This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Virginia Judge Finds Obama Health Care Law Unconstitutional
Some curious headlines flashing on Bloomberg: a Virginia judge has just found that the Obama healthcare law is unconstitutional, and that Congress has exceeded its authority with its requirement that individuals should buy insurance. Also, the judge apparently wants portions of the law overturned, specfically the "individual mandate" provision of the Obama health care law. --- known legally as Sec. 1501. Good thing Obama is a constitutional lawyer and can explain to the judge why he is so very wrong. In the meantime, expect a Supreme Court appeal, and possibly delays to the US debt hitting $1 quadrillion.
A key quote from the Judge:
"At its core this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance ...its about an individual's right to participate"
And some more from Reuters:
A judge in Virginia on Monday invalidated a key part of the landmark healthcare law that requires individuals to buy health insurance, the first major setback for President Barack Obama on an issue that will likely end up at the Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2002, backed arguments by the state of Virginia that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring that individuals buy health insurance or face a fine.
The decision is the first finding against the law that was passed in March and aimed at overhauling the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system. Judges in other states have rejected other challenges to the law.
»
- 13021 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
the past 30 or so years.
80 years. New Deal.
yes, only VERY recently has the SCOTUS seen fit to find any limit whatsoever in the scope of the commerce clause and related dormant commerce clause jurisprudence.
I agree, although the New Deal looks like a ticket to Valhalla compared to the past 10 years. The acceleration of abuse is what's so mind blowing. I never thought it would get this far without people getting really upset. I guess that was Tyler's who iDepression 2.0 post. Scary is that Oh Regional Indian reports the TV has hypnotized the Indian people in basically one generation to not protest massive increase in food prices. IS there a tipping point or just jostling in line to the abbatoir?
.
While I agree with the Judge in this case re the Constitutionality of an individual mandate. All I can say is:
Tyranny will appeal bitchez.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. God it feels good to win a round now and then.
Vive le "repeal amendment":
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12144
Edit: I am certain that Chris Matthews' head just exploded. General Cuccinelli: please call Matthews and tell him I said...well, you fill in the blank...
just checked in....Mr. Matthews is alive but appears to be in "some kind of trance"
Nooo damnit, I want to be able to smoke and eat my french fries with gravy and NOT have to pay for it!
If we are printing all this money to handout to the banks. We can print a bit to gift everyone health care in this nation.
Poney up. Get in the streets about it if you must
The wailing and gnashing of teeth echoing from the studios of MSNBC and CNBC can be heard 'round the world.
A single, positive step to be sure -- every long journey begins with one; the road to repeal will indeed be a long one.
This law was passed in March. In August, Aetna raised my rates 25% and increased my family deductible from $3,000 to $6,000!!!!
Thanks Obama.
Many companies are dropping spousal coverage altogether, so much for "being able to keep your insurance if you want to" as we were promised.
The Obama administration is un-constitutional, just like everything that flows from it.
First Bill Clinton looking more presidential than Obama the other day
And now a judge taking a stand
Its like watching a slow motion train wreck. It is indeed the Fall of The ObamaNation
+1
though I think the camera may be speeding up the film soon. The Post has a story stating that George Soros wants Obama gone. Its a bad day when the guy funding you wants you terminated... lol
Now that they have the prices all jacked up for everything healthcare, Pharma doesnt give a shit if this gets repealed.
Play the sheep !
I refuse to purchase health insurance but I am still very glad to see someone stand up to the machine and call a spade a spade. The mandate is unconstitutional under any sane interpretation of the Constitution. Go Virginia!
"Go Virginia!"
The motto of the Commonwealth is, after all...
Sic semper tyrannis.
For all but about two years of my life I have never had health insurance. I've been pretty healthy and never had a major operation (I'm 57). I am also old enough to remember a doctor visiting my house when I was sick as a kid, like 1960 or so.
Health care insurance is a complete rip-off, enriching mostly insurance companies which only complicate and worsen the health care industry. Get the insurance cos. out of the health care business and we'd all be able to pay for our health needs directly instead of paying absurd amounts monthly to bureaucrats.
This decision was due, because there's no way the government can force me to buy insurance for my health or fine me if I don't. I've already made the decision not to purchase health care insurance and not to pay the fine. They can come and get me and toss my ass in jail if they so choose, but that's on them, not me.
Quit paying, dumasses. It's the only way to win. Starve the beast(s).
