Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Healthcare Law Appealed To Supreme Court

Posted by samzenpus on from the just-a-matter-of-time dept.

26 states and a small business group have filed separate appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to strike down Obama's 2010 healthcare law. In August, an appeals court in Atlanta ruled that the individual insurance requirement was unconstitutional, making it almost certain that the bill would go to the Supreme Court. From the article: "The Obama administration earlier this week said it decided against asking the full U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit to review the August ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that found the insurance requirement unconstitutional. That decision cleared the way for the administration to go to the Supreme Court. The administration has said it believes the law will be upheld in court while opponents say it represents an unconstitutional encroachment of federal power."

21 of 1,019 comments (clear)

  1. What other products by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What other products will they eventually mandate that we buy from corporations, purely by virtue of existing?

    1. Re:What other products by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Clothes. Try walking around town naked and homeless.

    2. Re:What other products by Gr33nJ3ll0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seatbelts, and motorcycle helmets are a couple of good examples.

    3. Re:What other products by tysonedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The distinction here is that health care is pretty vital to "promote the general Welfare" (US Constition - Preamble)
      welfare |welfe()r| (noun)
      the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group

      To that end, it seems pretty obvious that the founders of the United States cared enough about the health of it's citizens.

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    4. Re:What other products by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem isn't that we're mandated to buy it. The problem is that it's a mandatory service that *SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT*.

      I'm ok with being denied service based on my wages for a lot of things but when it comes to life saving medicine I don't see that as a "would be nice" feature.

      This goes back to the "Do you let them die?" question. Should a hospital let someone bleeding to death die in their Emergency Room if they have no insurance? I think except for at republican debates the answer is "no".

      So we've accepted that getting medical treatment is guaranteed.

      I'm going to probably shock people with this but you're already required to buy all manner of things. Do you want airbags? Too bad, buy a car and you get them. Do you want a life raft space for you on all cruise trips? Too bad, you have to buy one.

      Now yes you can choose to not drive a car or ride a boat but you can't choose to not be born. And once born our medical system is your life's liferaft.

    5. Re:What other products by RingDev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand, we are forced to pay for Healthcare of others. It's already a socialized system. No one will be turned away from an emergency room. And our payments are bloated to cover the loss from uninsured patients and set-cost payments (medicare).

      So if I'm already forced to subsidize everyone else, why shouldn't they be forced to either subsidize along with me (the socially responsible choice) or to pay a penalty, to atleast put some skin in the game.

      It is unfortunate that we don't have much for non-profit or a government option. Because I'm getting pretty sick of paying 20 cents on the dollar to pay Cigna's CEO's pay check while getting raked for $20k+ a year in health care expenses.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    6. Re:What other products by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have been in single payer nations, never saw such thing. Are you paid by the insurers or are you their lackey for free?

    7. Re:What other products by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People do not have to wait for life threatening care with single payer, just non-immediately needed procedures sometimes. Stop your ignorant talking points.

      What we have now is wealthcare. The wealthy like the fact that they get quicker service for non life threatening care by removing millions of people from being able to access care at all. That's not equal opportunity for all.

    8. Re:What other products by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes it is. Move to Canada or Europe if you're so in love with socialism programs.

      Move to Somalia if you want to live in a libertarian fantasy land.

      Or we could both acknowledge that a country's healthcare system is just one small aspect of where you want to live.

    9. Re:What other products by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With regards to your question... the federal government does not mandate automobile insurance for drivers on the interstates. The federal government mandates compliance with state laws on the interstates, and not all states require automobile insurance (just proof of assets equal to state liability minimums, such as Wisconsin.)

      Are you often caught arguing without the facts?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    10. Re:What other products by Chowderbags · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

      Article 1, Section 8

    11. Re:What other products by compro01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Paul said no, but the screaming nuts in the audience certainly said yes.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    12. Re:What other products by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      No one will be turned away from an emergency room.

      I beg to differ. Some years ago, one of my cousins was turned away from ER. He was uninsured of course, or he probably would have seen a doctor a lot sooner. He was suffering from terrible headaches, couldn't even sit down because that made the pounding worse. He died the next day, presumably from an aneurysm in his head. He was about 45 years old. ER might not have been able to save him, who knows? But it should never have escalated to that point. Could he have been saved if he'd had access to basic health care months before his problem reached the crisis point, when he himself probably didn't think it was anything serious?

      Everyone seems aware of the problems with health insurance. But hardly anyone bashes the medical providers for their crazy billing practices. It's insane, and downright fraudulent the way doctors run the business. You see very few prices up front. They claim they can't give you any price until they know more. Maybe, but there are plenty of known prices they keep from you until well after the fact. If you ask about the price, they'll tell you not to worry (bad for your health, maybe?) insurance will cover it. Then they sometimes demand that you sign a blank check. They push you to sign a form that says you'll pay for something if insurance doesn't. And they won't tell you the price even when it's for something easy. They pulled that one on us for a wheelchair, and not a motorized one either, that turned out to be just over $800. Another stunt they pulled on us was having us keep a medical device for an extra week, unused, without informing us that it cost $1100 per week to rent!

