From:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...onstitutional-
The judge's words are quoted:
Quote:
|
I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
|
As I predicted, you cannot Constitutionally require someone to buy something simply for EXISTING.
So, for those of you who didn't like "Obamacare" and opposed it with a passion, how do you feel about THIS form of "legislating from the bench"? After all, the law was passed by a majority of those who were elected BY THE PEOPLE.
Ok, sarcasm over
In all seriousness, from the start, I said that the government has a better argument (Constitutionally speaking) for a single-payer system akin to the UK & Canada due to the "interstate commerce" clause - which the judge refers to in talking about health care being 1/6th the economy - than in requiring an insurance purchase with the 'individual mandate'.
Unfortunately it seems that each side is in an "all or nothing" argument while the idea of the system that are rated far better than ours, Canada's or the UK's (a joint public/private system like in Switzerland and France) don't even get mentioned.