Slashdot Mirror
Judge Declares Federal Healthcare Plan (Partly) Unconstitutional
healeyb writes "In a surprise move, US District Judge Henry E. Hudson issued a ruling today that the universal healthcare law that was pushed through by the Obama administration is unconstitutional. Specifically, he invalidated the section of the law that requires all citizens to purchase healthcare insurance, arguing that it does not fall under the purview of Commerce Clause of the Constitution, as has been asserted by the government. The ruling represents the first major setback for President Barack Obama on an issue that will likely end up at the Supreme Court. Two other courts have shot down challenges to the law."
Too bad "unconstitutional" is only defined by which party has the bench packed at the Supreme Court, currently
Oh really? Anyone who at least didn't question the constitutionality of this really (regardless of where you end up standing) needs to get a clue.
How can it possibly be constitutional to force someone sitting at home who has no insurance to leave that home, to forcibly purchase anything? It is like forcing a license to live.
While I think it foolish not to purchase said insurance if possible, I cannot see anyway to legally compel this action by force.
"It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
Yes but we need those guys. We need the flaming crazies that will go to court and FORCE the judges to look at every little issue and say, "No, stfu," or "Holy hell how did this get to be law?!" We NEED someone to challenge every little thing the government does and make the one balance we have-- the courts-- stand up and tell the executive and legislative branch where to shove it when they overstep their bounds.
What we don't need is these people becoming judges or congressmen.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The same guy that went after Michael Mann and others after it was thrown out. He's a young Republican with an agenda that he's forcing down everyone's throat since day one. From trying to change the state seal (it has a mammary in it!) to just stating that "Homosexuality is wrong."
Damn those activist judges!
Bow-ties are cool.
The odd aspect of the current plan is that you can be compelled by law, just by dint of being a citizen, to purchase a product from a private company.
If it was an across-the-board tax for across-the-board health coverage it'd clearly be constitutional. But for some reason we have to keep cutting in a for-profit industry that adds no real value to the process and pretend that's better than having the government pool the cash and disburse it as necessary to doctors.
They actually found a worse solution than socialism to the problem.
Only in the US is healthcare a privilege instead of a human right. That so many in a 'civilized' country are opposed to universal healthcare should make people wonder if the term 'civilized' is appropriate at all.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Long story short: it starts in the corporate boardroom, and ends in a room full of senators on a pile of hookers and blow.
...ask yourself who this is actually a victory for. After all, this was only a ruling against a part of the law, not the entire thing. And this was really the part that was the biggest corporate hand-out of the bill - had a real liberal written it we would have seen a single-payer option instead of forcing people to give more money to large corporations.
So in other words, if this part goes, and the rest stays, what are we left with? A bunch of smaller corporate hand-outs that don't fix much of anything in a horrendously broken system. Most people will still have the shitty insurance they already have, and they will see their costs continue to rise the same way that they would have if nothing at all had happened.
So whether it goes away - in part or in entirety - or not, we still have a crappy broken system. Maybe, just maybe - if we are really truly fortunate - this will motive our politicians to actually write a bill that addresses some of the existing problems and then hold an honest discussion on that.
But I suspect at this rate I (and anyone currently reading this) will be dead before that happens in the US.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I think the only part of the story that is flamebait is the editorial statement "In a surprise move."
This is NOT a surprise move. The individual mandate has been widely debated by academics and lawyers with many dissenting viewpoints. It was pretty much inevitable that at some point a portion of the bill (and most likely the individual mandate) would end up in front of a judge who didn't find it licit, and that it would end up in front of the supreme court.
I would bet anything that President Obama and and most of the people behind the health care bill were certain that it would at some point be reviewed by SCOTUS.
Anyone with a memory better than a gold fish can laugh with me as I recall that insurance mandates were originally the Republican plan. Republicans loved the idea of a mandate, and Democrats hated it.
Now? The Democrats folded like a cheap suit, gave the Republicans what they had been calling for for 15 years, and suddenly the Republicans hate the idea of a mandate.
