Federal judge says key parts of health care reform unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Jan 31, 2011.

  1. rdowns, Jan 31, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2011

    rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    Link
     
  2. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
  3. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #3
    It'll end up at the US Supreme Court. Thomas and Scalia have already made up their mind though in Alderman vs US. Their judicial activism is truly scary.
     
  4. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #4
    Indeed it is. Hopefully the justices decide, like this judge, not to practice judicial activism and decide to read the constitution as it was written which clearly gives the government no right whatsoever to require individual citizens to purchase healthcare insurance.
     
  5. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #5
    I take it that you also agree then that the decision to allow corporations the same (actually more) rights than individuals was also against the grain of the precious constitution, right?

    I await your rationalization.
     
  6. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #6
    As I understand it, they through out the entire bill, not just the mandate. Talk about judicial activism.
     
  7. dscuber9000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Indiana, US
    #7
    But won't it be fun to see what health care plans the Republicans have? :D :(
     
  8. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #8
    Would it be so hard to just combine every insurance company and plan in the country and have one mega plan that everyone follows and pulls from. No loop holes or denied coverage. UHC that is still privately run but blankets the country.
     
  9. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #9
    Of course not. Germany has a similar system whereby the insurance companies are treated more or less like public utilities.
     
  10. fivepoint, Jan 31, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2011

    fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #10
    No... That's the law. If there is no severability clause... One unconstitutional component necessitates the entire bill be ruled unconstitutional.
     
  11. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #11
    Well the last stop will be the Supreme Court. This will be the for the championship! :p
     
  12. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #12
    When you consider that all of the insurance companies are publicly traded they really are not private companies. So can they all be ruled unconstitutional as well? None of them are using their money to help save people rather make their shareholders money.
     
  13. karsten macrumors 6502a

    karsten

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #13
    that part of the law seemed iffy to me at the time, i wasn't sure how they could require citizens to purchase something for something as basic as that, it seemed very un-american.
     
  14. ravenvii, Feb 1, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2011

    ravenvii macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #14
    Actually, this is wrong.

    The courts will look at the severability of a law. If a portion is severable from the other parts of the law without negating legislative intent, then it can/will be done.

    Here, however, as stated in Vinson's opinion, the mandate is NOT severable from the law without also negating the legislative intent in the other parts of the law. The mandate, in part, is intended to protect against those who would otherwise not sign up for insurance until a condition is imminent, then rush to sign up before they receive treatment. Remember, one part of the law is that insurance cannot be denied based on pre-existing conditions.

    Therefore in this case, the law, in the court's view, is not severable, and the entire law is therefore unconstitutional. But not for the reason you stated.

    We'll have to wait for the Supreme Court to make the final decision - this is just a district court. I'll give it more credit once it goes to an appellate court.

    I don't understand - what are you trying to say?
     
  15. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #15
    That insurance companies are not insuring the sick but rather their stockholders. Why are they being allowed to be publicly traded if they're only objective should be to help the sick who pay into the system? As far as I can tell these are public companies trading on a public stock market. All of those that are complaining about government run public healthcare should look at where all the money goes in the private system. How much of the premiums are being funneled out of the system. I am not saying that a government run system is the answer but the private system the way it is set up isn't doing any good.

    The only way to fix healthcare is to get rid of the loopholes and the red tape. We all pay enough into the system with high premiums that we should be covered. So lets open up the borders between states and pool all of the money together and let everyone pull from. If you pay in you should be able to get help from it without being denied coverage

    The healthcare law could be so simple to achieve if government would stop pandering to the lobbyists and shareholders. All we need is one wide open plan that covers everyone and every ailment
     

Share This Page