So I don't have the right to receive all of my income, only the part left over after paying taxes. And I can be taxed to pay for wars in distant lands, to pay for a bridge to nowhere in Palin's home town (okay, that's redundant) and to sustain the drunk on the sidewalk. I can be forced to do all those things but I can't be forced to buy health insurance, even if I am the primary beneficiary of the insurance coverage. And you guys here are cheering that logic?
Okay, I'll play along. It's "unconstitutional" because it forces me to buy a private product. Kinda like forcing me to buy something from Walmart. But by taxing me to pay for Sarah's bridge, Bush's war and the sidewalk drunk's cheeseburger, aren't I being forced to pay the private bridge contractor, the military equipment manufacters and private mercinaries, and the Mcdonald's where the drunk lives?
Exactly right. It has nothing short of blown my mind that with all the assaults on the Founding Fathers intent and constitution it's the Healthcare Bill that gets people up in arms.
We have the foreign entanglements the Found Fathers warned us against.
The Central Bank they warned against.
Tyranny from the Federal government.
Annihilation of the Bill of Rights.
An illegal income tax (should only be a corporate income tax per the law, not earned wage from labor).
We have the TSA using backscatter radiation on people driving in their cars, telescreens at Walmart, illegal unconstitutional retroactive immunity for Telecoms.
Yet healthcare is what people freak over?
I actually hate the healthcare bill because it's a forced tax subsidy for the "Healthcare Industry" and insurance companies. But fucking really?!?! This is where you draw the line in the sand? That's like going in to get a hangnail removed when you have stage three colon cancer. How about we get our fucking priorities straight?
"Things are so awful and shitty, so let's make them more awful and even shittier..."
No thanks.
And just for the record, people are freaking out about a lot of what you listed. We just haven't hit critical mass yet.
I didn't suggest anything about making things worse. I suggested peoples priorities are backward because they got taken in by the lobby of the people who wrote the fucking bill. So funny except it's true.
I'm saying we need to work on the major issues. This one ranks about 27th on my to do list.
Restoring the constitution and bill of rights is number one, Ending the FED is number 2, ending foreign wars number 3 and many more on down the line.
The fact that there was such tremendous mobilization by "both" sides of this farsical bill is madness. People didn't know what they were pushing for on the Pro-Obamacare side and people on the Anti-Obamacare side got suckered in by the very forces who ended up writing the bill. Both sides got played by the Healthcare/Insurance industry and again this bill is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
Damn you for paying attention!
</sarcasm off>
That's a very good list of reasonable grievances against the federal government. Now, how about doing something about it?
I've taken my own actions. I use their very own tax laws and some creative accounting (hey, big corps. aren't the only ones who get to reduce their tax bills) to pay no income tax, no SS or Medicare. They do get me at the gas pump and NY state nails me for sales tax, but I've cut out the feds almost entirely because I disagree with just about everything they do, as you mentioned above.
You know, Democrats were screaming at their representatives to "grow a spine" during the Bush years, but somebody needs to convey the same message to all the school-teachers, cops and other public "servants" who are depending on pensions for retirement to "grow a Brain."
I'm up in arms about all those things to so let's try to solve all of those issues in a way that limits government adventurism overseas and saves our freedom and liberty at home.
Yes, you are being forced to pay for things you don't like. What are you going to do about it? Force another evil on the American population? That's not a solution, it's retarded moral equivalence based on bullshit tu quoque reasoning.
The 0bamacare bill is not severable. That means if any part of the bill is declared unconstitutional, the whole thing is out.
Another result of the blind rush to pass the bill before reading it.
+++
People that are against Obamacare need to be layed off and have their benefits end so they can spend their last dime fighting an illness like cancer. That would keep their pie holes shut about Obamacare. At least Obama tried to do something and granted it is less than perfect. Wonder what Bushcare would like if he had even cared. Maybe we could have used the $3 Trillion he wasted in Iraq to accomplish something good for Americans
Isn't it time for your nap, Johnny? First, go pottie. If it is number two, let nannie know so she can wipe you.
Aw, let Jonnie wipe himself. The only chance he is ever gonna get at a piece of ass is if his finger breaks through the toilet paper.
Bush's Part D should prove beyond any doubt that it's about $$$ not "healthcare."
Insurance industry & Pharma love ObamaCare. They want some more of it.
You advocate theft. Then you advocate bankruptcy and/or death by cancer for those who say, "I don't want you to steal from me." You're a real piece of work. And by "piece of work" I really mean "piece of shit."
At least Obama tried to do something and granted it is less than perfect.