There's a lot of FUD out there about health insurance. So here's the facts:
Country A: Health insurance is optional. So only the sick get health insurance. Their premiums are high, because they use their health insurance a lot. The young and uninsured meanwhile, a few of them need to go to the hospital too (broken arms, etc.: anyone can have a health emergency, even the very healthy). However, since the young and uninsured are usually poor, they can't afford the bills. They avoid them. Or declare bankruptcy. The hospital passes the unpaid bills onto the state and feds, and your tax dollars pay to keep the hospital from going bankrupt. Since no self-respecting society can turn away the sick, this already is universal healthcare, just paid for in the stupidest most expensive way possible. As well as destroying young people's credit and encouraging them to freeload and act irresponsibly.
Country B: Health insurance is mandatory. So everyone pays premiums. The premiums are low, because only a small percentage of the insured population actually use the insurance. The young need insurance because they can get sick too, and no, it is not wrong to be using some of the money of the young to treat the older and sick. This is called morality in most societies: you care for the elderly and sick in your society. Only in an immoral society are you encouraged to not care for your elders and your weak.
So why is the USA stuck in Country A status? Because insurance companies are making money hand over fist in the broken system, and don't want to lose their profits. They pay for FUD propaganda about government death panels, massive expense increases, etc., the naive and foolish believe the FUD, and the naive and foolish wind up supporting a system that hurts their health.
And then there is the criticism of quality of healthcare between country A and country B. And it is true: crisis care in country A is superior to crisis care in country B. Why? Because crisis care, like heart attacks, is expensive, therefore generating revenues. See, country A is all about making money, not taking care of your health. Meanwhile, country B actually delivers a genuine higher quality healthcare, at a lower cost, because the emphasis is on preventative care: making sure you get screened, diagnosed, and put on a diet/ pills so you don't even get that heart attack in the first place... but that approach doesn't make as much money, see? It has to be about making money, not taking care of you?
Look: car insurance is mandatory in the USA. If you understand the logic behind that, you understand why health insurance should be mandatory, and not some evil socialist plot to destroy America, blah blah blah, FUD and propaganda paid for by health corporations.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
From a Tea Party Republican's perspective, "meaningful" health care reform would entail eliminating Medicare and Medicaid, freeing all employers from having to pay health care benefits, and all insurance companies from having to pay claims.
The "free market" will provide all that is needed.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
"Meaningful" means, representing a substantial change for the affected people.
This bill is by that definition, about as far from meaningful as it gets.
If anything we are worse off than before. No more people are covered, some people have less coverage, and for all it is more expensive.
..or Attorney General. Oh, wait..
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
From a Libertarian's perspective, "meaningful" means all of those in addition to axing the health insurance industry. That system is the biggest part of the cancer that is killing us. Once healthcare providers have no choice but to make services affordable or run out of customers, they will find a way. As long as health insurance exists, they will have no need to make services affordable.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Damn those activist judges!
Definition of activist judge: any judge who makes a decision you disagree with for partisan or moral reasons.
They don't call it "practicing law" for nothing!
Living With a Nerd
That's a nice thought, but they aren't challenging "every little thing" the government does, they only challenge things they don't like, and there aren't a similar number of "flaming crazies" challenging other laws that other americans view as blatantly unconstitutional or imposing on freedom.
Take "obscenity" laws for instance, blatantly unconstitutional and yet those who oppose such laws aren't running around the streets casually with semi-automatic weapons or making references to "2nd amendment remedies" when things don't go their way.
If this were a case about a law requiring everyone to purchase a Bible, these same people would be actively supporting the law or at least remaining silent, because that's what they do, they only run their mouths and cry about freedom when it suits their personal causes.
When they quite literally have you by your life, they can charge whatever they want. It's the definition of unbalanced contracts and negotiating from a position of weakness.
The ______ Agenda
I see. So because the crazies you don't like don't challenge the laws you don't like, they are bad, but when the crazies you do like challenge laws I do like, they are good?
Your answer to the problem of not enough people challenging enough things is to insult and denigrate those who are standing up for the Constitution? That's a really good way to get more people doing it, you know. While your personal condemnation and vitriolic insults are probably irrelevant to them, it does show a bit of a bias on your part.
