« | »

AP: Judge Vinson ‘Has Own Med Story’

From an intentionally misleading Associated Press:

Fla. judge in Obama health suit has own med story

By Melissa Nelson And Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press
February 1, 2011

PENSACOLA, Fla. – The judge who ruled the Obama administration’s health care overhaul unconstitutional questioned whether the government was reaching beyond its power by requiring citizens to buy health insurance because everyone needs medical care.

Under that logic, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said, the government could force Americans to buy clothes or food. Vinson, who sided with 26 states fighting the much-maligned measure, revealed his own health care story during arguments several weeks ago, an example that helped shed light on his ruling Monday.

When Vinson was a law student and his wife gave birth to their first child, he paid a doctor in cash.

"It amounted to about $100 a pound," the 70-year-old jurist joked in December.

This is the "med story" the AP put in its headline? Weren’t we led to believe that Judge Vinson had some healthcare issues that make his ruling hypocritical? Isn’t that the impression any casual reader who does not pore over the article would take away?

And how on earth does this "health care story" help "shed light on his ruling Monday"? Is it wrong to pay your doctor in cash? Is it an outworn concept?

Vinson, an ex-Navy pilot appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, is known for maintaining control of his courtroom while letting everyone have their say. He loves camellia flowers and has handled cases from abortion clinic bombings to veterans rights to racial discrimination…

Notice that as soon as there is an important ruling against the Democrat agenda our watchdog immediately starts rooting around in the background of the judge looking for dirt. Do they ever do this when a liberal activist judge rules in their favor? (Hint: no.)

Still, it would seem that the worst thing they could find was that he was appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan. So the misleading headline will have to suffice for now.

The judge’s ruling produced an even split in federal court decisions so far on the health care law, mirroring enduring divisions among the public. Two judges had previously upheld the law, both Democratic appointees. A Republican appointee in Virginia had ruled against it

Just in case you didn’t catch that Ronald Reagan had appointed Mr. Vinson.

Mind you, this is the same Associated Press that will never mention the political affiliation of a politician who has been caught red handed in a crime – if said politician is a Democrat.

Vinson ruled against the overhaul on grounds that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring nearly all Americans to carry health insurance, an idea dating back to Republican proposals from the 1990s but is now almost universally rejected by conservatives

So the AP is now claiming that mandatory insurance was originally a Republican proposal? We would like to see the source for this assertion.

His ruling followed the same general reasoning as one last year from the federal judge in Virginia. But Vinson took it much farther, invalidating provisions that range from Medicare discounts for seniors with high prescription costs to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ coverage

You see? This vicious Republican monster is invalidating parts of Obama-care that the media claims the public loves.

And never mind that the judge’s point is, if mandatory insurance is un-Constitutional the entire law must be un-Constitutional, since it is essential to the rest of the legislation.

In one of Vinson’s more high-profile trials, he ruled against medical benefits for thousands of military veterans. Day, who has long known the judge, argued the veterans were promised lifetime care by recruiters when they enlisted and that military health benefits shouldn’t stop at age 65. The ruling was later overturned by an appeals courts

You see how heartless he is? Taking away medical care from our veterans! By the way, as he article notes, Judge Vinson is himself a former Navy pilot and a graduate of the Naval Academy.

Vinson’s first major case was the 1985 trial of two young couples — one married, the other engaged — who were accused of bombing and conspiring to bomb three Pensacola-area abortion clinics. Jurors found the men guilty of bomb making, damaging buildings with bombs and conspiring to make bombs and the women guilty of conspiracy. Vinson allowed the four to remain free on bond for a month before he sentenced the men to 10 years in prison and the women to five years probation

You see what a rabid right-winger the man is? He practically let these abortion clinic bombers off scot free!

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, February 1st, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “AP: Judge Vinson ‘Has Own Med Story’”

  1. wardmama4 says:

    Judge Vinson – got off easy – our first (born to unemployed college student and unemployed former college student) cost $167.85 per pound. That was the downside – we were under parental (see above, college students) BCBS insurance – but they don’t pay for a pregnancy that precedes a marriage. We paid $25./month until we were stable – and then at a point not far down the road – paid the balance off. Paying on the bill, gave us – CREDIT which despite two paid for cars & lots of $ in the bank – we could not get at all.

