is reversible error.  Leaving out pro pers, the reversal rate for cases handled by an attorney is miniscule.  With all the attorneys I know who do fed habeas in California, I rarely hear of a case being reversed.  It is so rare, people call to casually mention, "Oh, I got a reversal."

I am begining to expect you are a law school professor. The theory that there are a lot of hab reversals is so in conflict with reality that I can only think of Orwell. "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual can believe them."

Subscribe to Find Law. You will get daily 9th Circuit lists.  Reversals are just plain rare.

Find the last 5 executions in CA, and see how long they were in federal court.  Check the docket and calculate the time between the last motion or reply being filed and the next court hearing.

ReplyQuoteReport
marikod1296 reads

and pointed out simply that if your petitions were being denied on the pleadings, you needed to examine whether all errors that would give grounds for habeas relief are being raised.

     As to habeas corpus "reversals" being "just plain rare," I do believe you have forgotten how the Bush administration has changed that statistic quite dramatically - of the 33 Gitmo HC petitions tried so far, an astounding 28 have been granted.

    So I must respectfully disagree with your "conflict with reality" characterization.

     And you don't need to be a law school professor to figure this out. Any Unemployed Porn Star like myself can keep track of this injustice simply by reading the newspaper.


Related Link: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/31/detention/index.html

ReplyQuoteReport
dncphil969 reads

This whole thing started with you saying it would be overturned in five minutes (or so), and I was responding that reversals are rare.  We got into error, hab procedure, etc, which was a side line.

Now you are saying that you were just talking about "reversible error."  

Okay. That's cool. But if I had known you were talking about the odds of reversal, the thread would be different.

By suddenly clarifying with "I just meant reversible" you totally switched standards.

With that said, your 26 grants of hab are pretty insignificant statistically out of the thousands of habs filed in the past two or three years.  I think you raised it from 4% granted to 4.0005% nation wide.

But getting off of hab, your original response really wsa based on a "on its face" unconstitutional approach.  How many of those have prevailed in the last 4 years?  If there were three statutes struck down on that basis in that time, out of the thousands of statutes passed, I would be amazed.  Can you find 5?

If you can find 5 reversed on "on its face" you have established an error rate on statutory drafting of about .00001%.

Wow. That's a good basis to predict instant reversal in five minutes.

Finally, can you come up with 10 hab reversals in the ninth Cir. in the last three months.  That Circuit oversees over 40,000,000 people and they don't have 10 reversals.

ReplyQuoteReport
marikod836 reads

No one disputes that the number of HC petitions granted is staggeringly small. Why is that? Well, a big part of it is bc most of these petitions are filed pro se by guys sitting in jail who have nothing else to do and lack the legal skills to identify "errors," much less "reversible ones."

      I am assuming that you left out "not" from this sentence:

"Now you are saying that you were just talking about "reversible error."  

        As is clear from both posts, I was talking about "error", NOT  "reversible error" and I use words very carefully.

      Now focus on the real important issue highlighted by our discussion. If, as we agree, that HC reversals are exceedingly rare, what is the world do we make of the detentions and torture  by the Bush administration of the baddest of the bad, the worst of the worst in Gitmo, when a staggering 28 of 33 HC petitions have been granted.

     Can you honestly say in good conscience that you are okay with that? I'm not going to argue with RWU on this one- he is happy to nuke 140,000 mostly women and children just to change a few words in the surrender agreement.

    But I know you have some degree of social conscience that is not completely obscured by your pro Bush admin leaning and you must recognize that A HORRIBLE INJUSTICE HAS TAKEN PLACE.








ReplyQuoteReport
marikod771 reads

me of I am wrong, but I don't think those 40,000,000 million are in prison in the western states, since there are only 2 million in prison nationwide.


    So I hardly think the 40,000,000 figure has much relevance to the number of habeas corpus filers, since you have to be in prison to have any reason to do that.








ReplyQuoteReport
tjrevisted833 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
Snowman392263 reads

Remember, this is the court that said is was legal for a town or state government to take your property because they could get more taxes if something else was developed on the property.

This court can't be trusted!!

ReplyQuoteReport
hotbeavermuncher2255 reads

TJ, where do you get your information?  The Blogosphere?  Ah yes, blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com.

If you're trying to kick the "oh shit" habit, then I would suggest looking at reputable sites, that state the facts.  