I propose that johnnymustardseed pay for everyones' medical bills. This plan is less than perfect and therefore fits johnnymustardseed's criteria for a plan which must be followed at all costs and without criticism.
Thanks, johnny.
Hitler "tried to do something" too. "Trying to do something" is not always ipso facto a good thing.
Sounds "Fair" to me! </sarc>
I was going to rant and cuss you up and down, but instead I'd like to get you to think critically about your defense of this bill. Please do the following:
Outside of you being someone who couldn't get coverage before due to the pre-existing condition, tell me even 1 benefit you have personally been privalege to since this bill was signed into law. In other words, can you just tell me one thing that has improved for you and your health care coverage as a result of this monstrosity? Just one thing is all I'm asking. If you can list me more than one, even better. Of every person I know personally and have asked to take this challenge so far, no one has been able to tell me what has improved for them. Not one item even from people who tell me the bill is great. I just want you to prove it, and not to me or for me, but prove to yourself the bill is great. Make the list. I think you won't find any real benefits for yourself, and I find that troubling.
The point is this:
Do most of us believe that healthcare and health insurance were completely screwed up before this bill? Yes, of course. Did we want improvements to the system? Yes, of course. Does this bill provide a better framework? Absolutely not.
It doesn't make me feel better to be "right" in this argument. I don't take solace in "I told you so" because I want people to have good lives. I wish it was a good law. I honestly hope you can list a bunch pros this bill has given you personally because I'm tired of getting the same response from everyone I ask--"You're right, it doesn't benefit me or my family at all. In fact, it's costing us a lot of money for the same or worse coverage."
Valid solutions were out there, Obamatron and the Decepticrats (Republicons too!) chose to ignore them:
Here are seven things that a good attempt at Health Insurance reform should do:
1. Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and
individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax-deductible
(for the Employer, that is!), but individual health insurance is not
(So sorry, middle-class, wage-slave!).
2. Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing
across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health
insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able to
use that insurance wherever we live. With no real competition in CA, is
it any wonder that Blue Cross can raise their rates around 39%?
3. Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying. Why should a single man have to pay extra for OB-Gyn coverage, for example?
4. Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay
insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Perhaps then
Doctors can go back to ordering medical tests when they're necessary and not
just to cover their @ss, when dealing with some lawsuit-happy patient!
5. Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health care treatments cost. Ever see a price list in a Doctor's office? Neither have I, yet we're expected to pay $?? whenever we get an appointment!
6. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards
bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice
and RESONSIBILITY. Too many people (especially their children!) order Doctors
to "Spare No Expense" when it comes to saving granny's life, even though she's
been bed-ridden and on a ventilator for the last year. With no Quality of life,
just what are these people trying to save?
7. Revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax
deductible donation to help millions of people who have no insurance.
In Minnesota, we can volunteer to spend some extra tax for a Wildlife fund,
why not a "People's Health Fund?"
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald
the end of the republic. — Benjamin Franklin
People can do amazing things when they have some skin in the game.
Hey, Johnny, I don't have health care coverage, I'm 57, but my father (RIP) used to ask me what I thought would happen if I got cancer. I told him, I WOULD EXPECT TO DIE. That's right, you sniveling coward. People fucking DIE every day. I made my choice and would expect no handouts.
"At least Obama tried to do something and granted it is less than perfect."
Lying, vote buying, arm twisting and stealing are not doing "something".
All they really ever wanted was the revenue generated from the industry...your hypothetical "cancer patient" would have been put in a ward somewhere out of sight to die quietly.
Because it is the most "cost effective" to the state. A bureaucrat will not have the same compassion for your dying mother as you do, I can assure you of that.
You should listen to what they say and not how they say it.
C'mon people lets face it - it's not even "healthcare", just one more mechanism to loot and pillage the populace.
Fucking A. Annoyed by people cavalierly consigning their fellows to death (Food is not a right, if the bankers say you starve you should bloody well starve!), but this bill wasn't going to save anyone, quite the opposite.
People should go after the Healthcare bill for the right reasons eg it's a forced taxed subsidy for big healthcare and insurance companies.
That people are wrapped up in THEFT being so awful, yet starving to death is ok. Starving to death is fine for the lower class even though it's illegal to hire you for a Chinese prisoners wages and therefore you CANNOT compete with your "global competition" is a real stunner for me. People have some fucked up priorities that amount to "protect my stuff/lifestyle" and fuck everyone else.
How about people attacking real problems instead of drawing the line the sand around public health care (which this bill isn't anyways).
Individual liberty and limited government is freedom. Freedom has a price.
Annoyed by people cavalierly consigning their fellows to death (Food is not a right, if the bankers say you starve you should bloody well starve!)
Perhaps you hadn't noticed but you're far more likely to see mass starvation in a society that has socialized the food supply rather than in a society in which he who wishes to eat must work (or obtain voluntary charity from those who do).
It's people like you who are "cavalierly consigning their fellows to death."
Castro's slogan: "The Revolution, or Death!"
Average Cuban's response: "What's the difference?"
+1
The Constitution is intended to enumerate the powers of the Federal government. The Bill of Rights is a bulwark designed to prevent *non-Federal* legislation from depriving US citizens of several (deemed important) and narrowly-defined forms of injustice.
The Feds haven't paid much attention to the "original meaning" of the Constitution for longer than any posters here have been alive.
The health-care bill is definitely unconstitutional, but to act as if there's anything at all novel about that is utterly naive. Return to a pre-Civil War standard of Federal limitation entails the destruction of the majority of the convenience of modern life. It can be done, and it may very well come to that, but it's not going to be any fun for ANYONE.
Don't kid yourself.
"Return to a pre-Civil War standard of Federal limitation entails the destruction of the majority of the convenience of modern life."
Your above statement could use some more explanation of what could not be done today under a constitutional government. Sure a lot of people working for the government would be out of work ... but I am not sure they really add anything my life and actually having a choice and being able to own property would be a benefit.
All modern infrastructure is very heavily dependent on interstate commerce administration.
The phone system, Internet, broadcast media, electrical distribution grid, and goods-distribution by any major logistics company require Federal oversight in order to continue operations.
Most of the metastatic growth of the Federal government was demanded and promoted by *corporate* interests, not the poor lazy out-of-work citizens with no property.
The New Deal developments were highly uncharacteristic.
All modern infrastructure is very heavily dependent on interstate commerce administration. The phone system, Internet, broadcast media, electrical distribution grid, and goods-distribution by any major logistics company require Federal oversight in order to continue operations.
That simply isn't true.
If as of today the Federal Government decided that they would exert a monopoly over the production and distribution of orange juice (for example) in a few short years people would say, "But how could there be any orange juice without the government?"
It was a pretty high-level claim, but you haven't refuted it.
How does a localized organization enforce compliance with non-legally enforced "policy" across state borders?
Federal interstate commerce law.
A few examples:
If you broadcast a radio/teevee signal, there is no way to prevent anyone with a repeater from "stealing" your content and packing it with their own advertising, thus stealing from you. The Feds are involved. If you want to sell electricity to a region in which you do not *own* the cables to transmit the power on, there is no way to force your competitors to permit you to use theirs. The Feds are involved. If you want to move actual physical goods across state borders without the potential for state law-enforcement to confiscate your possessions, the Feds are involved.
It's not a question of what may be possible in some kind of anarcho-capitalist utopia Ayn Rand envisioned. It's a question of how our world operates--the legislation was an outgrowth of private-party transactions which were contended. The government didn't just decide one day to step in and seize control of some given industry--the industry was operating and DEMANDED legislation and government involvement in their disputes.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to blame "government" as some kind of independent actor just trying to trample your freedoms. The fact that it tramples your freedoms is incidental to the fact that there are other private parties out there who want to fuck you over.
(BTW: Sorry about that reply above. Yours was just a convenient post to reply to, and I had clearly misunderstood the context.)
the industry was operating and DEMANDED legislation and government involvement in their disputes
That quote illustrates the problem with your thinking. It's the first step on the road to Too Big to Fail.
Progress and innovation do not depend on government regulation, only those market participants who wish to protect their positions through extra-economic means do. The creation of any good or service can be accomplished through voluntary association. Special conditions and protections given to some players actually reduce the broader economic gains made when all participants have a free and equal access to markets.
The judge should know better. Since the US is under a state of emergency as defined by the War Powers Act, the US Constitution has been suspended and the Barry and the Boyz can do whatever then damn well please.
So, how will the Supreme Court, knowing this, shoot down the judge without letting the people know they are the property of the state and have no rights?
So true Bartanist. They don't call us people or human beings anymore. We are consumers and that's it. Certainly not citizens with rights. We believe what they tell us. We do what they tell us.
Consume or die . . . bitchez.
Apply the same to the Old Age and Survivors Insurance and the Disability Imsurance (OASI-DI). I already have old age and disability insurance. I don't need to pay for the "public option" know as Social Security.