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  2. Ridiculous argument by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's clearly established that the US government can force you to pay a tax for services you never use. The health care law is less restrictive than that. It still forces you to pay, but you can choose the entity you pay. If the government can force you to buy something from a single source, then it certainly should be able to force you to buy something from one of many sources.

    However, I have no reason to believe that the Supreme Court will come to the obvious and logical conclusion here. That's not their job. Their job is to provide legal cover for the corporate agenda.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  3. Single-payer, like Medicare, would have been fine by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Single-payer national health insurance, like Medicare, would have had no constitutional problems. If the "public option" had been retained in the bill, it might have ended up as the only option.

    That's not a bad thing; Medicare's overhead is about 3%, while private insurers run a lot higher.

  4. Should have gone with single payer.... by Beelzebud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only way this will ever get better in the U.S. is when we have a single payer system, that covers everyone. There is simply no excuse for us to not have it. This is what has been most disappointing about Obama. He's passing center-right and right wing policies (mandates were originally the Republican idea, folks, Clinton rejected it in the 90's), and The Left is taking the blame for it. If we had a real liberal in there, he would have fought for "Medicare For All", and not a 1990's Republican plan.

    1. Re:Should have gone with single payer.... by Above · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've long thought the best thing for health care in this country would be for the law to be struck down. Too many people in this down economy already like provisions of it (no pre-existing conditions, keeping kids on your insurance longer). Were it to be unconstitutional I think there would be a large swell of folks pushing for them to find some way to re-establish the law and make it constitutional.

      Single payer becomes the obvious choice. It may be that the way to single payer is to lose in the Supreme Court.

    2. Re:Should have gone with single payer.... by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Simple economic theory dictates that one provider = higher costs. Many providers = competition = lower costs. But feel free to enjoy your liberal pipe dream.

      Speaking of pipe dreams, explain why no one in France loses their house due to medical bankruptcies. Explain why other countries spend 1/3 as much as the U.S. does while receiving better care. Explain why Cuba has comparable health stats to the U.S. while spending less than $300 per patient per year. Explain why men in their twenties die in the U.S. from an infection that spread from a goddamn toothache, because they couldn't afford to have it treated.

      Explain why a for-profit system that depends on increasing your premiums while denying your claims is magically "more efficient" than a system where you get what you pay for: health CARE.

    3. Re:Should have gone with single payer.... by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Funny that you mention the pre-existing conditions bit - that is what drove the requirement for everybody to have insurance or pay a tax.

      It is a compromise:

      1. Insurance companies are forced to sell insurance to everybody whether they want to or not.
      2. People are forced to buy insurance, whether they want to or not.

      You can't really have the one without the other. Insurers would either go out of business, or policies would become far more unaffordable than they already are.

      There is no way the courts would strike this down. If they did insurers would just start denying pre-existing conditions again, and then fight that out in the courts for another 5 years while people die untreated in hospitals. One way or another they'd find a loophole since anything else would be financial suicide.

  5. Perfectly reasonable. by pavon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Except the Constitution explicitly gives congress the power to collect taxes. It is not at all clear that it has the power to "mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die".

    All laws where similar things are done (such as requiring car insurance, requiring contractors to be licensed and bonded,etc), differ in significant ways. Some are enforced by the state, not the federal government, who have different powers granted to them. Some only apply when participating in an arguably optional activity not to everyone alive. Some are only required to engage in business, and thus more clearly fall under the interstate commerce act. This is an open legal question, one that was bound to challenged when the law was passed. The faster it gets resolved in the Supreme Court the better.

    However, I have no reason to believe that the Supreme Court will come to the obvious and logical conclusion here. That's not their job.

    No it isn't their job. Their job is to interpret the law and constitution as it is written, not according their own personal opinion/logic nor yours.

  6. Re:Queues? by Fallingcow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, considering how big a boost single payer or similar would be to economic mobility and entrepreneurship Free Market(tm) loving Republicans should be clambering for it. Trading a shitty "freedom" like picking which insurance company rapes you for a better one like dramatically improved job mobility is a no-brainer, and pretty much the exact kind of thing we have government in the first place.

    Any Free Market worshipper who wouldn't support something like single payer is almost certainly a hopeless ideologue ("who cares that the end is closer to my proclaimed goal, the means to get there are technically counter to my idea of how things should work so screw the whole thing!"), a lying douchebag shill, or a complete dumbass. Maybe all three.

    Want to help the "job creators" hire people? Enact a "socialist" health care law modeled on any of a couple dozen successful systems tomorrow and watch as 50,000 new businesses show up seemingly out of no-where, wages rise, health care costs drop, and offshoring slows.