But Parnell also said the decision, which comes a month after the same judge said the reform is unconstitutional, backs general legal challenges from Alaska.
Federal district court Judge Roger Vinson of Florida ruled in January to strike the program. A handful of judges have now split over the question, which all sides say will fall to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Associated Press in Florida reported that Vinson’s decision was a response to an Obama administration request.
It said the order leaves 26 states, including Alaska and Florida, that have challenged the law to at least follow it until the case is resolved. The report noted Vinson critiqued the federal administration for being slow to appeal even while he acknowledged that it’s in the country’s interest for states to follow the program for now.
Parnell used the news to restate his strong preference that Alaska use its own resources to solve health care problems and to make health care service more affordable rather than getting “entangled” with national efforts.
“Going forward, Alaska will make decisions on a case-by-case basis whether the state will undertake with our own money or with federal money how to implement the provisions of the law,” he said in a statement. “My sole responsibility is to act in Alaska’s best interests and we will do so.”
Parnell has been criticized by those saying he’s dragged his feet when it comes to implementing the new act. He drew heat last month after declining to apply for a $1 million grant to create an insurance exchange program, something state Senate President Gary Stevens said could cost the state money and administrative flexibility.
The state has, however, accepted millions of dollars for other health care ends under the new law, including health care for retirees not eligible for Medicare.
State Sen. Hollis French, D-Anchorage, used Thursday’s news to again press Parnell to do more. He had previously requested a legal analysis that, last week, concluded Vinson’s ruling shouldn’t bind Alaska’s actions.
“This is a good day for Alaska,” French said Thursday in a statement. “The governor can no longer evade the issue. (One-hundred and fifteen thousand) Alaskans do not have health insurance. I look forward to working with the governor to help put the federal law in place that will help these Alaskans find a policy that works for them.”
The U.S. Department of Justice said in a statement that it “welcomed” Vinson’s decision, saying failure to effectively implement the new act would create “enormous disruption” nationally.
“We strongly disagree with the district court’s underlying ruling in this case and continue to believe — as three federal courts have found — that this law is constitutional,” spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said on the department’s blog. “There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing the Affordable Care Act and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal.”
Contact staff writer Christopher Eshleman at 459-7582.
Dear readers and those who of you who are supposedly journalists...reporters etc. While you are reading or reporting about petty sht, real war is happening in front of your eyes and in our own country...this war which is already taking and is about to take even higher tall >> ON YOUR PERSONAL REAR<< is not something to ignore...or hesitate to inform as well others about it. Consider this to be your wake up call or face death
Yet the process is stalled by the Obama administration. They want to spend billions and billions of dollars installing Obamacare in the hopes that we will get used to it, and the objections will fall away. Fat chance. They also hope that they can replace one of the four conservative voices on the high court with another socialist voice.
It might be good strategy, but it comes at the expense of American taxpayers. I commend Governor Parnell for stalling. Who knows? Maybe by stalling Alaska can get an exemption like McDonalds or the SEIU.
I hold that if Obama and the Obamacare advocates were truly confident of the constitutionality of the law, then they would allow the decision to be expedited to the high court.
Capitalism does not (officially) exist in a true socialist system. Of course, the black market usually finds a way to get people what they want and need, often at a LOWER price than that which is available through authorized channels.
Capitalism is truly more compatible with democracy because they both operate on the simple idea that a human being can think and do for himself, without intervention by the government. In that structure of freedom, it becomes necessary to accept that some people will do well and some people will not and that is just the way that it is.
In socialistic societies, the premise is that people need government to help them make decisions and keep a roof over their heads and so they cannot be allowed to make decisions like who should control the government or who should control businesses on their own.
Isanova -- I do agree that unions are compatible with democracy, so long as they are not allowed any more power than any other association of like-minded individuals. When they become more powerful than the average local evangelical church, they've become too powerful and entered into the realm of socialism. When they can set the wages of an entire industry, thus dictating to business owners on how to conduct their businesses, they've become socialists and are incompatible with a democratic society.
Maybe you should read some books that weren't written by a propagandist.
Facism is a form of socialism as is communism. Socialism was born from the Hegelian ideal of the dialectic. His followers took that in two different directions -- neither of them very good. Hegel thought the state and the society should be more integrated and pursue a synthesis between the freedoms of individuals and businesses and the control of the state. His followers pursued several branches of that idea.
The USSR started as socialist movement wanting to get rid of the czar and give land to the peasants. It did away with private property and organized around communes -- very similar to what exists in most of China today, except in the enterprise zones. It quickly devolved into mass starvation so ended up with an oligarchy in charge spouted socialist-communist propaganda to justify what the commitee of dictators was doing. The government owned everything. Nobody owned anything of their own. Those who argued were killed. The original goal of the communists was to spread throughout Europe and then the world.
Hitler and his crew started out as socialists seeking a workers revolution as well, but Hitler soon found that the German people were not interested in the universal goals of communism. He also recognized that there is major disruption of you kill all the business and land owners. He saw what Mussolini had done in Italy and added nationalism to his slate. That won 34% of the electorate. Once in office, he didn't officially do away with business owners, but every business owner knew they took their orders from the government. They were not free to conduct business on their own. Those who argued were shipped off to the concentration camps (one reason for the transportation of the Jews is that many of them were business owners, but not all of those shipped off were Jews). The government didn't own the businesses, but they certainly controlled them. Watch Schindler's List and see how it really worked.
