Federal judge rules ObamaCare is unconstitutional in its entirety

posted at 4:23 pm on January 31, 2011 by Allahpundit

A nice win, if only because it’s fun to watch the left sweat, but as we’ve discussed before, these lower-court decisions are virtually meaningless. There’s no question that the Supreme Court will eventually take this matter up, and given how profound the constitutional objection to the mandate is, there’s no chance that they’ll let “deference” to lower-court rulings shape their opinion on the matter. What we’re doing with these district court rulings — which now stand evenly split on ObamaCare, two finding it constitutional and two not — is going through the procedural motions until the Supremes get down to business. The only bit of significance these decisions might have is that they may move the Overton window of possible outcomes in Anthony Kennedy’s mind. After O-Care was passed, I remember some constitutional law experts citing the Court’s liberal Commerce Clause jurisprudence and claiming that they’d probably uphold it on something like an 8-1 vote. That seems impossible now; I’d bet 6-3 at worst, with a very fair chance of a 5-4 win for conservatives. The more anti-ObamaCare lower court rulings there are, the more political cover Kennedy has to vote with the conservative wing of the Court if he’s so inclined. If.

Here’s a PDF of the opinion. The judge, Roger Vinson, is a Reagan appointee who didn’t hide his skepticism about the law during oral arguments, so the baseline ruling isn’t surprising. A fun hypothetical about the government’s power to force citizens to buy things they don’t want to:

Or what if two of the purported “unique” factors [of the health-care market] — inevitable participation coupled with cost-shifting — are present? For example, virtually no one can opt out of the housing market (broadly defined) and a majority of people will at some point buy a home. The vast majority of those homes will be financed with a mortgage, a large number of which (particularly in difficult economic times, as we have seen most recently) will go into default, thereby cost-shifting billions of dollars to third parties and the federal government. Should Congress thus have power under the Commerce Clause to preemptively regulate and require individuals above a certain income level to purchase a home financed with a mortgage (and secured with mortgage guaranty insurance) in order to add stability to the housing and financial markets (and to guard against the possibility of future cost-shifting because of a defaulted mortgage), on the theory that most everyone is currently, or inevitably one day will be, active in the housing market?

The left will scoff at the supposed absurdity of his example, but there’s nothing absurd about it. This sort of sweeping power to compel purchases to achieve a public good is precisely what’s at stake in the mandate.

What is a bit surprising is that Vinson went further and held that the mandate isn’t “severable” from the rest of the law — which means that the whole law is unconstitutional, not just the part that requires people to buy insurance. That’s unusual insofar as courts like to be modest when striking down statutes; if they can find a section of it unconstitutional while preserving the rest of it, they’ll do so out of respect for the democratic branches that enacted it. In this case, however, as we’ve been told by Democrats many times, you can’t have universal health care unless you force people to pay for it. Cutting the mandate out of O-Care and keeping the rest of the scheme intact would create a nightmare scenario in which people avoid buying insurance until they get sick, with insurers required to accept them by the new rules governing preexisting conditions. Before long, that cost burden would drive most insurers into bankruptcy, with the golden age of a public option or single-payer soon to follow.

Which is to say, if you’re going to kill this beast, you’d better kill all of it. Vinson on severability:

In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch, and that seems to fit. It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed. There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate and other health insurance provisions — which, as noted, were the chief engines that drove the entire legislative effort — for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone. Such a quasi-legislative undertaking would be particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that any statute that might conceivably be left over after this analysis is complete would plainly not serve Congress’ main purpose and primary objective in passing the Act. The statute is, after all, called “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” not “The Abstinence Education and Bone Marrow Density Testing Act.” The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker.

If Congress intends to implement health care reform — and there would appear to be widespread agreement across the political spectrum that reform is needed — it should do a comprehensive examination of the Act and make a legislative determination as to which of its hundreds of provisions and sections will work as intended without the individual mandate, and which will not. It is Congress that should consider and decide these quintessentially legislative questions, and not the courts…

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

A fun fact about ObamaCare: Unlike virtually every other federal statute, it contains no “severabililty clause” at the end requesting that if any part of it should be held unconstitutional in court, the rest should be preserved as good law. Vinson actually mentions that fact in the opinion and notes that an earlier draft of the law did contain such a clause, suggesting that it was deliberately dropped because even Congress agrees that you can’t sever any one part from such an elaborate scheme. The truth, however, may be more prosaic: According to a Democratic aide who spoke to the Times back in November, the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Yay!! Good news indeed.