If this were a case about a law requiring everyone to purchase a Bible, these same people would be actively supporting the law or at least remaining silent,
I call "bullshit". Deal with what the people you don't like are actually doing instead of making it up so you can spew more hate at them. If you don't like them opposing a patently unconstitutional law, write your congressman to get him to pass constitutional ones. Insulting them for having principles you don't agree with is just stupid and ignorant, and basically intolerant.
Yes, but, well... homosexuality *is* wrong. Homosexual homosapiens are physically unable to reproduce. That is the most damning evidence to support this position.
Perhaps you're familiar with worker bees. God must hate them, too.
Meanwhile people die because some bastards have been paid off to stop a health care plan that is far less ambitious than the Republicans were pushing under Nixon. You can bet he's not doing it because he's a "flaming crazy" but the only way to show that is to follow the money.
Well, a lot of the problem comes from the bastardization of the concept of INSURANCE when it comes to health care. Insurance should be there ONLY for catastrophic health events(ie heart attack, accident). Routine health expenditures, should be saved and budgeted for like any other necessity of life (food, shelter, beer...).
If this were the case, then insurance wouldn't be so damned expensive. Also, if we went back more the "in my day" days...you'd have the independent Dr. out there again hanging his shingle out, and could charge reasonable rates, often based on what the person could pay. My uncle was an MD, I saw how this worked in practice. Medical costs weren't outrageous like they are now...IMHO, this is largely due to bean counters and other non-health leeches on the system ratcheting things up to the mess we have today.
Why not go to insurance for more emergency usage, and expand the program for HSA's (Health Savings Accounts) for everyone, to save for their own routine medical/drug needs PRE-Tax, and unlike the FSA's, let everyone have a HSA that is not use it or lose it.
Why should routine health care not be a personal responsibility like anything else in life?
This also might break the strange connection between health insurance and work...which often today, ties one to a job for people that are worried about changing jobs and jeopardizing benefits.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
every single fucking dime they had before they died. that's how much.
You are stupid. I hope you die because no one wants to pay for your health care.
Ruling that a law is unconstitutional is not "activism". It is, in fact, the only tool that the Supreme Court has to check Congress and the Presidency.
Except that by default, when a law is unconstitutional it is struck down in its entirety, to prevent such unintended consequences.
If Congress doesn't want this to happen, they can include a severability clause that says 'hey, we don't mind if this part stands on its own.' But Congress didn't do that. If mandatory insurance falls, so does the entire bill.
Unfortunately the two groups of crazies don't cover the full Venn diagram, it's more like they both challenge 25% of the same stuff, and an additional 25% of the stuff that just gores their own ox, and leave the remainder out there for folk to get screwed over because they both either believe that it's 'good' or that it's too 'dangerous' to attack.
See: TSA, Patriot Act, anything that has to do with State Rights, 'protecting the children', or responsible sex education.
i have issues with the "pre existing conditions" mainly the fact that some times you just can't afford health insurance.. aka where i work now i have coverage - and i have a condition.. if i was to be laid off then my only option would be cobra which is exceptionally expensive (prohibitively so) and hope that i can afford it (i can't) until i can find a job with insurance.. if there is even a day or less of lapse then they say "pre existing condition" and i can't get coverage for it.
now in hind sight i didn't always need treatments - in fact for years i had coverage and never went to a doctor.. but now my meds cost more than my house (without insurance)..
i know there is more than one problem here that needs to be solved.. and letting the industry "solve" it just won't happen. there is too much money in it for them to keep things broken.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
This country (USA) needs to learn how to accept points of view that are different and find a common ground. This is why nothing gets done in Congress. No one can stop bickering and being intolernat long enough to do some damn work. That's not what we sent them there to do.
Another nice thought, but one that doesn't work in practice when one side is accusing the other of being agents of the chinese government, or admirers of Stalin and Hitler.
I love your idea - we should just follow the previous examples! We already have a nationwide network of hospitals for military - VA! All we have to do is to widen and let any citizen access them. Just like we did with highways and the Internet. A great suggestion!
1. Raise some money
2. Get in the goddamn street
The teabaggers did it. It worked. You might not like them (I generally don't), but I'd say it would behoove us all to take a serious look at what they're doing that we're not doing.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!