This move exposes the lie about a lot of insurance. Particularly you need to have an insurable event. This shit was just wealth redistributionist from the start. Same as social security. Same as most "health insurance" beyond catastrophic coverage. Same as federal deposit insurance. The whole thing is a scam.
Ha! Americans are so funny. If the judge is so concerned about an individual's right to participate (Or not), ALL taxes break the constitution and should be null and void until an itemized bill can be sent to individual citizens from which the citizen can pick and choose what programs he/she wishes to participate.
What you are going to have is nowhere near universal healthcare, and seeing the stubbornness I doubt it will ever happen over there. Honestly, a lot of you talk about rights and freedom to choose, but in the end a universal healthcare system (If run well) is all about pragmatism and purchasing power. That is not a bad thing, and has the added bonus of killing off the private insurance companies that have stolen, plagued, and cheated you for decades. But, I know, I know - you hate paying so that others might live and be healthy. That's the gist of it.
Sad and brutally honest commentary.
Idealogues unto death, you know as long as it isn't them who suffer (yet).
We are a nation supposedly based on individual liberty and limited government. Pragmatism has nothing to do with our core values.
And how is every little thing down at the Joseph Stalin fan club these days?
Healthy? Have you seen an average American lately? 2/3 of americans are obese. Most Americans have no clue how to take care of themselves. The supposed "universal" coverage offered now removes whatever incentive they might have had to make healthy choices.
Besides, the "sick-care" system as it exists has nothing do with being healthy. It has everything to do with lining the pockets of the insurance companies and Big Pharma.
Go to the doctor and tell him you are depressed. Will he ask you about your diet, your sleep habits or stress? - or will he write you a script and send you on your way?
"Healthy? Have you seen an average American lately? 2/3 of americans are obese. Most Americans have no clue how to take care of themselves. The supposed "universal" coverage offered now removes whatever incentive they might have had to make healthy choices."
Eugenics 101.
Pretty good. Joseph, Mao, & Kim are playing netball by the pool. :).
I advocate neither socialism or capitalism exclusively - I make my money from capital, and my society benefits from stability derived from socialist principles which includes democracy with the added spice of being a constitutional monarchy. Unlike some, I stopped having stupidly simplistic views of political and economic philosophies when I started growing pubes.
I should never have intimated that the US should join the rest of civilized Western countries and start a universal health care system. What the fuck do I know? I was only taught from childhood that society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable people.
Maybe you're all correct - judging by the ineptitude of the American federal government, perhaps you should be the exception to the rule, and keep the present system of extreme individual self-reliance going. Vive la difference & good luck.
"I should never have intimated that the US should join the rest of civilized Western countries and start a universal health care system."
So, it is your view Eastern countries are uncivilized?
"I advocate neither socialism or capitalism exclusively - I make my money from capital, and my society benefits from stability derived from socialist principles which includes democracy with the added spice? of being a constitutional monarchy."
Just so you know...Britain is dumping "universal healthcare"...are they now considered uncivilized "western countries"?
Let me guess, your from Sweden.
I'll be sure to bring up your recent spontaneous combustables over there (this time shockingly a Sunni...LOL) the next time you appear on a 911 conspiracy thread preaching to America about how oppressed we are and how free ya'll are ;-)
Pinky finger extended...tataaah...
Two words come to mind to describe your post: Job and Nut.
I honestly haven't the foggiest idea what on earth you're going on about. Britain "dumping" the NHS is complete news to me and to David Cameron, I'm sure.
"Two words come to mind to describe your post: Job and Nut."
And one word comes to mind regarding your retort...dyslexic.
"I honestly haven't the foggiest idea what on earth you're going on about. Britain "dumping" the NHS is complete news to me and to David Cameron, I'm sure."
When speaking with a socialist I always keep in mind that when they use the word "honestly" it usually means the opposite of what it means to everyone else.
Here is the document submitted to Parliment that Cameron may or may not be aware of...LOL...they are trying to privatize because socialism has always been grossly inefficient.
Enjoy ;-)
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_117794.pdf
And you didn't answer...Sweden?
From the document:
"Our strategy for the NHS: an executive summary
1. The Government upholds the values and principles of the NHS: of a comprehensive service, available to all, free at the point of use and based on clinical need, not the ability to pay.