    We are now re-registered in the local (just over an hour north) MTF. On the way home our daughter raised a legitimate question. She graduated from college in May last year – first job app was a gov position with a many leveled application process – so it wasn’t until Dec that she wrote that off as not happening. She has been applying locally to the tune of ‘you have no experience’ (DUH) and ‘you’re over educated’ – her ID card expires in May. She is in negotiations with the Army for her knowledge and service. Under Obamacare – will she be able to stay on our Tricare Insurance if she does not go onto active duty until say July or later?!? Yes, I know – for those who have experienced the Tricare system – the answer is NO – so then can we sue as Tricare/MTFs are not ‘abiding’ by the Obamacare law?

    Yeah, I know the answer to that one too – thus in effect – even more proof (most especially with the 729 waivers) Obamacare is worthless, dangerous, expensive and un-Constitutional as it is not about healthcare nor even insurance at all – but about expanding government power.

    I shall start praying today that at least 5 Supreme Court Justices can see the legal issue and not be bought off on the ‘historic’ vapidness of this issue. Must go find a poll to VOTE AGAINST Obamacare – just to push that number higher.

  2. tranquil.night says:

    Well isn’t this just turning out to be a continual thorn in the balls for the regime. The Judiciary isn’t supposed to have this type of legislative decision-making power, according to their warped understanding of government. That’s supposed to reside, to paraphrase Chuck. U., with the three branches of government: the House, the Senate, and the Executive.

    These dumb turds only have credibility still because of their media. Sometimes I think their media only continues to have credibilty because we continue to react and respond to their ridiculous farces. They have no loyalty with the public anymore, drive-by pieces like this are worthless. It’s merely the Liberals who continue to fund and read the Liberal’s Media.

    One of these days they are going to tell a story that’s such an uncivil lie, tar and feather someone just for doing their job, to the point that it’s going to cause real problems, and it will be legally actionable to take them on journalistic malpractice. It’s wholly frightening the degree to which they’re able to manipulate facts, and continue to do so, without so much as a care to what has happened to their country or even their organization’s own integrity in the process.

  3. Rusty Shackleford says:

    The vitriol that will ooze from the left has yet to begin. He will be:

    2)bitter clinger

    You name it, they will pull it out of their ass and yes, MAKE THINGS UP to try to destroy this federal judge.

    If you haven’t been paying attention, ask Sarah Palin how they do it.

    • proreason says:

      Anthony Kennedy better hire some additional bodyguards. If he votes no, it will be another 20 years before the salivating tyrants can get back to where they were in 2010, and they aren’t going to risk that if they can avoid it.

      My understanding is that he would like to retire, but has postponed it. I could be dead wrong, but it seems to me that is a signal that he is thinking this monstrosity has to be struck down.

      If I’m right about that, I think the odds of him living until the SCOTUS takes up the matter are long.

  4. ezra says:

    “So the AP is now claiming that mandatory insurance was originally a Republican proposal? We would like to see the source for this assertion.”

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/24916887/Coverage-of-Preventive-Services-Provisions-of-Selected-Current-Health – page 25-26

    The individual mandate has generally been a response by intellectually rigorous moderates when the alternative is seen as universal healthcare. It goes all the way back to Nixon, who (like H.W.) would be considered a RINO today and could never win any modern-day Republican primary.

    • wardmama4 says:

      Wow – 1993 – how concrete proof this gem is- in a part of the US where a lie today is the truth tomorrow. And since we all know President Barack ‘I WON’ Obama did not let a single Republican participate in a single meeting re: the Affordable Health Care Choices Act – your proof is nothing but a spit in the wind in 1993 and has no relevance in 2010 – move along and go spew your distortions among people who might actually believe them.

  5. Mae says:

    “When Vinson was a law student and his wife gave birth to their first child, he paid a doctor in cash.”

    The reason people need insurance is, of course, that it is so very expensive to visit a doctor in 2011 and impossible to be in a hospital without bankruptcy looming. No way could I have paid out of pocket for my doctor and hospital bills incurred in 2010.

    Health insurance was generally not offered to non-executive staff at most companies until well into the 1980’s. I believe it was around 1980 that I first was offered the opportunity of paying perhaps $45 per month for Kaiser Insurance in Southern California. And the payment went steadily up each year thereafter but you were able to take that insurance with you when moving on to another job, which I did.

    Prior to 1980, I had no insurance of any kind. Payments came out of my pocket. Since health issues for me began in 1962, doctor visits were a weekly thing. $12 per week in 1963 and those fees escalated over the years. I paid everything myself. No help from the folks or anyone else. It was necessary, so I did without luxuries, cars, mounds of clothes, deluxe apartments and expensive vacations. That’s just the way it was. Too bad, so sad.

    If fees would go back to the percentage of income that existed in 1963, we could all afford to visit doctors and have operations when necessary. Fees are so expensive today because of petty lawsuits against physicians and hospitals, having to take care of illegal aliens for free, expensive life-saving procedures/equipment, etc.