I needed a good shot in the arm today.

Conservative Samizdat on January 31, 2011 at 6:03 PM

The 955-page law bars insurers from denying coverage to people who are sick and from imposing lifetime limits on costs. It also includes pilot projects to test ideas like incentives for better results and bundled payments to medical teams for patient care.

Your example of media bias for today. This is the 4th paragraph from the article linked at the top of this post. A nice little commercial WaPo slipped into the story on behalf of the liberal supporters. What? No mention of the crippling debt and destruction of our medical system if the Act is let stand?

Mallard T. Drake on January 31, 2011 at 6:04 PM

I know I’m a lefty troll for not supporting Palin due to her amnesty position (she’s for legal status for current illegals and gets a D- from NumbersUSA) but……

I applaud the Judge’s decision!!!

RWY’s three laws of American survival:

1 No amnesty or legal status for illegals, enforce all immigration laws…
2 Renounce any form of cap and trade, no energy taxes, end ethanol subsidies.
3 Repeal Obamacare in full.

rightwingyahooo on January 31, 2011 at 6:05 PM

This thread is not complete until Baxter Greene shows up and weighs in… Where you at Baxter????

Keemo on January 31, 2011 at 5:49 PM

It’s mac-n-cheese night with velveeta brand processed cheese food product. Mr. Greene shall not be disturbed until he eats all of his whirled pease.

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 6:06 PM

How long before the MSM lables the judge a “right wing nut job, tea partier, gun totting, religon clinging, neocon”?

milwife88 on January 31, 2011 at 4:30 PM

In 5,4,3,3,1…

eyedoc on January 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM

It’s mac-n-cheese night with velveeta brand processed cheese food product. Mr. Greene shall not be disturbed until he eats all of his whirled pease.

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 6:06 PM

LOL; that’s going to leave a mark…

Keemo on January 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Thank-you Sarah Palin….without “Death panels” this never would have happened today. :)

Palin/West 2012

tencole on January 31, 2011 at 6:08 PM

I know I’m a lefty troll for not supporting Palin due to her amnesty position (she’s for legal status for current illegals and gets a D- from NumbersUSA) but……

rightwingyahooo on January 31, 2011 at 6:05 PM

But you’re still a douchebag. Thanks for playing and enjoy your consolation prizes.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Mallard T. Drake on January 31, 2011 at 6:04 PM

along with all the waivers that have been approved…

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 6:09 PM

From reading the judges ruling, he used obama’s own words against him, by citing that candidate obama opposed the individual mandate and obama now supports it in the WH

ConservativePartyNow on January 31, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Oops, you know what I meant.

eyedoc on January 31, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Plus, crr6 assumes only people with health insurance can pay for health care. I said in the other thread that people routinely receive medical care without insurance and set up payment plans. I did it twice.

darwin on January 31, 2011 at 5:56 PM

My wife and I pay for our medical visits out of pocket. Insurance is too expensive. It’s not a matter of not wanting to pay for it, it’s just through the roof at our age.

What I’d really like to see happen is Republicans pass an interstate commerce for insurance where we (the American people) can shop for affordable coverage.

I need soundwave treatment for plantar fasciitis in both feet. The procedure is very expensive, so I live in daily pain until we have enough saved.

I could very easily go down and “milk” the system or stiff a medical facility for the procedure, but it’s not right. There’s no honor in that.

Some of us truly, I mean literally *truly* live what we preach. O’care was wrong and this judge made the right decision.

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Oops, you know what I meant.

eyedoc on January 31, 2011 at 6:10 PM

lol … yeah, I was gonna ask if you needed your eyes checked.

darwin on January 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM

From reading the judges ruling, he used obama’s own words against him, by citing that candidate obama opposed the individual mandate and obama now supports it in the WH

ConservativePartyNow on January 31, 2011 at 6:09 PM

I think Shakespeare coined a term for this: Hoist by his own petard.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM

ConservativePartyNow on January 31, 2011 at 6:09 PM

most excellent

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Why no injunction?

diogenes on January 31, 2011 at 6:12 PM

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Bravo… Very well stated.

Keemo on January 31, 2011 at 6:12 PM

The 955-page law bars insurers from denying coverage to people who are sick and from imposing lifetime limits on costs. It also includes pilot projects to test ideas like incentives for better results and bundled payments to medical teams for patient care.
Your example of media bias for today. This is the 4th paragraph from the article linked at the top of this post. A nice little commercial WaPo slipped into the story on behalf of the liberal supporters. What? No mention of the crippling debt and destruction of our medical system if the Act is let stand?

Mallard T. Drake on January 31, 2011 at 6:04 PM

I can speak with authority as a Director at an insurance company (not a Health insurer). Insurance is a collective pooling of premium dollars spread across many who choose to insure themselves against catastrophic loss. This can be in the form of a dwelling policy on your home, a policy to indemnify you against unforseen loss to your vehicle, a general liability policy to insure you for unforseen losses that may arise from your business operations, errors and omissions coverage from your professional services.

Insurance is what it is: Insurance against unforseen perils.

ObamaCare’s greatest flaws are the mandate because it was unconstitutional, and knowing that the mandate was unconstitutional would enable anyone without insurance to purchase it upon the onset of illness.

Insurance is protection and the purpose of insurance is to indemnify you in the event of a loss.

ObamaCare was a failure from the start. Nothing more than a socialist dream of nationalizing and capitalizing on the best care on Earth, population control, and the destruction of 1/6th of our economy.

I am glad he failed.

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Why no injunction?

diogenes on January 31, 2011 at 6:12 PM

I’m sure the parties to the case will request one forthwith on the basis of appeal.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Thank-you Sarah Palin….without “Death panels” this never would have happened today. :)

Palin/West 2012

tencole on January 31, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Palin/West is a solid ticket for sure…

Keemo on January 31, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Why no injunction?

diogenes on January 31, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Good question. That’ll be next. Maybe he didn’t have authority to enforce an injunction against the implementation of an unconstitutional piece of legislation? Share your thoughts please.

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 6:14 PM

I’m sure the parties to the case will request one forthwith on the basis of appeal.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 6:13 PM

gryphon you must have forgotten to respond to my question in the headlines thread. That’s OK, we can continue the discussion here if you’d prefer that.

Proud Rino on January 31, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 6:13 PM

well said

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 6:15 PM

I need soundwave treatment for plantar fasciitis in both feet. The procedure is very expensive, so I live in daily pain until we have enough saved.

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 6:10 PM

How long have you had it? My wife had it in one foot and had to do daily stretching exercise along with heat treatments. Took about six months to heal.

darwin on January 31, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Palin/West is a solid ticket for sure…

Keemo on January 31, 2011 at 6:13 PM

IMHO, Alan West and Herman Cain would be THE dream ticket for the GOP.

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Pr gotta life?

CWforFreedom on January 31, 2011 at 6:16 PM

IMHO, Alan West and Herman Cain would be THE dream ticket for the GOP.

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Damn solid ticket and would have my support…

Keemo on January 31, 2011 at 6:17 PM

But you’re still a douchebag. Thanks for playing and enjoy your consolation prizes.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 6:08 PM

You can’t handle the truth, sissy.

rightwingyahooo on January 31, 2011 at 6:19 PM

But you’re still a douchebag. Thanks for playing and enjoy your consolation prizes.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 6:08 PM
You can’t handle the truth, sissy.

rightwingyahooo on January 31, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Gryph, did you give them him a dummypop? Sounds like it. If that doesn’t work, try the blowpops. They love the little gumball prize in the middle.

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 6:22 PM

How long have you had it? My wife had it in one foot and had to do daily stretching exercise along with heat treatments. Took about six months to heal.

darwin on January 31, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Coming up on a year now. Spent two days at Sea World with the grandkids/family last spring. Most I had been on my feet in a long time. I knew something was wrong, very wrong, on the second day. Pain was beyond belief.

I’ve tried stretches, roller ball, Penetrex, a dozen or more shoe inserts and various other things. The only thing that gives “relief” is ultrasound coupled with biofreeze.

I work at home (software developer), so I can control (to a degree) how much time I actually spend on my feet.

I’ve not tried heat treatments. Everything I’ve read suggests ice packs and to avoid heat. I’d be interested in learning more.

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 6:22 PM

gryphon you must have forgotten to respond to my question in the headlines thread. That’s OK, we can continue the discussion here if you’d prefer that.