2. We will increase health spending in real terms in each year of this Parliament.
3. Our goal is an NHS which achieves results that are amongst the best in the world."
Learn to read, before you make false claims. So far, you have demonstrated that you are criminally insane (laughing at the bombing in Sweden), a liar (this document), and presumptive of my politics (Socialist? Ha!). Have a nice life. Case closed.
They are downsizing you moron...like most lazy socialists you didn't read far enough.
If you only read executive summaries you will never know what's actually in a proposal...just like another socialist...Pelosi...we have to pass it to find out whats in it...LOL.
Cheerio!
I was only taught from childhood that society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable people.
I was taught that people are judged by how they live their lives and how they treat other people. I've never encountered this animal you call "society" which you apparently believe has its own likes, dislikes, fears, desires, motives and actions. I'm an individual human and I will respect my fellows as individuals. I see no benefit in seeing a world populated by a single organism called "society." Such a worldview is quite literally dehumanizing.
Your views are equally valid, and if I may say, deeply insightful. But perhaps you would understand the concept of society better if you replace the word with community, or neighbours. It's merely a collective noun for a group, and how your neighbours treat each other in times of individual trouble or crisis is a measure of how a society is judged.
Human beings are social animals by nature (Literally, anthropologically) - We all belong to one social group or another and denying human nature is in itself dehumanizing. I can well understand the scenes from New Orleans now - that is the extent to which extreme selfishness can be taken to its logical conclusion, where everyone looks after no.1., and never mind the suffering of others. I don't think it was always this way - small towns and villages all over the world still value the concept of community.
There is a lot of good in what you say, but I don't think an individual recognizing the value of his/her community is necessarily dehumanizing. Individual Mutualism is a nice goal to aspire to, imho.
He's a judge, not a dictator. IOW, he can only address matters brought before him.
If there were NO Health insurance period..what would happen?? fee for service.
prices would be set by demand. I contend most healthcare would cost much less under fee for service..some health-care (transplants,KDU,some cancer therapy would not be possible or too expensive for most)
Those religions that ran hospitals and provided pro bono services would help the poor
as they did in the past.
it could be a better system then we see today.
PS much health care costs are driven by GOV
and too much regulation..with the internet many could self medicate for the day to day
conditions treated by most family practinoners..also Nurse practioners and other health care professionals could be freed from regulatory restraits that prohibit them providing
every day health care.
This is another plausible solution from a free market perspective. Gotta kill insurance first. Good food for thought.
If you "kill" insurance it's not a "free market", ya know? What part of "free" or "market" don't you understand?
This is only half the story, though.
While fee-for-service would have held care costs way down over the past 50 years (Medicare is the largest source of trouble here), it would also have greatly reduced R&D expenditures and thus cut our rate of technological progress in the biomedical field dramatically.
The very same graft and corruption enabled by Federally-subsidized healthcare which inflated costs out of control ALSO provided the "malinvestment" incentive for companies which would never have had a chance of profitability to develop artificial joints and organs, molecular biology treatment, etc.
So there's good that comes from the bad. Kinda like any other natural system.
Weren't most privately held medical patents actually discovered using publicly funded research at universities?
We need to tease out a way to advance medicine not predicated on profit, but rather on results based science. Pumping out new drugs by rejiggering carbon chains to re-patent an old discovery isn't helping anyone except the pharmaceutical companies. Likewise the incentive is really to create more health problems to artificially increase demand for medical services via side effects etc.
I don't know what the solution is, but pretending like the status quo is good (not saying you are) is ridiculous. Further incentivizing profit based models will merely churn out more of the same unless we also have some sort of push for results. Again I don't have the answers, just musing about the problems.
Yes and no.
Development of the patent is a fairly small component of the process, and patent applications are generally paid for by private industry. University research is more heavily driven by corporate sponsorship than by "public funding" in the first place. The corporations which tend to draw profit from the Federal subsidization model by selling artificial joints to 94 year-olds are guiding department research programs. Professors are often hired as consultants and offered incentives for particular research paths.
The problem is: it's difficult to fund research publicly because the organizations which benefit from monopolization of the private-sector approach have money to fight it.
If you're interested in such things, check out who was instrumental in making sure stem-cell research was so strictly controlled in the US. The religious loonies are just a convenient demographic to exploit.
Amen.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/
Obummer is NOT a Constitutional Lawyer, he simply taught it, incorrectly of course.(because he doesn't know what it means).
Just like Clinton, called a Rhodes Scholar, never was.
Is not.
When Americans start walking across borders into countries with universal healthcare because the quality of life in America is worse, I'll concede the point.
