Judge Declares Federal Healthcare Plan (Partly) Unconstitutional 1505
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."
Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not saying he's right or wrong in this matter (the judge seemed to agree with him) but he's one of those guys [huffingtonpost.com] and he's a state Attorney General for Virginia pushing his conservative agenda to a national level.
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:5, Insightful)
..or Attorney General. Oh, wait..
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:4, Informative)
the Attorney General is an elected position in VA, he wasn't appointed.
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
So what?
If I don't like a law, and find a legal ground for challenge does that mean I am obligated to challenge every other law?
Your reasoning here seems sort of daft to me. Of course people are going to only challenge what the don't like. OTHER people will challenge OTHER laws. Some laws receive no challenges because no one is sufficiently upset about them.
And there are obscenity challenges year in and year out, and the standard has changed over time, by edict of the SCOTUS, who (in case you haven't not
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:5, Informative)
The First Amendment didn't originally apply to the states. "Congress shall make no law" and all of that.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were enacted by a radical government out of touch with the principles of the Union; that some of those in the government were also some of the founding fathers does not change that. It would hardly be the first (or last) time a revolutionary government quickly turned away from the principles it espoused during the revolution. The Sedition Act demonstrated Jefferson's point about the need for a Bill of Rights and was denounced as unconstitutional by Jefferson. Naturally, it was widely used against opposition press, though they didn't quite have the chutzpah to try to jail Jefferson himself..
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Look at the other side of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:4, Interesting)
I think if as many as 3 justices think a law is unconstitutional, it should be struck down.
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:5, Insightful)
The same guy that went after Michael Mann [slashdot.org] and others [slashdot.org] after it was thrown out [slashdot.org]. He's a young Republican with an agenda [wikipedia.org] 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!
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed, I half suspected something like this would happen, and as someone as liberal as humanly possible, I am laughing my ass off.
To recap: We should have had single payer system.
Instead, insurance companies, looking to make even more money, promised to insure everyone...but only if everyone was forced to buy from them, so that the healthy couldn't skip out on the deal.
If the latter part of that gets sentence struck down, insurance companies will have to insure anyone who wants it (I.e, who is currently sick) and then, when healthy, the person can just let their insurance lapse, secure in the fact they can just buy more insurance when they need, because insurance companies can no longer deny insurance on any grounds except failure to pay.
I am fucking rolling on the floor laughing. I mean that literally. I read this an hour ago, and it's taken me that long to stop laughing to comment. I had to make a support call during that, and I had serious difficulty not cracking up during it.
You just utterly fucked yourself, insurance companies. Oh, man, oh man.
I hope the teaparty folks take this as a rallying cry, and regardless of how this goes in the court, yell at their congressmen to remove exactly this part of the law.
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Actually, if you read the ruling [turner.com], you'll see that he addressed the issue of severability and decided not to throw out the entire law, only the mandate part.
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
That may well be, but IMO this ruling is a good thing, this health care law is nothing but a boon to the insurance industry. I'd like to see the health insurance industry die, and have a sane system like all the other industrialized countries have.
We have the most expensive health care in the world, but we are not the healthiest people. The insurance industry is an unneeded middleman that is beholden to your employer, not you who actually gets the medical treatments.
The only thing that gives me pause about
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:4, Interesting)
It looks more like the variant of ad hominem known as poisoning the well. Don't attack what the guy is doing now, but detail criticism of what he's done in the past that you disagree with. It's a pretty juvenile tactic, IMO.
And while I'm not saying the OP is a child molester or anything, you should keep in mind that it is pretty common for child molesters to poison wells during discourse. Just saying.
Re: (Score:3)
The only reason he is being singled out here is because the VA suit is the first one that had traction.
First one out of the gate! Woo hoo!
Virginia's attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II, is a man in a big, big hurry. He had promised to challenge the constitutionality of the newly enacted health care legislation "as soon as the ink is dry" on the president's signature. And—true to his word—less than five minutes after the bill was signed this week, Cuccinelli's staff sprinted over to Richmond's federal courthouse with a lawsuit aimed at blocking the measure. While 13 other state attorneys general hoofed it to court to file a joint lawsuit in Florida, Cuccinelli opted to go his own way, filing his own suit tethered to a brand-new Virginia law providing that "no resident of this Commonwealth shall be required to obtain or maintain" an insurance policy.
Quick-Draw Cuccinelli [slate.com]
Why high-speed lawyering can be hazardous to your health.