The major differences beween communist-socialism and fascist-socialism were the first was a universalist movement and the second was a nationalist movement, but they also developed the characteristic of the first killing all the business owners and the second embracing what might be termed state-capitalism -- where the capitalists take their orders from the state. The salient fact is that they both ended up killing anyone who argued with the government taking their stuff, in name or in actuality.
Thomas Sowell's Marxism. It's an older book, written in the early 1980s, I think, but socialism and its various stripes very well.
Mitt Romney is NOT a conservative. He's a progressive who happens to be a Republican. You're a liberal progressive, so I understand that you don't get the difference, but being a member of the Republican Party doesn't mean you're a conservative. Conservativism is about values and principles, not party membership.
Let's just look at the bare bones facts. The bill was written behind closed doors by political sycophants. It was thousands of pages long and no one was given time to read it before it was voted on. More than a third of it was written in non-legislative language, which means the CBO could not properly score it. It was touted as going to save us billions if not trillions, but when someone was actually able to sit down and read it (AFTER it passed) it was discovered that it would cost us billions of TAX DOLLARS to implement and at least a trillion over the next 10 years, IN ADDITION TO any premiums that would be collected. It moves millions of Americans who currently are private pay or struggle to pay their insurance premiums onto the MEDICAID rolls. It moves some low-income Medicare recipients onto the Medicaid rolls as well. This is slated to cost STATES a few trillion over the next decade and may bankrupt some states. The individual mandate is slated to cost everyone who makes a middleclass living or above $8000 annually, if premiums don't go up, but we know from Massachusettes' experiment with this, they will go up, as will health care costs, just because of the individual mandate.
This "law" inserts a complicated government bureaucracy into the health care decisions of every person in the country. It opens all of our medical records to the government's less than stellar record keeping and confidentiality.
And, it's UNconstitutional to require American citizens to buy a private product against their will, even if government agents think it is in our best interest.
Implementing any part of this, however, risks it becoming a defacto system that has the weight of law, even if it is found to be unconstitutional by the Supremes. You can bet Obama will work overtime to slow progress toward the SCOTUS so that the system will be in place for years before the ruling comes down and we'll be stuck with it. I applaused Parnell for dragging his feet. I say, "KEEP IT UP!"
Oh, by not knowing this well known fact, this would make you and uneducated piece of work. But, you have run on with uneducated remarks in the past, so nothing new here.
Invictus is sleeping
I feel obliged to give some info here seeing as I have read most of the books on the matter.
1) Fascism and Socialism are diametrically opposed. Fascism is a government working in tandem with the corporations and private business as one. Economic policy flows from the state as run by those in power, with the intent on leading the nation to strength. Socialism is a government working in tandem with the people as one. Economic policy flows either top-down (command economies, see soviet union) or bottom-up (the power in the hands of the people, via unions, direct ownership, or other methods that give the average worker a say in his business). (In Theory) Socialism works for the benefit of the people, Fascism works for the benefit of the wealthy... on the assumption that what is good for the wealthy is good for the state. Socialism is traditionally left-wing, Fascism is traditionally right-wing... though there are exceptions in both cases (Spain was left-wing Fascist, Stalin was right-wing Socialist)
2) There is nothing precluding American ideals (I presume democracy, the bill of rights and self-determination) and Socialists, Communists or indeed Fascists. I would in fact argue that Socialism at it's core pushes for Democratic ideals, and the only major dispute between it and the US constitution has to do with property rights.
It's good to see you back in full force, bringing back the days of greatness to America. Let's snoop on our citizens, make sure they're not wearing any red.
Moron.
An American patriot; not necessarily a current Tea Party Patriot, one who hates the thought of coerced spread the wealth government meddling; one for limited government, individual responsibility. Government is a public service not a career. A respect for private property and the common law. Acknowledging the Author of our liberty.
There is no reconciliation between the two; the communist with the American patriot. The one will dominate and suppress the other. There are many the communist supporters even in this comment section. There are many with American and Christian ideals. The two will not be reconciled. Democracies, it is said, always end in a dictatorship. I wish we did not have to have this struggle but I think, looking back at history, it has many times already been the case before. As I have read the history of the rise to power of the NSDAP in Germany; that which united their cause was in much part a common hatred of international Marxism.
That which energizes many here is to oppose the Marxist infection on American soil. Will a charismatic figure rise here to oppose communism and gain much support because of this perceived enemy among many Americans but, that he should in the end bring America into another dictatorship too? Will the Marxist hold their ground and gain the more and enslave the whole nation under their red banner? I would that it not be either the case.
Deception abounds.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
But a true free market can only exist where there is no Monopoly of Violence that forces us to pay for their inferior "services" and cages or kills its competition. That means we cannot accept the "solutions" of the vilest members of society, the politicians and bureaucrats.
The the writer not French inserted the (One-hundred and fifteen thousand) into French's comments. For I have yet to hear a speech where you can detect the insertion of a parentheses.
I might agree with the mythical nature of the numbers most politicians like to banter around. It a rare occasion when their numbers are questioned. For example the governor claims his oil tax reductions will lead to thousands of jobs. John Boehner recently state Obama had increased federal payrolls by 200,000 employees. A fact check proved the number was less than 20,000.