Otherwise, stop with the universal healthcare nonsense. Socialism won't work any better by English speaking people than it did for Russian speakers, Spanish speakers, Chinese speakers, et cetera.
Raymond. You forget the French, Canadian, British, Swedish, German, Australian,...... the list is quite long of countries that have already have universal health care.
Your point is already conceded by your ignorance. In London, we have been seeing a lot of "Medical tourists" from the 'States for years. According to this article from CNN last year, medical bills prompted more than 60% of US bankruptcies. Know what you are talking about before jabbering the usual, "Socialist" this and "Socialist" that. Democracy is a socialist concept.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH
At least we dont die of thirst in American hospitals.
Mar 6, 2010 ... The death certificate said Mr Gorny had died because of a 'water deficit' ... His mother added: 'When I went back to the hospital I was told that .... Broadcasters given green light for product placement on British TV ...www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Neglected-lazy-nurses-Kane-Gorny-22-dying-thirst... rang-police-beg-water.html
Yeah I know, and that's not the worst of it, particularly in geriatrics. You might find a case or two like that a year in Britain. But you never find one in America, right?
My last two girlfriends are medics in the NHS, and everyone we know has a horror story or two about it - but you know what? We love it, and we criticize the hell out it because we love it so much and we constantly want to improve it. It takes a lot of work to keep a universal health care system going, and as long as it is run well we need never fear that somebody in our great country will suffer or die for lack of medical care.
Feb 26, 2010 ... An NHS hospital let 1200 patients die for no reason in the filthy, ... left out of reach, forcing patients to drink water from flower vases. ...UK health care horror: 1200 die needlessly in filthy, blood ...
hotair.com/.../uk-health-care-horror-1200-die-needlessly-in-filthy-blood- splattered-hospital/ Hardly one or 2 occurances. Also, how about ambulance stacking? Lack of advanced breastcare treatment? You really want to go there?
I am giggling because I know where the story originated: The Daily Mail. Bless them, they love horror stories and exaggerations. It's the same paper that listed over 200 things that gives you cancer, including beer, beef, baby food and bacon (That's just the B's). Just like their absurd scare stories, it is ridiculous to suggest 1200 patients died for lack of care and nobody noticed.
Is that the sort of "fact" you people use to scare people off universal healthcare? Jeez, no wonder people think Americans are stupid.
Your point is already conceded by your ignorance
Unless they die from lack of water.
... "It takes a lot of work to keep a universal health care system going..."
Yes, it does, and that labor is STOLEN!
"My last two girlfriends are medics in the NHS..."
Ahhh...so you are a British socialist.
With your last two girlfriends having been found inside the NHS...I would suspect you draw your paycheck through the taxation of your fellow British subjects.
Of course...this is pure speculation on my part ;-)
I seem to recall that Obama went ahead with his ban on offshore oil drilling despite a court decision saying that he couldn't. I don't think he cares much about what the courts say.
One thing has remained unchanged before, throughout, and no-doubt after, this entire clusterfuck. My rates keep going up by 10% to 15% per year.
Keeping Obamacare won't fix that, but neither will repealing it. No one in Washington has even hinted at trying to fix the actual health care problem (i.e. affordability) for the middle class.
1. I don't see in the constitution any reference to the federal goverment having the right to be involved in health care.
2. If the feds stopped the interference they are currently engaged in, like preventing interstate competition between insurers, prices would moderate.
Prices for lasik eye surgery have dropped substantially over the past decade - one of the medical practices not covered by most insurance. I don't think that is a coincidence.
+100 Just tell 'em to get the fuck outa the way! and not just healthcare
They don't want to get out of the way. They want to break things so they have an excuse to come in and "fix" them (and usurp even more control). It is the SOP of gubbermints everywhere and throughout history, and is why they tend to continually expand until they ultimately collapse.
The purpose of the bill was not to lower rates. There are plenty of government-free ways to do that, as there are to lower the cost of healthcare, too.
Control.
It does not matter whether is constitutional or not. I am not going to pay for it and chances are the rates set by the industry will be so high in a few years that nobody will be able to afford it.
PUT ME IN FUCKING JAIL FOR NOT PAYING HEALTH INSURANCE EXTORTION PRICES! PUT ME IN FUCKING IRS DEBTORS' PRISON FEMA CAMP A-GO-GO FOR NOT PAYING A PRIVATE TAX TO PRIVATE COMPANIES G-DDAMMIT!
HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT HEALTH CARE.