Re:Filed by Ken Cuccinelli (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Either we have a Constitution, and it applies, or it does not. Can you tell me, exactly where in the Constitution, Congress has the authority to require people to spend any money on anything, save for taxes?
If you clamor about the Commerce Clause I'll scream that Health Insurance is NOT interstate commerce, it is specifically NOT interstate. I can't
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
No. The OP said nothing like that. Democrats said nothing like that. Nobody but you said anything like that. Claiming people who disagree with you are burning kittens and hate freedom is not an argument.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Either we have a Constitution, and it applies, or it does not. Can you tell me, exactly where in the Constitution, Congress has the authority to require people to spend any money on anything, save for taxes?
That would be (amongst others), Article I, Section:
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 that is besides the point, you want universally bad health care for everyone, so Constitution be damned.
My problem with this -- what in the health care bill actually improve things? At the small business where I work, our health insurance costs look to be increasing by 20-30% for our next contract. That's even worse than the increases a few years ago! With regards to affordability, d
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:5, Informative)
>>>That would be (amongst others), Article I, Section [general welfare clause]
The author of the Constitution disagrees with you, and being the author he would know better than anyone what he meant. "There is nothing more natural than to start with a general phrase, and then follow it with a qualifying phrase that narrows its focus to a list of particulars." - James Madison. A decade later he wrote: "To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
In other words the Congress can only exercise the ENUMERATED powers underneath the general welfare clause, not everything under the sun. And if you have doubt of that, simply read amendment 10: "...powers not granted to the US are reserved to the States..." In other words the power to Require Hospital Insurance does not belong to the Congress. It belongs to the 50 State Legislatures.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Relevance to the bill under consideration is what, precisely? Why didn't you negotiate a longer contract term when it was "20-30% less?"
Shouldn't it be obvious? The insurance companies are going to pass all their greatly increased costs on to consumers. Right? I mean, why wouldn't they? You can find many examples of this. There ARE tax credits that will become active in several years that looks like they will offset some of the impact for us, and obviously like always large companies who can swing political impact can get exempted from the health care act all they want...
I am not directly responsible for picking the plans, so it's possible
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:5, Informative)
"... even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
It does not matter if the commerce happens completely within the boundaries of the state, only so long as the activity has an effect on interstate commerce congress can legislate it.
Now what constitutes effect, how much effect on interstate commerce is necessary for it to land under interstate commerce clause has been argued (see US v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr), But I would say that if arguing on the merits that health insurance does not fall under the interstate commerce clause will ultimately fail. This is why the states are raising contest under the requirement to purchase and not solely on the legislations merits of necessary and proper.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Great Job, Republican Judge (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
You're close to flamebait but I'll try to dig you out with a reply.
"Meaningful" means that of all reform passed, there is a subset of that reform which qualifies as health care reform. However, up to now it's been patchwork issues. "Meaningful" reform has been on some five Presidents' agendas and gotten torpedoed by Politics As Usual. The most famous proponent to get crunched was Hillary Clinton. This was just when the Repub's started hitting grand slams with the voters and vowed to crush anything she propo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Great Job, Republican Judge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great Job, Republican Judge (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Great Job, Republican Judge (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Great Job, Republican Judge (Score:5, Insightful)
every single fucking dime they had before they died. that's how much.
And a Liberals perspective... (Score:3, Interesting)
From a Liberals perspective, meaningful health care means you provide free health care to all, the resulting quality of which is so poor only the richest people can have decent health care because anyone who really wants good care pays out of pocket.
Instead of a system where even poor people can buy catastrophic plans to have access to really good health care when needed, the middle class have excellent health care through reasonably priced policies, and you have a safety net of basic coverage for people th
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans like insurance, yes? And they like things to be as inexpensive as possible, yes?
Then Republicans ought to love nationalized health care, as it reduces costs with the power of economic force. Statistics (you know, what people are, from an insurance company's perspective) become more predictable and thus cheaper as the pool of risk grows. Competition is counter-productive in this sphere, because it carves up the pool of risk, and increases the administrative burden. Insurance is not and cannot
Surprise move? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surprise move? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't think it's reasonable to say every citizen must buy a particular product from a small set of private companies
You mean like buying the product (service really) of federal law enforcement? Or do you mean like a whole class of citizens being required to pay into a federally run healthcare system (like medicare)? Sure, healthcare reform is constitutional under a very broad interpretation of the commerce clause, but anything that would strike it down would apply equally to medicare.
...or face onerous tax penalties (and jail time, if unpaid?)
This is a myth. There is no way at all to face jail time for not getting health insurance. You can be fined and you can have your wages g
Re:Surprise move? (Score:4, Insightful)
California. A State, not the Federal Government.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Surprise move? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. An argument could be made that it is absolutely essential to be able to drive in some areas to do important things things like, for example, eating.
The whole reason it was passed in its current form was as a compromise to keep it a private system -- a compromise demanded by the very same people who now are
trying to finagle this as a constitutional issue. Congress could have just increased taxes and had the government buy policies for everyone, or even supplied the health care directly rather than go trough a third party bean counting organization.
This would be the equivalent of taxing you and then spending the money on making sure your food is safe to eat. Nobody seems to be challenging that on constitutional grounds.
Most Americans (not just lefties) are sick and tired of these obstructionist tactics where Republicans try to poison everything that comes out of congress so they can take it to court later. But mostly they are sick and tired from heart disease, cancer, neurological disease, and diabetes. Taking this to the Supremes isn't going to help fix that at all.
Re:Surprise move? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole reason it was passed in its current form was as a compromise to keep it a private system -- a compromise demanded by the very same people who now are trying to finagle this as a constitutional issue. Congress could have just increased taxes and had the government buy policies for everyone, or even supplied the health care directly rather than go trough a third party bean counting organization.
This.
As I said elsewhere, there are only three ways to make everyone have health insurance(1):
a) Remove all insurance companies, have only a government run plan, aka, single payer. Republicans killed it.
b) Have a public option that covers people who insurance companies won't insure (Like, oh, me.) Republicans killed it.
c) Require insurance companies to insure everyone, even people with pre-existing conditions. Which, as would rightly pointed out, destroy insurance companies as people would wait until they were sick to get insurance...so we required everyone to have insurance.
There were no other solution to 'insure people insurance companies will not insure'. None. No one has any other solutions, and Republicans killed two of the three. They don't get to bitch about the third.
Well, okay, they're allowed to bitch if their bitching removes the one thing keeping insurance companies from being destroyed...then I'll be right alongside them, pretending to be a tea party member, complaining about how we have to buy insurance and that part of the law needs repealing. And I'll stand there and watch their judges strike down that part of the law, and cheer that on also.
And then I will watch insurance companies burn.
Mwuhahahaha.
1) Which we've decided to do for some reason, when the actual problem is people need health care. But our national debate has gotten so fucked up we can't even talk about that.
Re:Surprise move? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two kinds of people in this country: Those who are happy with their insurance, and those who have had a major sickness.
As you are in the former, I suggest you locate someone in the latter and actually talk to them.
And while you probably missed it, there's actually a third group who can't get insurance at all, of which I'm a member of.
And before you start with some slander about how I didn't try to buy insurance until I was sick, or don't 'exercise', which you apparently think is all you need to make you healthy, I will point I was born with my condition, and the second my mother's insurance company was able to drop me, they did, and I have been unable to buy insurance since.
And, while I'm at it, I will point out that I have no medical debts at all, and am freeloading in no way...in fact, you guys with insurance are freeloading off me, because I'm paying three times as much for medical services as your insurance companies have 'negotiated' with health care providers.
That is the system you don't want to change. The one in which you're fine...if you're healthy.
Re:Surprise move? (Score:5, Informative)
The fact is, and I'm clearly speaking from experience, Obamacare is bad for EVERYONE.
Except for me, who can now (Well, as of 2013) purchase insurance when I could not before because they wouldn't sell it to me.
I love how people just keep making blanket statement about how no one is better off, despite the fact that I repeatedly say that I am.
And, um, incidentally, Obamacare hasn't gone into effect yet.
If your insurance company is claiming that's why premiums went up, they are lying. They do not have to change their behavior and allow people with pre-existing conditions until 2013.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Although... Hospital ERs (at least in Virginia) are required to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. Payment gets worked out later. Expenses for those that cannot pay get shifted to the rest of us. So treatment is basically a right. With rights come responsibilities.
Abolish the right to treatment and I'll go along with your argument.
Re: (Score:3)
Your statements contradict each other. So you'd be OK with requiring everyone to pay taxes to support health
Re:Surprise move? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's surprising when the constitutionality of *ANY* measure the federal government takes is called into question. If we really read the constitution, very, very little of what our government does is authorized. The real question is not whether this bill is unconstitutional, most laws are unconstitutional. The question is why does this law get questioned, when other laws that are just as clearly unconstitutional get a pass?
