DescentBB

http://nation.foxnews.com/health-care/2 ... care-today

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02420.html

article wrote:U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson found that Congress could not order individuals to buy health insurance.

In a 42-page opinion, Hudson said the provision of the law that requires most individuals to get insurance or pay a fine by 2014 is an unprecedented expansion of federal power that cannot be supported by Congress's power to regulate interstate trade.

"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.]

This is a declarative ruling and not an injunctive one, so if I understand it properly that means the law will stand as written until it is reviewed by an appellate court, which I certainly hope it will be. Otherwise, the healthcare industry will soon collapse under its own corpulent weight, and there's no way public opinion would support a single-payer system, even in that eventuality.

Fun fact: the judge was a Bush appointee.

Hrm.

What do the kids with flags have to do with this ruling?

ThunderBunny wrote:Hrm.

What do the kids with flags have to do with this ruling?

I think that's the judge.

Hopefully the healthcare bill will die due to it's obesity. Federal govt has no right forcing anyone to buy anything and for good reason. With more republican voted in perhaps we can now get a more balanced bill written.

ThunderBunny wrote:Hrm.

What do the kids with flags have to do with this ruling?

I put them in there because I thought it was funny, then I changed my mind. I tried to edit that post for like an hour but it wouldn't stick, so you get to enjoy kids with flags.

My favorite part about this ruling is that the individual mandate was the Republican idea.

Not even getting into the health care situation for this comment, just on the ruling and what it means in general... the commerce clause is already been used to empower the Federal government far beyond where it should be and there are plenty of examples that both repubs and dems could find to back up my statement. So take away the healthcare aspect of it and ask yourself do you really want to set this precedent?!?
Do you want the next party in power to be able to ram down your throat their pet project designed to empower them the way the healthcare package is designed to empower the government (largely the democrats)?!? And then the next party in power...and then the next one?!?

The commerce clause is already defined as any-damn-thing-they-want because so much of our lives is somehow inerwoven with commerce that if we don't stop them from abusing it we'll all be working for the 'Company Store' literally...yea the next two years it could be called Obama's store but then the next eight it might be Newt Gingriches store....

Stop accepting bad law out of political expediency!! As if either party is anywhere near worthy of that kind of sacrifice!!!

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, almost any healthcare reform is good because the current system is just so obscenely broken. On the other hand, the requirement to buy health insurance, coupled with the limited measures in place to actually make health care affordable, just seems like a big fat handout to the health care industry and HMO's in general.

Also, theres the point about not having to spend money on something one doesnt want. If it was full fledged healthcare system like what Canada has, go for it. But as currently designed and revised?

Eh.

I feel like either way this lawsuit unfolds will be bad for America.

Avder wrote:On the one hand, almost any healthcare reform is good because the current system is just so obscenely broken.

I think you vastly misunderestimate the ability of politicians to break things worse.

Lothar wrote:

Avder wrote:On the one hand, almost any healthcare reform is good because the current system is just so obscenely broken.

I think you vastly misunderestimate the ability of politicians to break things worse.

Did you read my next point?

Avder, define \"Obscenely Broken\"

woodchip wrote:Avder, define "Obscenely Broken"

Completely profit focused instead of focused on improving the overall health of the US population.