Actually, the way it [House Bill] is currently proposed:

The penalty under the House health care reform bill for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time, and willful failure to pay federal income taxes can result in civil or criminal penalties.  

If a person does not have acceptable health care coverage, Section 501 imposes a tax on that person "not to exceed the applicable national average premium":

   (a) TAX IMPOSED.-In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of-

   (1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

   (2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

   (b) LIMITATIONS.-

   (1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.-

   (A) IN GENERAL.-The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.

Bill does not impose tax on those below the threshold for filing a federal income tax return. The Joint Committee on Taxation states: "The additional tax does not apply ... if the person's income is below the threshold for filing a Federal income tax return." Indeed, Section 501 of the bill imposes taxes on "the excess of ... the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year over ... the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1)" of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 6012(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that "a return is not required of an individual [who] ... has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual."

"Hardship cases" are exempted from the tax. From Section 501(f):

   (f) REGULATIONS.-The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations or other guidance (developed in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) which provide-

   [...]

   (2) a waiver of the application of subsection (a) in cases of hardship, including a process for applying for such a waiver.

Now, would you provide your basis for Jail time?

ReplyQuoteReport
tjrevisted826 reads

Where do I get my info from, huh??? LOL-

I showed you what was hapenin on a state level, AND YOU Go ALL FEDERAl ON MY ASS, real liberal..:(

ReplyQuoteReport
hotbeavermuncher1605 reads

I referenced the Federal Bill, not some RWinger Blog, as the bill is currently in action.  

You referenced a blog with a possible referendum  from the boys down in VA, (more power to them, this is America), whom have found a sponsor for a possible 2010 state option.  Still I see no REFERENCE to:

"If you dont pay for ''free'' health-care, YOU GO TO JAIL, ...Only ,IN AMERICA FOLK".  Hyperbole at the least, or more likely "BS SCARE TACTICS".  

Again I ask would you provide the basis for Jail time, other than the photo?    

Independent whom leans left...

Related Link: Where is the "YOU GO TO JAIL" statement, Cornholio? link

ReplyQuoteReport
marikod1274 reads

officials in jail if the governor tried to enforce the state law bill she referenced in the link.

      But that will not happen either - the state law will simply be struck as unconstitutional.

       I see no chance that they would jail you for failing to pay "tax" in the House bill.  There is no provision in the bill so providing and talk about a public relations disaster.

ReplyQuoteReport
giddyup19791027 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
RightwingUnderground1486 reads

States force me to buy insurance. But it’s to protect you against damages from the two ton missile they granted me the privilege to pilot down the public highway.

ReplyQuoteReport
RightwingUnderground952 reads

Related Link: http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/JCTletter110509.pdf

ReplyQuoteReport
tjrevisted1117 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
hotbeavermuncher8141 reads

Still quite inconsistent with the original message, and your existing rants.  

Utilize reason, not conjecture, and have a healthy debate.  

No need to RANT ALL THE TIME!

ReplyQuoteReport
tjrevisted1100 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
tjrevisted1386 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
hotbeavermuncher1572 reads

Such the Kool-Aid drinking fella, you are.  

Just to be sure I read through all of your links, again.  There is no support of your initial premise, relative to going to jail/prison.  Nor your continual RaNtS.  

Might want to put on the Aluminum Foil helmet, to keep reality out.  

Related Link: Cornholio's Link to the VA Bill

ReplyQuoteReport
Powr 2 da people no delay831 reads

Your posts are right on the money, but TJ is a provider.

ReplyQuoteReport
tjrevisted1444 reads

The fact that virginia heath-care freedom act passes...and was written, IS CAUSE JAILTIME IS BEING THREATENED!!!

The fact that virginia wrote a ''saftey act'' to protect its citizens..PROVES THIS

ReplyQuoteReport
hotbeavermuncher1154 reads

Interesting perspective, still doesn't support TJ's rant, which was about the State Law according to him, not the Federal Bill.  

The reason someone may be incarcerated would be for willful non-payment of taxes.  Nothing in the Health-Reform Bill.  



-- Modified on 11/18/2009 8:02:22 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
willywonka4u1550 reads

such as a mandate that everyone must have health care.

Really, what we ought to have is a optional Medicare for everybody plan. If you want Medicare full coverage, regardless of your age, then you can get it, and pay 150 bucks a month instead of 2000 a month to the HMOs.

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!