Re:Surprise move? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you like living in a third world nation maybe. We would have no interstate highway, the Internet would never have been invented, and many places might still not even have electricity. Truly a wonderland, like Somalia.
Re:Surprise move? (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm actually, the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways disagrees with you, as it was built for military purposes and thus is well within the constitutional bounds of government. Also, it does facilitate and aid interstate commerce, while still being managed by the states.
The internet? Again, developed for the military, and then expanded to allow for private use. And electricity was completely private and had no issues until the government forced a monopoly, and I think it should go back to being deregulated.
I Love Your IDEA!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surprise move? (Score:5, Insightful)
The clause in question does NOT really criminalize failure to get insurance, it simply requires those that fail to buy a insurance to pay the government cash.
Just as the government can put a tax on you doing something, they can put a tax on you not doing something. Just as the government can say "we give everyone that have children a tax reduction", that same government can say "We give everyone that buys health care, a tax reduction."
The only problem here is a bunch of morons are too stupid to think their own argument through. They get caught up in words like 'require' but don't bother to look at what the law actually does.
The fact that the government choose to use words that sound like they are criminalizing it does not affect the actual content of the law. The fact that you can't find anything at all actually wrong with the law forces you to concentrate on irrelavant crap.
Re:Surprise move? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>The clause in question does NOT really criminalize failure to get insurance, it simply requires those that fail to buy a insurance to pay the government cash.
Sounds like a fine to me. Where in the Constitution was Congress given power to interfere with INTRAstate commerce between Me and my Doctor or hospital? Answer: No where. Such interference is specifically limited to the STATE Legislature per amendment 10.
If you still think your stance is reasonable, consider if the Congress started charging people $1000 extra per year if they failed to buy a solar roof. Or a Microsoft Operating System. Or a General Motors car. Or ..... Still think your stance is reasonable? Once the precedent is set (fines for failure to buy a product) then there's no limit to what the Congress can "nudge" us to buy.
Anyway I hold to Jefferson and Madison's opinion that the US was meant to have a FEW enumerated powers, while most of the powers remained with the Member States. Just like the modern EU.
Re: (Score:3)
As for charging people an extra $1,00 per year if they failed to buy a solar roof... THEY ALREADY DO THAT YOU!
The fact that you are too stupid to tell the difference between raising everyone's taxes by $1,000 and then offering a $1,000 tax refund for buying a solar roof and instead just stra
Re:Surprise move? (Score:5, Insightful)
No because I'm a Pro-Choice person and this is anti-choice. It's forcing me to buy a product I don't want. It's no choice.
I can avoid the car insurance requirement by simply not driving, but there's no way for me to stop existing. I object to being forced to fall on my knees and suck Nationwide or Allstate or any other Corporation's phallus ("oh please sell my insurance & rape my wallet of $5000 Mr. CEO, else government will fine me"), especially in a country that is supposedly "free" and "celebrates liberty". That is not liberty. That is being demoted to a Serf (someone else runs your life and you are just a puppet).
Okay maybe I went a little overboard there. But hopefully it made you think. This requirement is nothing more than Corporate Welfare giving them guaranteed sales to 110 million homes. (I thought Democrats were against that?)
No, it's forcing you to pay a tax, something the government does for all sorts of reasons. In this case it's to ensure that everyone has health care coverage. You can avoid paying this tax by purchasing health care coverage for yourself. Object to the tax if you like, but someone has to pay for covering health care costs, and unless we're going to start turning people away from emergency care (the most expensive kind of care there is), that someone is government, via taxes. Personally, I think a single-payer system would be more efficient and serve us better, but the Republicans managed to shoot that down before we even got started, so now we end up with a system that benefits the insurance companies more than anyone else really. Sadly it's still better than what we have now, and I haven't heard of a better solution from the Republicans yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the distinction between unbounded taxation and compulsion can be a false one.
For example, if the government taxes me at 100% because I don't (for example) want to wear pink pajamas, then I'll be unable to provide adequate care for my children, and they can be taken away. Or it could make me homeless, which coupled with anti-loitering laws coul
Re:Surprise move? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's depressing is that you guys seem to have ended up with the worst of all possible health systems.
the expense, the inefficiency and the overall terribleness of a private system combined with the expense, the inefficiency and the overall terribleness of a public system.
Avoiding the advantages of either and getting the disadvantages of both.
