FREE LEGAL ADVICE PART 10
Icey
I put your ATF on a winning team
**The response given is not intended to create, nor does it create an ongoing duty to respond to questions. The response does not form an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to be anything other than the educated opinion of the author. It should not be relied upon as legal advice. The response given is based upon the limited facts provided by the person asking the question. To the extent additional or different facts exist, the response might possibly change.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
48 comments
What's your opinion as a "lawyer?"
The language politicians, judges, lawyers, etc use is very flowery but the reality is that if Texas v United States is upheld, it means the difference between life and death, access to health care or not, for over 20 million Americans.....all because some politicians want health insurance company kickbacks.... That's basically it.
The argument against the ACA is basically that it violates states' rights.... that Congress has overstepped its bounds. Hence why each individual state would have to sue...Ironically, its the same legal strategy that was applied against the Civil Rights Bill and integrated education....
So the lawsuit is basically about states having the right to opt out of the ACA based on them accusing congress of impeding insurance companies' right to conduct free commerce in those states.
There is nothing unconstitutional about the ACA as is. The real argument, which no one will state bluntly, is simply that some conservative politicians think that the ACA is affecting insurance company profits, so it should be done away with so that said corporations can do as they please to increase their profits.
I think if it was presented for what it is, people might think differently about these kinds of lawsuits.
That premise is now being used to argue that the entire ACA is unconstitutional.
The law isn't unconstitutional.
The argument against it is flawed, the commerce clause allows the gov to regulate actions of those who participate in a market but not the inactions of those who choose not to participate....
Nidan....then you must be aware of liability clauses and disclaimers...
https://pics.me.me/teacher-asked-me-what…
__________
Yes, that was the ruling of the Supreme Court. The mandate was ruled a tax and therefore constitutional.
The gist of the present lawsuit is that the mandate was zeroed-out, it's no longer a tax, and therefore the entire ACA is unconstitutional. Huh? This is plainly horseshit and why I mentioned above that it's hard to have any respect for the state AGs and judges who have gone along with this lawsuit. It will probably be struck down in the Supreme Court a second time.
Individual mandate was there to keep healthy people in the insurance pool and make premiums more affordable for everyone else.
I don't understand why the lawsuit is a "political show trial in favor of corporations. " The GOP doesn't want to tax capital gains of the rich to provide subsides for the poor. It's that simple. The GOP wants to go back to old system where insurance companies can deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. Sick people and poor people can simply drop-dead as they did before the ACA. There's no way to protect pre-existing conditions without something like the ACA (patterned after the Swedish medical system) or having single-payer healthcare.
The ACA doesn't go far enough, but its a start. We need a cultural shift where we start viewing health care, housing, fair wages, as basic human rights...not privileges.
I don't think these types of lawsuits will get far though. Realistically, what are they going to tell the people losing coverage and unable to get coverage? Your pre-existing conditions will put a dent in our profit margins, so drop dead....
The best scenario is these cases will be bogged down til a new administration can shift the tide.
____________________
I think we've been through this before, @SkiBirther. Site one example where the GOP introduced a stand-alone bill and post it here. It's mathematically impossible to cover pre-existing conditions without having an individual mandate.
Judges are supposed to be impartial referees, not partisan hacks. This lawsuit is horseshit and will probably fail when it makes to the Supreme Court.
If you would open your fucking ears, you would learn that it's impossible to cover pre-existing conditions without getting everyone -- sick healthy, rich and poor -- into the insurance pool.
...and you've admitted many times to buying into the birther conspiracy theory, along with the other high-school dropouts. So why take offense?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/upsho…
Of course, there's a reason @SkiBirther didn't post the link himself. The purpose of the article was to show that GOP plans do *not* protect those with preexisting conditions if you care to study the details. Example from the article:
"Had this bill become law, the precise results would have depended on the choices by individual states. But the Congressional Budget Office estimated that nearly half of all Americans lived in a state that would have pursued such a waiver from standard benefits. The consequences, the C.B.O. said, would have been coverage that was unaffordable to many with pre-existing illnesses, along with holes in coverage for many serious conditions. "
For the tenth time, protecting pre-existing conditions requires getting healthy people in the insurance pool and the only way to do that is with a system that resembles Obamacare or single-payer. THere is no competing GOP plan.
The problem with his line of thinking is that he forgets or simply doesn't know that Roe v Wade isn't about the right to an abortion, its about the constitutional right to have access to a safe abortion....nor is it about "privacy" as such but about the inferred and accepted interpretation of the 14th amendment as being about personal liberty....
Laws that outlaw or aim to limit abortions are unconstitutional because they deny women access to said abortions.
I would hardly take Skibum seriously, unless he's talking about loser leaf or swingers clubs...
They can sue for defamation if a false unprivileged statement of fact was published somewhere.....and they can prove that it caused injury ie directly impacted their reputation, livelihood, etc.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff though and proving that said injury was caused by the purported defamation is harder than one thinks.
Some of these cases are ridiculous. A friend is familiar with a case about a Yelp review that has been going on for five years now... The amount of money both the plaintiff and defendant spent is just a huge waste...
As to who can prove their prima facie burden of production in a civil case, that comes down to credibility and a good lawyer can increase that in a client .... "proof" in a legal sense is very subjective.
And what you're insinuating is that there is proof a crime wasn't committed... That's pretty clear cut. But proving illicit acts were not committed is harder to prove.
And sure, BlondeCumDump is an escort who doesn't perform sexual acts in exchange for money.... Happy? Now either stay on topic or refrain from ruining my thread and trolling it.
https://imgix.bustle.com/uploads/image/2…
https://images.app.goo.gl/LErDyCbdFQVwXy…