Proud Rino on January 31, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Please no. Your comments sucked in the headlines thread and they’ll suck here as well.

Gryphon already disqualified you for that asinine remark about ignoring amendments to the Constitution.

Vince on January 31, 2011 at 6:23 PM

The reason for no injunction is stated in the opinion: this was a “declaratory judgment.” The judge explicitly stated that it is presumed that the federal government follows the law, so by declaring the law unconstitutional, the feds are prohibited from following it. Thus, no need for an injunction.

Not sure if I agree, but it’s at least a reasonable argument.

Vanceone on January 31, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Anyway this is a good decision, and more work remains in all sectors.

For once, though, an honest judge. It’s a nice feeling.

rightwingyahooo on January 31, 2011 at 6:27 PM

I’ve not tried heat treatments. Everything I’ve read suggests ice packs and to avoid heat. I’d be interested in learning more.

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 6:22 PM

My wife did everything you did except the ultrasound. She found heat would relax the tissue in her foot making the strecthing and rolling much easier. She still had pain to some extent, but working with the heat, stretching and rolling eventually did the trick.

Hope yours gets better soon.

There are a variety of foot massagers out there, usually work on vibration. I’m wondering if that might help you as well.

darwin on January 31, 2011 at 6:28 PM

these lower-court decisions are virtually meaningless – at 4:23 pm on January 31, 2011 by Allahpundit

Wrong again, as usual. The Federal government has one option and one option only. Appeal the decision by the federal court. Any other action should be considered contempt.

long_cat on January 31, 2011 at 6:30 PM

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Prayers ascending for you and darwin’s wife. Nothing worse than foot pain…

OmahaConservative on January 31, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Why no injunction?

diogenes on January 31, 2011 at 6:12 PM
I’m sure the parties to the case will request one forthwith on the basis of appeal.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 6:13 PM

-
Thanks. Mark Levin also just addressed this.
-
No injunction is necessary. The judge has ruled on this matter. Further implemtation of the law will constitute contempt of court.

diogenes on January 31, 2011 at 6:33 PM

OT: I hope HA posts that video of Carol Mosely-Braun and co-demoncrat opponent Patricia Van Pelt-Watson throwin’ down at a Chi-town Mayoral Debate.

Oh No Dey Di’nt!

Gob on January 31, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Why no injunction?

diogenes on January 31, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Good question. That’ll be next. Maybe he didn’t have authority to enforce an injunction against the implementation of an unconstitutional piece of legislation? Share your thoughts please.

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 6:14 PM

I believe that by ruling ObamaCare is unconstitutional in its entirety, he removed the law from the books. therefore there is no need for an injunction.

Slowburn on January 31, 2011 at 6:34 PM

contempt of court.

diogenes on January 31, 2011 at 6:33 PM

I’ve had ‘contempt of court’ for a while now.

darwin-t on January 31, 2011 at 6:36 PM

I’ve not tried heat treatments. Everything I’ve read suggests ice packs and to avoid heat. I’d be interested in learning more.

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Sending good wishes for you both to feel better. Nothing is worse than pain in the feet.

Best to you both

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 6:37 PM

This is a big effing deal!

kozmocostello on January 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Hey Nancy! Maybe you can now ask for “bi-partisan” help in salvaging your “premier” accomplishment. You know, ask the folks who you deliberately excluded last time.

GarandFan on January 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM

I believe that by ruling ObamaCare is unconstitutional in its entirety, he removed the law from the books. therefore there is no need for an injunction.

Slowburn on January 31, 2011 at 6:34 PM

I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is if a law is overturned and declared unconstitutional the next step is filing an injunction prohibiting its enforcement.

And that would be better than any decadent dessert I can think of… Even double chocolate Michelle Obama Volcano Chocolate Brownie Suprise cake during one of her gazillion dollar va-cay-cay’s.

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM

This is apparently all just Kibuki Theater until Anthony Kennedy decides up or down on socialism for the entirety of America’s future.

How fu*king absurd is that?

Jaibones on January 31, 2011 at 6:42 PM

How fu*king absurd is that?

Jaibones on January 31, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Pretty fu*king absurd, my friend.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 6:43 PM

If someone would have told me back in 2008 that Obama lost a bunch of countries in the ME and a huge law with no legs, I would have said hell no.