This wouldn't be a problem with single payer. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Before you pat yourself on the back... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Before you pat yourself on the back... (Score:5, Insightful)
Call it a "corporate handout" if you want, but the logic behind it is this: you can't require private insurers to accept new customers with pre-existing conditions (which the health reform does -- and this is probably its most popular provision) without requiring everyone to buy health insurance. Otherwise, people would just stay uninsured until they got sick, and the whole health insurance industry would collapse. Essentially, this is the only way that you can get a system with universal coverage that is entirely based on private insurance.
If this provision doesn't hold, you may get your single payer coverage sooner than you think.
Re:Before you pat yourself on the back... (Score:5, Insightful)
Essentially, this is the only way that you can get a system with universal coverage that is entirely based on private insurance.
Which is precisely the problem here: we do not have a public option. The public option would have represented actual progress on getting universal coverage, and we did not pass it. Instead, we decided to pass yet another bill that enriches large corporations, rather than a bill that would have actually benefited America. This provision should never have even been discussed because it only makes sense if the interests of private insurance companies are a priority.
Re: (Score:3)
increasing the number of Democrat voters by increasing the size of the insured pool
That statement makes no sense, whatsoever. Why would people suddenly want to vote democratic if they just purchased insurance? More likely they would be angry at the democrats for forcing them into a broken system...
all so Obama can declare to his supporters that he passed "the most meaningful healthcare reform in the country's history,"
That is crap. Amongst Obama voters nothing that he has done so far has been as monumentally disappointing as the health insurance bailout act. Have you actually looked at the polls? In most polls that ask people how they view the bill, half of the people who oppose it, oppose it for not g
Conservatives to start... (Score:5, Funny)
.complaining about activist judges in 3...2... ...no? Really?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand why people continue to trot out this old trope.
The question is: Is the judge determining, as best he can, whether the constitution grants the government the power to do a specific action; or is he simply substituting his *own personal policy preferences.*
Simply the fact that he is striking down a law doesn't mean anything. That's part of a judge's job.
- AJ
Partisan politics sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Already lost my hope for sanity in the U.S. (Score:3)
Next they probably rule that being poor is unconstitutional because you cannot buy enough stuff and therefore damage the economy which seems to be the only important factor in the U.S.
Meanwhile I realized that the difference between Obama as president and McCain is probably not much more than the color of their skin. They are both spineless idiots that just follow the way that money leads them. I guess the only way to go for you guys is further down the same road that you apparently chose as the only truth: money, money, money. Will be interesting to see where that will lead you to. I presume civil war at some point when the gap between the rich and the poor has reach a level where the masses won't shut up anymore and even tanks and armed forces will be the lesser evil compared to poverty and the lack of a proper future.
This happened because of taxaphobia (Score:5, Interesting)
If he had simply put a tax increase in the bill to pay for it, it would be totally constitutional. That was not possible from a political PoV, so they came up with the individual mandate.
IMHO, the fatal flaw with the bill is that it doesn't (as a first step) try the low-cost solutions to fixing our system:
1. Abolish the anti-trust exemptions for health insurers. Yes. You heard me. I bet you didn't even know that so-called "progressives" are so ready, willing and able to ignore one of the key ideas of the original Progressive Era, circa 1900.
2. Price transparency. In most states you can't even check to see if you're being ripped off because price lists are secret!
3. Eliminate provider networks. All insurers must pay the same rates from all providers, and must accept claims from any licensed practitioner.
4. Uniform, standard billing codes.
2, 3 and 4 would combine to reveal the regime in ways heretofore unseen, a veritable Wikileak of our current healthcare insanity. It would also help to eliminate over-billing of our current government programs.
None of these very low cost alternatives got on the table. Instead, not only were the inneficient inscos not punished, they were actually rewarded with the individual mandate! It's just another example of how powerful interests have bought government.
Re:This happened because of taxaphobia (Score:4, Interesting)
If he had simply put a tax increase in the bill to pay for it, it would be totally constitutional. That was not possible from a political PoV, so they came up with the individual mandate.
IMHO, the fatal flaw with the bill is that it doesn't (as a first step) try the low-cost solutions to fixing our system:
1. Abolish the anti-trust exemptions for health insurers. Yes. You heard me. I bet you didn't even know that so-called "progressives" are so ready, willing and able to ignore one of the key ideas of the original Progressive Era, circa 1900.
2. Price transparency. In most states you can't even check to see if you're being ripped off because price lists are secret!
3. Eliminate provider networks. All insurers must pay the same rates from all providers, and must accept claims from any licensed practitioner.