STOP ADDING 30% TO ALL COSTS SO THE UNHOLY GATEKEEPERS OF HEALTH CARE CAN PLAY GOLF AT PEBBLE BEACH.
Everyone will qualify for government to pay for it - the printing presses crank up again. Its complete insanity.
Its all about cost. How come I can make a perfectly effective and safe off-patent drug in India for 5 cents a dose, but that same prescription costs the government or health industry $5 to deploy. That is the core reason for the continued raping of Americans.
Why does a retail $3 ace bandage cost $30 from a hospital?
G-d damn Insurance Crooks.
Decaf dood.
Enforcement of the fine through the IRS?
Unless you do not file returns, they will simply rerun your numbers in their computers and automatically deduct the amount from your refund.
Assuming you owe (instead of having provided an interest free loan) the IRS will treat you no differently then any other person who doesn't pay what they owe.
Levy, garnishment, lien, etc.
The IRS computers will do all the calculations just like they do now.
Good thing Obama is a constitutional lawyer and can explain to the judge why he is so very wrong
LOL! Classic, TD. Classic.
I'm curious. Does this accelerate the path toward the Supreme Court? I'm also curious what impact or weight this has on other rulings. And does the Virginia Court carry more weight than others?
It probably moves the ball forward a bit, and no, Virginia has no more weight than any other court, but listen, the courts are rat-holes where rights die, all the way from the tiniest town court up to the Supreme Court of the United States. This was well proven in 2000, when SCOTUS Selected, not Elected, our president.
The courts are as corrupt as the other branches of government, and, worse, they have the power to put and keep your ass in jail.
Here, get junked less in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
+1 People here are supposed to be smart. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO THE RESEARCH THE "SHEEP DO NOT DO, YES I KNOW, CAPS OFF..
If what we choose not to do is also interstate commerce then they can fine us for being fat or refusing to eat broccoli. Interstate commerce has always been defined as an action not a failure to act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Punished because his action presumably led to some other failure to act (not buying more wheat on the open market.
The Commerce Clause is rarely, if ever these days, applied to anything remotely resembling interstate commerce. Congress is mostly in the business of impeding interstate commerce.
Growing your own wheat is a positive action. He was prohibited from growing wheat not forced to buy wheat. He could still have chosen to refrain from buying wheat.
Yup on the positive action, but the Court's reasoning was that it led to some inaction (not buying wheat). He essentially affected interstate commerce by not participating in it.
Regardless, what a ridiculous case and ruling.
I will have to admit as a member of the new rentier class (MD) I am amused at all this. How did we end up holding the public hostage to insurance companies? I stand to benefit from all this even more than the undeserving benefits I have now. But 80 percent of doctors I know still hate Obama.and will vote against him even if they have to vote for palin.
Most of us wouldn't mind an individual mandate if we had the single payer system our Dear Leader pushed for when he was campaigning. But with private insurance and pharma running off with most of the money it stinks. But move along, nothing to see. A Fed judge ruled DADT unconstitutional as well but that didn't stop Justice from appealing and Congress keeping it intact.
judge shopping has been a tactic used by both LEFT and Right..most leftist posting here smugly point out this judge was app by Bush..but being the honest souls they are they list other decisions which support socialist goals but never mention who appointed those judges.. just saying.
Justice in American is not blind..to our ill
We should split this country up or start shooting.
Does it have to be one or the other?
Politicians are constitutional lawyers only because they view the constitution as a nuisance and want to find ways around it.
Time to start over
1% tax on all to pay for all( rich and poor)
period.
I wrote on march 23rd:
Today the President signed a bill to fix health care by forcing every American to buy health insurance – or else pay a fine.
The President then said that he expects the Congress to present him with a bill to create jobs by forcing every American to buy a GM car – or else pay a fine.
When asked how every American can afford to buy health insurance and a car from GM, the President said that he will sign an executive order forcing every American to get a loan from a bank – or else pay a fine, and every bank will be forced to give those loans – or else pay a fine.
One brave reporter then asked, “But Mr. President, isn’t that Fascism?”, and he quoted The Philosophy of Fascism (Mario Palmieri, 1936):
To which the President replied, “Look … It’s NOT Fascism … because we don’t CALL it that.”
http://www.endofinnocence.com/2010/03/not-fascism-because-we-dont-call-it.htmlIn most states you cannot drive a car without insurance. That's true, the only difference is that nobody makes you drive a car, you get to choose. In Obama care there is no choice, everyone must participate. (Except certain groups, Congress, muslims, amish, the very rich, etc.)