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."
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.
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 way it's possible to force him to pay for roads he doesn't use, police he doesn't need, or libraries he doesn't want. It's like people never heard of taxes before.
As for the Commerce Clause, yes it's been mutilated in the past century. I'd be in favor of rolling back those abuses. But as long as the courts hold that Cannabis grown for personal medical use in ones own home can be considered interstate commerce this challenge doesn't have a chance.
Where the hell were all of you limited government people 5 years ago?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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
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
Claiming people who disagree with you are burning kittens and hate freedom is not an argument.
On the contrary, in politics it seems to be the only argument.
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 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.'