4. Uniform, standard billing codes.
2, 3 and 4 would combine to reveal the regime in ways heretofore unseen, a veritable Wikileak of our current healthcare insanity. It would also help to eliminate over-billing of our current government programs.
None of these very low cost alternatives got on the table. Instead, not only were the inneficient inscos not punished, they were actually rewarded with the individual mandate! It's just another example of how powerful interests have bought government.
Wow....absolutely great post!
I'll add to #2. IMHO, one of the reasons why healthcare costs so much is because the costs are hidden. Doctors should be required to tell you how much something is going to cost BEFORE ordering a test, prescribing something, etc... They should even be required to tell you how much a doctor's visit is going to cost when you make your appointment. Make the costs as visible as possible, and let us decide if it's worth it. If a cancer treatment costs $100,000 per year, and only has a slim chance of extending our life, tell us that and let us decide. There should be none of this "well figure out how to bill you later". And you get multiple bills in the mail, so you're never even sure you've paid the entire balance because something else could come next week. No other industry operates like this. Imagine if every time you took your car to be fixed, you weren't told how much it was going to cost. Instead, you'd only find out how much it cost after the bills for the service stopped coming in the mail at some point in the future.
Let's bring everyone on the same page (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You hit the nail on the head.
The judge is an idiot.
He's in a country where the hospitals are REQUIRED to treat the sick, regardless of their insurance status.
A law requiring insurance is only logical, and fair.
Re: (Score:3)
Having lived under both systems I dont think you are too far off, as far as you go, although there are salient disadvantages to to your B system you dont mention, they dont change the equation so radically as to make what you write garbage.
However like everyone else you insist on ignoring the possibility of a system C, a free-market in health care. This is a "non-starter" politically because no wealthy PACs would get a free ride on it, of course, so I understand why they dont want to talk about it, but for
Re:Let's bring everyone on the same page (Score:4, Interesting)
"the reason why the medical system is broken in the USA is because of the terribly unhealthy advice we give for diet from the USDA"
False. I lived in New Zealand, where the obesity rates are comparable (maybe slightly less but not much so) than in the USA. Their national health care system worked just fine in these circumstances. It's true that the average cost to everyone was certainly higher because of people's poor personal health choices; but the costs were still reasonable.
Let me tell you the few things that were markedly different between the way things worked there and the way they work here (in the USA):
1. In New Zealand, the doctors focus on patient needs rather than on fights with insurance companies. My wife is a doctor and while working in New Zealand she spent 100% of her day with patients (well, as close as 100% as is possible in any job). Here in the USA she spends a *considerable* chunk of her time every day fighting with insurance companies (directly on the phone, or by proxy via stupid policies that she has to adhere to). This is a *cost* to the system because doctors are being paid a certain percentage of their very expensive time in the USA to deal with stuff that shouldn't even be a question, or at least wouldn't be in a national health care system.
2. Doctors are respected in New Zealand and are treated with respect, much more so than in the USA. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but I think that part of it is expectation that people in the USA have that doctors should do whatever they want them to because they (the patient) are *paying* for the services (via their insurance costs). Doctors are happier and more effective when there is some respect for their knowledge and skill; it's easier to treat patients correctly when they *listen* to the doctor because the doctor has some authority, than when the patients potentially ignore doctor advice - or are even downright hostile to it.
3. The hospital sytem in New Zealand is set up to effectively and efficiently care for patients of different needs because it's all managed and costs and needs can be anticipated ahead of time. Here in the USA my wife is constantly complaining about all of the stupid and time-(and MONEY-)wasting patient shuffling they have to do. She works at a private hospital and thus they have to (by law) accept any patient that walks in the emergency room, even if that patient can't pay. The government supposedly provides county hospitals that will take these patients once they are in stable condition for transfer, but in practice the county hospitals are not funded well enough and so they fight to take as few patients as possible. So you end up with all of this fighting between hospitals to try to offload 'deadbeat' patients to each other. All of this is overhead for the system and is just totally a waste. The private hospital ends up having to milk as much as it can from paying patients to make up for the deadbeats. So you end up with even more inefficiency because they have to have policies in place that make them the most money - for example, routinely running tests that may not actually be called for in all cases - just to balance out non-payers. So they end up doing 'busywork' (unnecessary tests) just so that they can get paid for something, which once again sucks a certain percentage of their productivity away.
