Nationalized Healthcare-unconstitutional?
- Thread starter B_lrgeggs
- Start date
What nationalized healthcare? There isn't any in the United States.
There was tax-driven mandate to purchase healthcare, but it was part of the terrible pro-business legislation that conservatives in both parties pushed through congress last year. Is that what you're talking about?
Nationalized healthcare would be a huge step-up.
Hockeytiger
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Posts
- 721
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 308
- Points
- 283
- Location
- Illinois (United States)
- Sexuality
- 69% Straight, 31% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I'm nitpicking here, but this wouldn't be a case of an true "activist" judge. The complaints from conservatives is that judges who lean left (or at least those who are perceived by conservatives to lean left) tend to expand rights beyond the "clear" (and from thier point of view, almost always very narrow) wording in the Constitution, effectively amending the Constitution without going through the specified amendment process. In this case, it looks like the judge did not expand any rights but rather narrowly interpreted the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. Whether the judge was correct or not, I'll leave to the Court of Appeals.
I'll nitpick farther.
People who use the term "activist judge" are generally people who don't know what judges do. A judge's job is to interpret the law as they see it, be it a strict constructionist view, or otherwise.
All judges are activist. It's a meaningless statement. What people mean when they say "activist judge" is "judge who decided differently from what I wanted". But that's not really surprising, given the fact that the people usually complaining about activist judges are people who don't really understand how the legal and legislative system works.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Posts
- 22,256
- Media
- 213
- Likes
- 32,277
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Reality Check:
Before this case there have been fourteen decisions on the constitutionality of HCR:
Sollars v. Reid -dismissed 4/2/10
Taitz v. Obama - dismissed 4/14/10
Archer v. U.S. Senate - dismissed 4/12/10
Heghmann v. Sebelius - dismissed 5/14/10
Mackenzie v. Shaheen - dismissed 5/26/10
Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots v. Sebelius - dismissed 6/2/10
Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius - dismissed on 6/21/10
U.S. Citizens Association v. OMB - dismissed 8/2/10
Baldwin v. Sebelius – dismissed 8/27/10
Burlsworth v. Holder - dismissed 9/8/10
Schreeve v. Obama - dismissed 11/4/10
Health Reform Wins Another Round in Court | The White House
The first fourteen left HCR alone. On the fifteenth case a GHWBush appointed judge says it is unconstitutional So all of a sudden the sky is falling and HCR is going to fail.
Before this case there have been fourteen decisions on the constitutionality of HCR:
Sollars v. Reid -dismissed 4/2/10
Taitz v. Obama - dismissed 4/14/10
Archer v. U.S. Senate - dismissed 4/12/10
Heghmann v. Sebelius - dismissed 5/14/10
Mackenzie v. Shaheen - dismissed 5/26/10
Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots v. Sebelius - dismissed 6/2/10
Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius - dismissed on 6/21/10
U.S. Citizens Association v. OMB - dismissed 8/2/10
Baldwin v. Sebelius – dismissed 8/27/10
Burlsworth v. Holder - dismissed 9/8/10
Schreeve v. Obama - dismissed 11/4/10
Health Reform Wins Another Round in Court | The White House
The first fourteen left HCR alone. On the fifteenth case a GHWBush appointed judge says it is unconstitutional So all of a sudden the sky is falling and HCR is going to fail.
Last edited:
Mensch1351
Cherished Member
That's odd................I heard that a Federal Judge in Virginia ruled that it's unconstitutional for the President to issue a proclamation ending slavery in America. I guess the "old" argument about what the Federal government is allowed to do and not do for the benefit of the nation is about to rise again!!!
I think a list should be comprised of all those who are truly against this and they should be BANNED from EVER getting into it ---- could have worked out great for those who might have been given the privilege of opting out of social security and then found their "other plans" totally down the tubes in the latest market crash! "Sorry" -- you opted out! Now work til you drop and starve --- we don't believe in bail outs for anybody! Ah the heartless Taliban Americans!
Last edited:
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Oh don't get me started. I think the whole problem began when the Federal goverment leaned on the banks to extend home loans to those
who weren't credit worthy. That turned out to be a disaster. Now comes
along the Federal Government who decides let's have National Healthcare. It's a great idea. Let's see if the States can manage that and leave the Federal Government out of it.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Posts
- 22,256
- Media
- 213
- Likes
- 32,277
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Actually his ruling said no such thing. He was ruling on the constitutionality of the "Individual Mandate" to purchase Health Insurance, NOT on "Nationalized Helathcare."
One thing I am kinda curious on, if it's unconstitutional to have this provision, does that state doesn't have a law mandating Auto Insurance too?
It doesn't matter. You choose to drive, including purchasing a car, getting a license, and driving on public roads. If you done none of that, you will never need auto insurance.
Everyone needs healthcare. That's why it's perverse to even have it as a for-profit service dependent on ability to pay.
Mostly true, but in today's economy especially, it could be argued that it is unrealistic to expect someone to be able to make a living and do all of the travelling that is required for daily life without a reliable means of transportation. If you're in New York City, that's no big deal, if you're in El Paso, not so much.
Honestly, I just get so surprised at the number of people who still think of "Obamacare" as nationalized medicine. When citizens polled about what the public option was replied that they thought it was socialized medicine, my jaw hit the floor. Now, after over a year of debate, and the only thing that even resembled nationalized healthcare enough to draw that (Republican Party fabricated) comparison being dropped from the legislation, some people still don't know the difference between it and nationalized healthcare.
Should those people even be allowed to vote? I mean seriously, would it really be all that discriminatory to have an entrance exam based on the actual talking points which are discussed during the campaign, proving that you at least have a basic grasp of what the issues are before you're allowed to cast a vote for or against them? It would even be the perfect counterbalance against campaigns based arounds lies, deceit, and slander. A well placed lie or two might make people vote for you, but if you lie to big and distort too much, they'll get turned away and be unable to vote at all. It would certainly encourage people to educate themselves on issues rather than swallowing what Glenn Be.... er.... certain partisan TV personalities feed them hook, line, and sinker.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Posts
- 196
- Media
- 23
- Likes
- 196
- Points
- 373
- Location
- DFW (Texas, United States)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
How does this line of logic work for current 20-somethings that could have opted out but may have no SoSec at their retirement age, "sorry, you're fucked too"?
B_talltpaguy
Experimental Member
Obamacare: Study Finds 40% of Doctors May Quit: Research conducted by Merritt Hawkins shows that the new health care reform could intensify existing problems for doctors and worsen the shortage of primary care doctors, making it more difficult for patients to access quality care. Here are some specifics:
- The majority of physicians (60%) said health reform will compel them to close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients. Of these, 93% said they will be forced to close or significantly restrict their practices to Medicaid patients, while 87% said they would be forced to close or significantly restrict their practices to Medicare patients.
- 40% of physicians said they would drop out of patient care in the next one to three years, either by retiring, seeking a non-clinical job within healthcare, or by seeking a non-healthcare related job.
- The majority of physicians (59%) said health reform will cause them to spend less time with patients.
I think that the physicians polled are offering their opinions rather than facts based on compatibility with the healthcare legislation and their business. Of course, I'm also very ready to believe that these statistics were gathered from a biased polling population, especially considering the featured "News" artice from this site was how the "Death Panels" are now underway.
Similar threads
