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."

9 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.