4. Doctors in New Zealand actually have authority over end-of-life decisions. Which means that when a 90 year old patient with severe dementia, no contact with reality, living only in the pain of end stage cancer and with no hope of survival, starts bleeding uncontrollably, the doctor in New Zealand can actually make the decision to allow the patient to die. In the USA this decision can *only* be made by the patient's family, who will, of course, ask for no expense to be spared in saving the life of their loved one. This easy for them because there is no actual expense *to them*, just to 'the system'. So in the USA you have a system where the people m
Re: (Score:3)
Two other Federal judges disagree (Score:4, Informative)
It is worth noting that while this judge says that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, two other Federal judges (one in Michigan [nytimes.com], and one from a different case in Virginia [nytimes.com]) have said that it is just fine. This will doubtless go all the way up to the Supreme Court.
The Right to Choose (Score:5, Interesting)
Quoting Judge Hudson, "At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."
The problem with his perspective, is that the eventual goal of universal healthcare is aimed at prevention. Not matter how incomplete the current health care bill is, the eventual goal is to decrease high cost of health care associated with late complications of TREATABLE diseases.
If you are sick right now in this country and you walk into an emergency room, they are obligated to treat you. You can't not be turned down for care if you can't not pay, so long as the care is necessary. So if you can't pay and you have no insurance, somebody's gotta suck up the cost. Doctors, nurses and pharmacists arn't going to work full time jobs for free. Guess who has to pay? The taxpayers, through government giving hospitals checks so they don't go bankrupt.
Now take Billy Bob, he is a 40 y/o truck driver, smokes 1 pack a day. He has no health insurance, so he doesn't see a doctor. No one tells him to quit smoking. He has hypertension, but he doesn't get treated because he feels fine and doesn't see a doctor. At Age 50 he develops diabetes, he feels crappy from time to time but he doesn't see a doctor(no insurance) At Age 58 he has an heart attack, get sent to the ER. They find he can't be cathed, and has to go through a bypass procedure. Except he is also is in chronic renal failure from chronic diabetes and hypertension. To save his life they do a bypass and his kidney is shot for good. He stays in the ICU for 2 weeks sick as a dog after his surgery, because
he has COPD and his lungs won't work. Then he gets to go home but is living on dialysis. At age 60 he has a big head bleed from all the anticoagulants he takes for his heart. He goes back to the hospital and slow waste away after a Tracheostomy and PEG(Percutaneous endoscopic gastrotomy or feeding tube.) He dies six weeks later in a nursing home from pneumonia.
Was his care good? Absolutely, top notch care, they did everything right. Except for the last 2 years his life sucked, and he died a miserable death. What's his cost of care? It's probably more than Billy Bob ever made in his entire life. And taxpayers are paying for it.
So what's the alternative? Billy Bob has insurance, he sees a doctor. He can't quit smoking but at least he start taking his blood pressure pills and his diabetes pills. His first heart attack comes at age 68 but he is not as sick so his bypass goes much smoother. He get scared and finally quit smoking. Great, that's a lot more years on his life, that he can enjoy. A lot more years where he is contributing to society by driving a truck. And as a Tax payer...I like the fact that ten years of blood pressure pill and insulin still cost a hell of a lot less than Emergency Bypass+ICU+Diaysis+Trach PEG and nursing home. I think if Billy Bob had to pick, he'd pick this route as well.
That is why everyone should have insurance. Now the other alternative is stop paying for Emergency Care. Grandma has an appendicitis? No insurance...let her die. You wife get shot in a drive by? No insurance...bleed to death. Your kid came out with some rare genetic disease that's gonna cost tens of thousands to fix? No insurance...good luck. You can crawl to the doorsteps of the ER, and they'll shut the door on you if you can't pay.
But are we ready for this kind of society? I don't think we are...yet.
So since I am a taxpayer, and I have to pay for people who can't pay...I rather pay less. So what is wrong with universal health care? Every dumb idiot out there who isn't covered and seeing a doctor, is making me pay more out of my pocket. Because when they are sick enough, they all come to the hospital.
I disagree with Judge Hudson, it's not about an individual's right to choose to participate. It's about if I have to pay taxes, I like to pay less.
Oh well, this bill was crappy anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
What really needed to be done is:
1. Single payer system for basic healthcare. You can't have surgeons and insurance company execs who drive Ferraris and reduced healthcare cost at the same time. No pain - no gain, something's gotta give. In the system where the normal pricing rules don't work (because prices aren't even advertised, and you won't bargain anyway when it's your health or life that's on the line), someone has to have the authority to fight the more extravagant examples of creative pricing (i.e. pharmaceuticals that cost 1/10th the price once you cross either of the borders)
2. All premium services (i.e. shit you wouldn't die from if denied care) require separate insurance, with stiff premiums.
