| Appeals Court Rules Against Obama Healthcare Mandate |
| Is health a national asset? If so it must be given priority over profit. The illness profit system should be done with. Universal health care. |
| JEREMY PELOFSKY and JAMES VICINI - Reuters |
| President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law suffered a setback on Friday when an appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty. The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled 2 to 1 that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but it unanimously reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire law. The legality of the individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents have argued that without the mandate, which goes into effect in 2014, the entire law falls. The law, adopted by Congress in 2010 after a bruising battle, is expected to be a major political issue in the 2012 elections as Obama seeks another term. All the major Republican presidential candidates have opposed ... |
Read More - |
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 7
Your implicit claim of 'political motivation' for every act is the very thing which creates the 'gridlock' the public so detests.
As for the mandate being originally a republican idea, that may well be so. That does not mean that upon more in-depth investigation and analysis such an idea cannot be set aside because it does not meet necessary constitutional hurdles. Has every idea you have ever had been completely workable and without flaw, even sometimes serious flaw, upon further reflection?
In short, this ObamaCare requirement is the very antithesis of free-enterprise (the end of which is after all the goal of every action by this administration).
The court decision's individual mandate discussion primarily starts at p 99 of the opinion (found here) and the following excerpt is from p 129:
"In sum, the individual mandate is breathtaking in its expansive scope. It regulates those who have not entered the health care market at all. It regulates those who have entered the health care market, but have not entered the insurance market (and have no intention of doing so). It is overinclusive in when it regulates:
it conflates those who presently consume health care with those who will not consume health care for many years into the future. The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life. This theory affords no limiting principles in which to confine Congress’s enumerated power."
Wow, think about that. IS that the basis upon which you want the Federal government making decisions? What happened to Liberty?
This implies that a poor, who can't afford cares, is condemned to die ... unless the taxpayer pays for the involved expenses.
Charity or liberalism? We saw it recently when charity was paying to help for replacing lumbs on a teenager.