HellYEAH! Now dear “bloodhound” (aka Krauthammer), play nice and attack!

ProudPalinFan on January 31, 2011 at 6:45 PM

And that would be better than any decadent dessert I can think of… Even double chocolate Michelle Obama Volcano Chocolate Brownie Suprise cake during one of her gazillion dollar va-cay-cay’s.

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Speaking of too-much-junk-in-the-trunk, bet she is more livid than dear leader over this ruling.

OmahaConservative on January 31, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Any good contract lawyer will insert a severability clause in every contract. With all these lawyers in Congress, apparently nobody thought to insert that language in this bill. Without it, it’s either all or nothing, and Vinson says it’s nothing.

keioki on January 31, 2011 at 6:46 PM

RWY’s three laws of American survival:

1 No amnesty or legal status for illegals, enforce all immigration laws…
2 Renounce any form of cap and trade, no energy taxes, end ethanol subsidies.
3 Repeal Obamacare in full.

rightwingyahooo on January 31, 2011 at 6:05 PM

4 I want my regular lightbulbs back!

ProudPalinFan on January 31, 2011 at 6:48 PM

keioki on January 31, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Apparently we have no good contract lawyers in congress.

OmahaConservative on January 31, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Any good contract lawyer will insert a severability clause in every contract. With all these lawyers in Congress, apparently nobody thought to insert that language in this bill. Without it, it’s either all or nothing, and Vinson says it’s nothing.

keioki on January 31, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Vinson had a lot more to say about this bill than just the mandate’s unseverability, but I’m genuinely curious. What will happen if the Supreme Court (wrongly) rules the bill constitutional? Ny crabby inner constitutionalist tells me the states don’t need a judge’s or justice’s permission to ignore a bill that we can’t cite constitutional authority for.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Did I miss where crr6 weighed in on this decision to explain why this judge is wrong and how it will be overturned?

belad on January 31, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Did I miss where crr6 weighed in on this decision to explain why this judge is wrong and how it will be overturned?

belad on January 31, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Different thread. Don’t waste your time. I can sum it up for you by saying that crr6 and Obama apparently differ as to whether this is done under taxation authority or not.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 6:51 PM

I’ve not tried heat treatments. Everything I’ve read suggests ice packs and to avoid heat. I’d be interested in learning more.

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Sending good wishes for you both to feel better. Nothing is worse than pain in the feet.

Best to you both

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 6:37 PM

I second that motion…

Keemo on January 31, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Apparently we have no good contract lawyers in congress.

OmahaConservative on January 31, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Would you take the best liars, cheats and thieves in the country, as a consolation?

belad on January 31, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Been watching FOX News…they said b/c they wanted to push this animal through our throats and to keep everybody in the boat, that clause was not in on purpose?

Any legal eagles/people know of this?

ProudPalinFan on January 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Which is to say, if you’re going to kill this beast, you’d better kill all of it. Vinson on severability:

irreducible complexity. Take out one piece, and the whole shooting match falls apart.

Stab it with them steely knives.

ted c on January 31, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Why no injunction?

diogenes on January 31, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Because the individual mandate hasn’t kicked in yet.

ButterflyDragon on January 31, 2011 at 6:56 PM

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Cold first, then heat…I think this is on a 72-hour period. Sucks that I have written all over the place that I have been ill (ear infection + cold + tiredness + weakness) from bed to couch (lather, rinse, repeat) and no wishy well to me?

*heartbroken*

ProudPalinFan on January 31, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Would you take the best liars, cheats and thieves in the country, as a consolation?

belad on January 31, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Already got that.
Except for the best part.

OmahaConservative on January 31, 2011 at 6:59 PM

ProudPalinFan on January 31, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Prayers acending

OmahaConservative on January 31, 2011 at 7:00 PM

I need soundwave treatment for plantar fasciitis in both feet. The procedure is very expensive, so I live in daily pain until we have enough saved.