3. A separate, progressive, mandatory federal income tax for healthcare (and yes, I know it would hit me disproportionally, since I make quite a bit).
4. To reduce the tax burden, reduce Pentagon budget by 4/5ths or more and get out of fucking Afghanistan. Winning there is _not possible_. If we're so into spending money we don't have, let's at least spend it on things that matter.
5. Put the Congress and the Senate on the same insurance plans as what their constituents have. Not gold-plated, diamond encrusted Cadillac plans they pay $0 for right now. Make them feel the pain of the common man.
Re:Could someone kindly explain (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In the US (and other common law countries) laws can be ruled unconstitutional by the judiciary. Should a law be challenged and get high enough, it can essentially be repealed by the supreme court.
Re: (Score:3)
The house essentially creates the law, and must pass it. It then goes to the senate which can revise it. In practice these tend to go on at the same time. Once it passes the house and the senate, the president can pass or veto it (veto only makes it require a larger margin).
Laws that authorize the spending of money *must* originate in the House (per the Constitution). All other types of laws can originate in either the House or the Senate.
In the US (and other common law countries) laws can be ruled unconstitutional by the judiciary. Should a law be challenged and get high enough, it can essentially be repealed by the supreme court.
Note that nowhere in the Constitution is this authority explicitly granted to the judiciary. It's not explicitly granted to *anyone*. But early in the country's history, the Supreme Court arbitrarily decided that it was the the job of the judiciary to judge the constitutionality of laws, and since it's been 200 or so years without anyone a
Re:Could someone kindly explain (Score:5, Informative)
At a very rudimentary level . . . A bill can be introduced in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. After being passed in one, it must then be passed by the other before it is sent to the President, who can sign the bill into law or veto it. If one chamber has added amendments that the other didn't, or if the two chambers have passed bills that are similar but not exactly the same, then the differences must be worked out by a conference committee and the compromise bill re-passed before it can be signed.
Any law can be challenged as being unconstitutional - you just need somebody with standing to file the appropriate suit in the appropriate court.
The judge is not "messing with the law", he is making a judgment on whether or not it violates the Constitution.
Re:Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How can this possibly be surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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?
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
Healthcare is not a personal liberty, it's someone else's goods and services.
Talk about piracy...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what about roads?
Police service? Fire Dept?
All of those are someones goods and services.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please define what a "human right" is, in terms that can be applied to anyone that is stranded on an island all by themselves.
My point, a RIGHT cannot be SECURED by the TAKING from one, and GIVING to another. Rights are SELF evident, meaning they don't require anything from anyone else.
If, however, you believe that a RIGHT can be secured by the TAKING from another, then I suggest that you lock your kidneys up, because someone's right to LIFE might require them to TAKE your kidney, regardless of how you feel
Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Before Obamacare you could get medical assistance with having a baby or if your life is endangered regardless if you are a citizen or not.
I take it you mean that in an emergency you can go to the ER. There are at least 2 major problems with that:
1. The ER is the #1 most expensive way to treat patients. If the cost isn't paid by the patient, it's going to get paid by everybody else via higher prices. For instance, a typical ER visit is in the range of $300-$500. A typical office visit is closer to $150 to $200.
2. If you do need to get treatment for life-threatening issues, it could well cost you not only everything you own, but everything you'
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody goes to the ER for a minor issue that takes a few minutes of work and 15 minutes of discussion to clear up.
Actually, yes, sometimes they do. If your only source of medical care is the ER, and you have a sore wrist, you go to the ER. Is it stupid? You betcha. But that doesn't stop them from doing it.
The real issue is the total cost of medical care period. It doesn't matter how it's delivered.
Did I not just point out that ER visits are at least twice as expensive as doctor office visits? That was exactly point 1.
Re:When was the last time our government (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
This law basically says you have to have health insurance. Period. Big difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
First: That's a state law. The healthcare bill is a federal law. For auto insurance to fall afoul of the judiciary, it would have to be shown to violate the constitution of the *state* where the law mandates that purchase.
Second: In *some states* you are obligated to by auto insurance as a condition of registering a car and being allowed to operate it. If you don't want to buy auto insurance, there's a very simple way to opt out: move to a city, take public transit everywhere, and don't own a car.
Do y