    We humans do want to live and we want to have affordable doctors and hospitalization. What we need to do is decide which is more important, a car or your health. Personal responsibility, is it a thing of the past? I wonder.

    P.S. Since I had a senior moment, a correction has to be made in that it was around 1975 that I first received the opportunity to pay for my own insurance through Kaiser.

    • proreason says:

      If it were possible to eliminate corruption and government influence from medical costs, you would still be able to pay normal costs out of your pocket, with a 5 to 10 thousand deductable policy for genuine medical emergencies.

      Just for starters, consider the costs of:
      – medicare fraud (which is paid for by docs, hospitals and health plans boosting YOUR costs)
      – legal vultures increasing malpractice premiums astronomically
      – the administrative costs of gnomes all over the world massaging your health care claims, both in the health plans and the provideres themselves (docs, hospitals, clinics)
      – additional costs heaped on by governement to fund a host of “treatment” programs for deadbeats and losers
      – huge, HUGE additional costs heaped on by governement because interstate competition is verboten
      – the astronomic additional costs heaped on drugs by governement regulations on the developement process

      That’s just for starters. Even greater savings would be the dramatic cost benefits of medical businesses actually competing for your business if everything wasn’t “free” (i.e., hidden from you by insurance seemingly paid by a 3rd party, either the governemnt or your employer). Think computers and cell phones.

      I have said before that I am sure that costs would be less than 50% of what they are today, probably closer to 25%.

    • wardmama4 says:

      Mae – illegal aliens aren’t the only ones ‘taken care of for free’ (translation costs paid for by those who have insurance, taxpayers and simply higher costs to all) – drug addicts, gang bangers, SCHiP, Medicaid, Medicare – all are on someone elses dime (for the majority) – and part of the original cost rise was the introduction of insurance for routine medical care in the first place (around 1965 – hmmm now why does that date ring a bell?!?) – that is when Drs were forced by the government to only take cash or insurance – I know my Dad was a Dr and it changed how they did business (bartering, writeoffs, whatever the medical term is for pro bono etc were now not allowed). Every single entity or institution involved in the process ADDS to the cost, it does not, never has nor ever will REDUCE the cost at all, it is simply another hand in the pot wanting it’s cut.

      This started in the 1920s when ‘medical’ insurance was first put out there, escalated in the late 1940s/early 1950s when DC connected Health insurance as a job benefit and then in the 1960s became, how do they say that – oh, yeah – unsustainable when they forced private hospitals and doctors to take the deadbeats, illegals and worthless taxpayer funded and fraud ridden gov plans – and here we are today – where once again – the least deserving get theirs, the cheating scum who write the laws – have their loopholes secured and those who are hardworking and taxpaying are footing the bill while choosing between surviving on barest minimum or throwing their hands up in surrender.

      We do not intend to surrender – and Judge Vinson – fired probably the most important shot in this on going attack against the American way of life.

  6. untrainable says:

    He loves camellia flowers and has handled cases from abortion clinic bombings to veterans rights to racial discrimination

    I understand the references to the types of cases he has handled, but isn’t it odd to include his flower preference? Does loving camellia flowers factor into his judicial experience or capabilities? Did I miss the late breaking story about the correlation between loving camellias and being a racist biggot homophobe? Maybe that’ll make the late news. So sad.

  7. GetBackJack says:

    I wish I knew how to edit videos.

    Here’s the scene – Val Kilmer (Doc Holiday) coming out of the dusk towards the end of Tombstone to face Johnny Ringo (Michael Beihn)

    “Welll,” says Ringo. “I didn’t think you had it in you,” to the figure materializing.

    “I’m you’re huckleberry,” Holiday says.

    I’d edit Obama’s head onto Ringo and Judge Vinson’s head onto Holiday and edit the vocal track from “I’m your huckleberry” to I”m your death panel”

  8. bobbymike says:

    AP is trying to equate being appointed by Reagan and “bad”. Well they should get with the times because now Obama is Reagan according to the main stream media.

  9. wirenut says:

    This has bothered me for years. How can the written word be so divided, as to not mean it’s original intent?Think, “Constitution”. Does anyone question a “WET PAINT” sign? No! So how is it, we are here? Only those that seek much less of freedom, can dictate and dispense with “original intent”. The corruptions of the Commerce Clause has bypassed our individual liberties and freedoms, for the sake of the state. Not our founders “original intent”. You name it, they can claim it, they can regulate it. Finally, a man has put his foot against the mongrel.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »