A U.S. District Court judge has declared that mandating citizens to purchase health insurance is
unconstitutional and commented as follows
Quote:
"Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market," he wrote. "In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]
i'm not going to comment on the bill as a whole, but this one aspect being unconstitutional seemed a bit obvious, and i'm suprised nobody has formally mentioned it before now.
shmibs wrote:
i'm not going to comment on the bill as a whole, but this one aspect being unconstitutional seemed a bit obvious, and i'm suprised nobody has formally mentioned it before now.
Actually, the Tea Party was using this as one of its top hot topics. Two other judges have declared it constitutional in Virginia and Michigan, though.
Not only is this unconstitutional, but this goes against the basic human right to make our own decisions, in my opinion. I will be anxiously waiting to see how this turns out.
tifreak8x wrote:
shmibs wrote:
i'm not going to comment on the bill as a whole, but this one aspect being unconstitutional seemed a bit obvious, and i'm suprised nobody has formally mentioned it before now.
Actually, the Tea Party was using this as one of its top hot topics. Two other judges have declared it constitutional in Virginia and Michigan, though.
Not only is this unconstitutional, but this goes against the basic human right to make our own decisions, in my opinion. I will be anxiously waiting to see how this turns out.
The problem with this logic is that you can't "choose" to not be part of the healthcare system any more than you can "choose" to stop breathing oxygen. Sooner or later, you ARE going to need to see a doctor or go to a hospital, either for illness, or injury, and when that happens, who then has to pay for it if you don't have insurance? I don't like it either, but the alternative is to stick tax-payers with YOUR medical bills because you decided to be a stubborn a. You also can't have a private insurance market, AND outlaw pre-existing conditions without a mandate, as without a mandate people simply won't buy insurance until they're sick, and healthcare providers would go out of business. If we were allowed to have a public option(or even better, a fully integrated and steamlined universal system), we wouldn't even need a pre-existing condition clause, but noooooo that's a "sociofascist takeover!"
Quote:
Sooner or later, you ARE going to need to see a doctor or go to a hospital, either for illness, or injury, and when that happens, who then has to pay for it if you don't have insurance?
Umm.. that would be me? o.O Wow, that problem was solved.
and yes, I can choose not to be part of the government's health care system. I haven't seen a doctor in 14 years. I get sick once every 3 years. I pay for my own dental and eye work. I eat healthy (most of the time) and I take care of my body, to some extent. So why in the world do I need to pay into a system that I will most likely never, ever use? Where is the logic in that?
What if you need an organ transplantation, for example? Those events are pretty unlikely, but for the people that need them, it is in the vast majority of cases unaffordable. Medical issues like this ruin people's lives.
In Europe, this is obvious and we've had that kind of health care for years.
tifreak8x wrote:
Quote:
Sooner or later, you ARE going to need to see a doctor or go to a hospital, either for illness, or injury, and when that happens, who then has to pay for it if you don't have insurance?
Umm.. that would be me? o.O Wow, that problem was solved.
and yes, I can choose not to be part of the government's health care system. I haven't seen a doctor in 14 years. I get sick once every 3 years. I pay for my own dental and eye work. I eat healthy (most of the time) and I take care of my body, to some extent. So why in the world do I need to pay into a system that I will most likely never, ever use? Where is the logic in that?
Let's say I beat the sh!t out of you(and leave the country, so you can't pin the bill on me), or you get hit by a couple stray bullets that can't be linked to anyone, and you're in the hospital for several months with a bill exceeding your yearly salary. Now who's paying for your medical care?
EDIT- lets do an even more practical example. You're 53 and have prostate cancer(it effects 1 in 3 men). Between all the scans needed to diagnose it, and the expense of the surgery, laser treatments, chemotherapy needed to treat it, your bill exceeds $300,000. I doubt you make nearly that much in a year, or that you have that much in savings, so your only options at that point(not having any insurance) are to either declare bankruptcy, or (preferably) kill yourself. Either way, the hospital doesn't get any money out of you, so now they have to pass the cost on to the tax-payer. You can't get out of medical care any more than you can get out of aging or death(they are inextricably linked), so why, then, should you get to pass the cost on to others when the inevitable happens, when everyone else was smart and got insurance?
tifreak8x wrote:
I haven't seen a doctor in 14 years. I get sick once every 3 years.
Out of interest, would you have gone to see a doctor had you not had to pay?
benryves wrote:
tifreak8x wrote:
I haven't seen a doctor in 14 years. I get sick once every 3 years.
Out of interest, would you have gone to see a doctor had you not had to pay?
not at all. I don't like doctors or hospitals and stay away from them if I am able to. One's body can heal itself of most things if it is given the proper vitamins and such.
shmibs wrote:
i'm not going to comment on the bill as a whole, but this one aspect being unconstitutional seemed a bit obvious, and i'm suprised nobody has formally mentioned it before now.
It's been contested in court for awhile, actually:
from an article in my local paper, dated December 14, 2010 (yesterday) wrote:
Hudson...issued the ruling after months of legal and political wrangling.
Hi holmes221b, welcome to Cemetech! You can introduce yourself in the
Introduce Yourself topic if you want.
tifreak8x wrote:
benryves wrote:
tifreak8x wrote:
I haven't seen a doctor in 14 years. I get sick once every 3 years.
Out of interest, would you have gone to see a doctor had you not had to pay?
not at all. I don't like doctors or hospitals and stay away from them if I am able to. One's body can heal itself of most things if it is given the proper vitamins and such.
That only works if the body's problem is minor, like a cold or fever.
elfprince13 wrote:
Quote:
"Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market," he wrote. "In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]
merthsoft wrote:
elfprince13 wrote:
Quote:
"Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market," he wrote. "In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]
@DShiznit: I'm concerned that your post to tifreak8x was phrased too strongly in your portrayal of you perpetrating violence upon him for the sake of your argument. I feel that that was a bit unnecessary, and although from a third-party perspective I see what point you were trying to make, I think your method was a bit Neanderthal. It would be best if we could keep illustrative examples less personal, please.
merthsoft wrote:
Be that as it may, states make us buy car insurance (well, except for NH unless you've been in a wreck), so it's not unheard of that we be made to buy something.
Mandatory car insurance isn't a federal law, though.
I would also like to remark--for informational purposes--that the title of this thread is somewhat misleading--Hudson hasn't declared the entire Healthcare bill as unconstitutional, just this one part about requiring people to buy health care.
however, it is a key piece of it, and would thus kill the bill overall, from what I have read.
tifreak8x wrote:
however, it is a key piece of it, and would thus kill the bill overall, from what I have read.
I know it's been ruled that line-item vetos are unconstitutional (at least for the executive branch, anyways), but do you suppose that it might be possible for the Supreme Court to basically do a line-item veto on the Health Care Bill?
KermMartian wrote:
@DShiznit: I'm concerned that your post to tifreak8x was phrased too strongly in your portrayal of you perpetrating violence upon him for the sake of your argument. I feel that that was a bit unnecessary, and although from a third-party perspective I see what point you were trying to make, I think your method was a bit Neanderthal. It would be best if we could keep illustrative examples less personal, please.
Noted.
As for this "killing the bill"(ironic phrasing, considering this bill is designed to stop the killing perpetrated by the insurance industry):
1 out of 3 judges does not a final ruling make.
merthsoft wrote:
Be that as it may, states make us buy car insurance (well, except for NH unless you've been in a wreck), so it's not unheard of that we be made to buy something.
(italics added)
Kerm wrote:
Yeah, but no one forces you to buy a car, whereas you really can't help having a body.
holmes221b wrote:
Mandatory car insurance isn't a federal law, though.
I don't claim that anyone forces someone to buy a car. I don't claim that anyone can help having a body. And I, in fact, point out that it is states that mandate that. I'm not even making a claim one way or the other what's right or wrong. I'm simply stating that it's not unprecedented for us to be made to buy insurance at the government's behest.
tifreak8x wrote:
benryves wrote:
tifreak8x wrote:
I haven't seen a doctor in 14 years. I get sick once every 3 years.
Out of interest, would you have gone to see a doctor had you not had to pay?
not at all. I don't like doctors or hospitals and stay away from them if I am able to. One's body can heal itself of most things if it is given the proper vitamins and such.
Oh ok, so if you get hit by a bus we can just leave you on the side of the road bleeding internally with a bottle of Flintstone's Chewables and you'll be just fine. Cool.
merthsoft wrote:
I don't claim that anyone forces someone to buy a car. I don't claim that anyone can help having a body. And I, in fact, point out that it is states that mandate that. I'm not even making a claim one way or the other what's right or wrong. I'm simply stating that it's not unprecedented for us to be made to buy insurance at the government's behest.
And I don't disagree with you--I was just pointing out that the mandatory car insurance laws are state laws, rather than federal. I interpreted your post incorrectly, I'm sorry about that.
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.
»
Go to Registration page
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