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 6:10 PM

How long have you had it? My wife had it in one foot and had to do daily stretching exercise along with heat treatments. Took about six months to heal.

darwin on January 31, 2011 at 6:15 PM

http://thesock.com/

I’ve issued many of these types of socks to patients. The evidence demonstrates that some sufferers of plantar fasciitis can get relief with using this type of a sock at night, or a full foot/ankle night splint. The theory is that plantar fasciitis is a vicious cycle of microtearing, healing/scarring then microtearing again the next day. Each morning when you put weight on your feet, the scar tissue that built up overnight in the previously irritated PF then retears starting the cycle all over again. Also calf muscle stretching is beneficial and using shoes with excellent arch support. Finally, have a pair of good shoes/slippers with arch supports next to the bed to slip into before you walk so you always have good arch support. good luck. ted

ted c on January 31, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Prayers ascending

OmahaConservative on January 31, 2011 at 7:00 PM

OmahaConservative on January 31, 2011 at 7:01 PM

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 6:10 PM

My sympathies. I had it in one foot for 6 months and those first steps to the dresser in the morning were agony. My wife got me some ugly but effective P.W. Minor orthopedic shoes, and one of those flexor boots, and in 3 months’ use of the shoes (less consistently the boot) it went away.

Culprit in my case was my ceramic kitchen floor.

I hope you get a resolution soon!

DrSteve on January 31, 2011 at 7:04 PM

I’ve not tried heat treatments. Everything I’ve read suggests ice packs and to avoid heat. I’d be interested in learning more.

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Okay, here it is…I am not a doctor, but have spent years playing tennis and have literally seen hundreds with this malady…including me and my wife.
This is how I “cure” the problem, ranging from chronic severe, to occasional (me).
If it is occasional, this is what works for me and literally dozens of people…use a simple gel heel insert, just the heel, nothing more. You want your heel about 1/4-1.2 inch higher then normal.
For chronic, the same, only every morning before getting out of bed (and this hurts) take a tennis ball and massage your arch by placing the ball on the floor and rolling it through your arch.
When that is done, get shower, get dressed then stand with both of your balls of feet on a stair, or a couple of pieces of wood covered with a towel, so you can “dip” the heel below the balls of your feet. Do this slowly, but do it several times a day, and do it until it begins to “stretch”.
Be sure and put the heel inserts (you don’t have to pay a fortune, the Dr. Scholls are fine).

Now, this is the reason this works: Your hamstring/achilles tendon has a relationship. When their is trauma, the hamstring/achillis swells and literal “shortens”, you foot literal wants to curl downward to relieve the stress.
What you are doing withe the exercises and stretching, without trauma, the tendons back into shape. The inserts take the stress off by lifting the heel and it won’t cause any further trauma throughout the day.
I have had people with chronic for years, and with this method, been cured.
I carry the heel inserts, and at the first sign of pain, I put them in.
My wife does the same and hasn’t had a problem for many years.
This system came from a track coach of a major university (I can’t remember which one), I read it and have passed it on to my fellow tennis players, and it has never not cured.
On guy had spent thousands on medical inserts, the the $5 Dr. Scholls (gel, make sure they are gel) for the heel did the trick.

right2bright on January 31, 2011 at 7:05 PM

ProudPalinFan on January 31, 2011 at 6:58 PM

I hope you’re on antibiotics, that you tolerate them well, and that you get well soon!

DrSteve on January 31, 2011 at 7:06 PM

That is 1/4 to 1/2 inch higher (not 1.2).

right2bright on January 31, 2011 at 7:06 PM

ProudPalinFan on January 31, 2011 at 6:58 PM

I wish you well. Be sure you see a doctor. A local guy,s story was in the paper here about how he got what was thought to be an ear infection and turned out to be fatal. Menengitis.

Vince on January 31, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Here’s an excellent video from 1978.

Milton Friedman – Socialized Medicine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPADFNKDhGM&feature=related

makaput on January 31, 2011 at 7:12 PM

ProudPalinFan on January 31, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Try some Yogi brand tea… not yogi bear.

Seriously, it did quite well for me when I was sick for about 8 days; I’m one of the peeps who just don’t do sick… evah.

Prayers to you to feel better.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{Snuggie from the internets}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Be well, friend.

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 7:13 PM

The left always scoffs. They whine when they are in power, they whine when they are not in power. They whine when they have to get jobs or are forced to take personal responsibility against their own lazy desires to be deadbeats.

Given that liberals have a genetic predisposition to being perpetual whiners, let them sit on the sidelines and do what they do best…whine. They are going to do it one way or another.

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 5:56 PM

The first one way mars colony.

Speakup on January 31, 2011 at 7:15 PM

ted c on January 31, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Podiatrist!

You need to “run” for public office and “stomp” out the imbeciles that are ruling us as we “run away” from their “run away” spending.

Luv ya, Teds.

/Not to be confused with Keds.

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Why no injuction?
Page 75 of the ruling.
-
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_vin.html
-

(“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers
are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .
since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared

diogenes on January 31, 2011 at 7:21 PM

When you think about the “power” of the Left in the USA… Isn’t it contained within the northeast and far west?

Seriously… If a bunch of leftie hippies stormed my neighborhood or house with torches and pre-made George Soros signs? First, I’d take pictures. Then video’s of all of my fellow neighbors laughing. Then, perhaps one of my innocent salt water fish… would be thrust upon their pimply faces.

Awe fer cryin’ out loud. The only leftist hippie demprogressive I ever was afraid of was some dude at a carnival show. And he was a dunking clown in a tank. Or, there is also the ones who wear green tights wishing for a higher credit rating on free credit report dot com.

They will not tread upon us and be successful. Personally? I’m LMAO.

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 7:22 PM

diogenes on January 31, 2011 at 7:21 PM

I don’t think a Dec Action is warranted since it wasn’t initiated by the BO admin/fed/whoever.

A Dec Action is filed when you want to be pre-emptive in a determination of constitutionality and/or coverage in a case. In other words, you see a problem and you immediately move to have judge rule before anything is enacted, ruled upon or passed.

This is just another error in judgment by both parties. If the GOP had a pair in 2009 (an erratic year) and if they had competent counsel, perhaps they could have filed a Dec Action but they didn’t. Maybe a smart move.

Now that the law was passed, a Dec Action isn’t needed. A ruling ensued, the ruling is that the legislation and the law is unconstitutional on its face (not withstanding the equal protection clause) and is therefore not lawful. You cannot enact a law that has been declared unlawful.

Now, let’s find out who wrote this POS and call them up for hearings within their states that actually have Bar Exams. Not the ones usually attended by elected officials, or Barack or Michelle Obama, since they forfeited their bar appointments in illinois way before baby suckah ran for presidunce.

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Yay!! Good news indeed.

I needed a good shot in the arm today.

Conservative Samizdat on January 31, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Well now you have to pay for it yourself!

Beto Ochoa on January 31, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 7:16 PM

thanks! not a pod I atrist tho’

fisical terrorist

ted c on January 31, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Thank you all for your well wishes and kind comments as well as the wonderful advice (especially right2bright). Definitely will give these a try. I stepped away for a few and came back and was overwhelmed. I really love this place. I don’t say a lot here, but I see the names every day and feel like I’m at home.

ProudPalinFan, hope you get better. All that, and this nasty winter storm is coming through this week too.

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Count it!

Good Solid B-Plus on January 31, 2011 at 7:34 PM

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 7:33 PM

You are our brother. We love and care about you.

OmahaConservative on January 31, 2011 at 7:35 PM

I am glad he failed.

Key West Reader on January 31, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Not yet he didn’t. There’s hope, but this is just a small victory. Still a long way to go.

RINO in Name Only on January 31, 2011 at 7:38 PM

The truth, however, may be more prosaic: According to a Democratic aide who spoke to the Times back in November, the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!

We should have read it to find out what was in it.

/Pelosi

Good Lt on January 31, 2011 at 7:44 PM

The mandate is worthless even if it stays. A submarine with screendoors is more watertight. crr6 inadvertently pointed this out in the other thread.

Even if someone had to pay the maximum mandate penalty ($2500 if you make 100k or more). It’s far far cheaper than insurance. Just wait till you get sick. The system works.

Chuck Schick on January 31, 2011 at 7:50 PM

on the health insurance front, i don’t work for this company but you should check it out. i had a son graduate from college this year and he bought a $2500 deductible health plan for $35/month. He’s young and hopefully won’t get sick, but if something catastrophic happens he’s covered, plus he does get negotiated rates on services. ehealthinsurance dot com

A lot better than the $250/month he would have to pay under Obamacare!

I don’t know how it works and when he gives the docs in PA his card, (from IL) it takes a while to figure out, but it works.

phillypolitics on January 31, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Raich was sui generis , and I think you know it.

JohnGalt23 on January 31, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Terrific argument.

Had the case been oranges instead of cannabis, I think you know that Kennedy would have limited the scope of the Commerce Clause.

JohnGalt23 on January 31, 2011 at 5:42 PM

We’re not talking about Kennedy, we’re talking about Scalia. Scalia’s concurrence had the most expansive reading of the Commerce clause in that case.

I’m so tired of seeing that argument.

ButterflyDragon on January 31, 2011 at 5:50 PM

Me too, actually but a pretty substantial amount of people who claim to be against the law aren’t even aware of the basic arguments for it. So it’s worth repeating.

crr6 on January 31, 2011 at 7:59 PM

It is obvious the Judge didn’t read the bill to learn about all the wonderful things in the bill!

rjoco1 on January 31, 2011 at 4:27 PM

…Judge is racist !

/

cableguy615 on January 31, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Different thread. Don’t waste your time. I can sum it up for you by saying that crr6 and Obama apparently differ as to whether this is done under taxation authority or not.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 6:51 PM

You’re confused, as usual.

crr6 on January 31, 2011 at 8:03 PM

You’re confused, as usual.

crr6 on January 31, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Lawyer jargon does that to me. I prefer plain English.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Crr and you will always be the pompous loser leech. Congrats!

Sheesh the daddy complex will be the end of this nation/ You really need to grow up– all of this desire to have big gov take care of you is really sad.

CWforFreedom on January 31, 2011 at 8:08 PM

First.

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Lawyer jargon does that to me.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Apparently. You’ve had a rough couple days.

crr6 on January 31, 2011 at 8:09 PM

You’re confused, as usual.

crr6 on January 31, 2011 at 8:03 PM

To sum up crr6′s tragicomic realization in the other thread:

The IRS commissioner from crr6′s Slate link clearly stated the IRS will not come after you, your property or your money should you not pay your penalty. They will only ding a refund.

crr6 says Americans are not suave (sic) enough to just increase their deductions which pumps up their take-home and eliminates any refund. Problem solved.

So the whole linchpin of ObamaCare controlling costs is Americans being too lazy and/or stupid to understand a simple W4.

Chuck Schick on January 31, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Apparently. You’ve had a rough couple days.

crr6 on January 31, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Eh, I dunno about that. I’ve felt a lot less tense since the first Wednesday of last November than I did before.

/zinger

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 8:12 PM

So the whole linchpin of ObamaCare controlling costs is Americans being too lazy and/or stupid to understand a simple W4.

Chuck Schick on January 31, 2011 at 8:10 PM

In crr6′s defense (YIKES!), most Americans don’t bother to take the time to understand what the deductions on their paychecks really mean. They can be taught. On the other hand, I don’t think crr6 will ever be swayed from her desire to become a lawyer.

The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers

Dick the Butcher, Wiliam Shakespeare’s “Henry VI”

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Chuck Schick on January 31, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Yeah, we were having a policy argument which gryphon mistook for a Constitutional argument. He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I remember the discussion slightly differently though. First you didn’t know the bill expressly prohibits criminal liability, so I corrected you. Then you didn’t know the IRS planned to collect the tax penalty by deducting it from tax refunds, so I corrected you on that. Finally, you didn’t know that roughly 75% of tax-paying Americans receive a tax refund, so I corrected you on that as well.

Do you see a pattern? And the funny thing is, you’re rabidly against the bill even though, as you’ve demonstrated tonight, you don’t even have a basic idea as to how it operates.

crr6 on January 31, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Do you see a pattern? And the funny thing is, you’re rabidly against the bill even though, as you’ve demonstrated tonight, you don’t even have a basic idea as to how it operates.

crr6 on January 31, 2011 at 8:18 PM

You didn’t address anything I said.

Chuck Schick on January 31, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Do you see a pattern? And the funny thing is, you’re rabidly against the bill even though, as you’ve demonstrated tonight, you don’t even have a basic idea as to how it operates.

crr6 on January 31, 2011 at 8:18 PM

I’m not sure you do either. If it’s a tax, you’re contradicting President Obama. If it’s not, then you’re contradicting what Obama said earlier before he contradicted himself. Either way, there’s not much point for this bill to exist if it doesn’t force people to purchase health insurance on the government’s terms.

gryphon202 on January 31, 2011 at 8:23 PM

Had Obama just called it a tax to begin, he would have been fine. His sneaky politics may get the best of him in the end.

Daemonocracy on January 31, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5