From: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...onstitutional-

The judge's words are quoted:

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.

Originally Posted by djplong

From: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...onstitutional-

The judge's words are quoted:



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.

Unless this is your humor; you have a funny way of twisting things. Congress is not omnipotent. Congress has to abide by the Constitution. When the Court wields it's power correctly, as in this case, it's to remind Congress of this limit to it's power. To strike down a law because it overrides the Constitution, is not "legislating from the bench". This is the Court's actual role in matters like this.

To say Canada's and the U.K.'s health care system is better than our free market system which has revolutionized treatments and medicines for the whole world is preposterous. You would dumb down our medical world as the schools have dumbed down education by bringing us all down to equal; instead of striving to bring those who are down to a higher level.

The Judge use Obama's campaign statements against him in his ruling. You gotta like this judge.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-against-him/

If a person cannot be required to buy health insurance, I suppose in an emergency we don't have to treat him either(Unless he can pay cash!)

Originally Posted by RichieLion

To say Canada's and the U.K.'s health care system is better than our free market system which has revolutionized treatments and medicines for the whole world is preposterous. You would dumb down our medical world as the schools have dumbed down education by bringing us all down to equal; instead of striving to bring those who are down to a higher level.

Do not confuse the heath care system (which is what delivers health care) with the research and development system.

Sure, we have that new $97,000 prostate cancer treatment. What good is it if you can't afford it or your insurance plan doesn't cover it?

As far as R&D is concerned, THERE I can agree with you. One of my pet peeves is that WE, in this country, seem to pay for the R&D that the rest of the world then gets "at cost" (or closer to it).

But you cannot name me ONE SINGLE metric where our actual health-care DELIVERY system is 'the best' or close to it. Even earlier the comment about people coming to this country for health care is now debunked when I found research that showed that ten times number of people travel OUT of the US for health care than the number of foreigners who travel here for health care.

I'm not being sarcastic. PLEASE - give me one good, objective metric. Everywhere I turn, I find the same answer - we're deluding ourselves with patriotic jingoism so long as whatever insurance plan we have doesn't kick us off.

Life expectancy, rates of certain diseases, birth mortality and, most of all, per capita spending. Every time I look up another statistic it shows how far we've fallen.

You think I *LIKE* finding this out?

Originally Posted by djplong

Do not confuse the heath care system (which is what delivers health care) with the research and development system.

Sure, we have that new $97,000 prostate cancer treatment. What good is it if you can't afford it or your insurance plan doesn't cover it?

As far as R&D is concerned, THERE I can agree with you. One of my pet peeves is that WE, in this country, seem to pay for the R&D that the rest of the world then gets "at cost" (or closer to it).

With privatized health care the lure is PROFIT!!! No profit no R&D. Why the hell do you think all the world relies on our research? Because we're the ones who perform it and we perform it for PROFIT!!

Under a government run health care system you're only going to get the care if the government deems you worthy of it, so don't count on getting that $97,000 treatment you're throwing out there.

If the government health care bill is SO GREAT, why are so many parties, PRIMARILY THE UNIONS WHO DONATED MEGA BUCKS TO OBAMA, being given exemptions from the bill.

Wake up and smell the coffee DJ. This is about control, and anyone who believes it's about HEALTH CARE is, I'm sorry to say, a fool.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ted_for_o.html

While I understand your response - I really do, I'm not patronizing you.. You didn't answer the question.

Conflating the health care system with the RESEARCH industry is a mistake. Yes, there is a relationship between the two - to be honest, EVERYTHING is related.

But you DO understand there's a difference between coming up with the latest $100K treatment for some disease or new cancer treatment and the delivery of *basic* medical care, yes?

Isn't there something ideologically wrong with "insurance" that covers Viagara but not eyeglasses? (Not saying that covering Viagara is wrong - just that covering the urologist visits but not the ophthalmologist rubs me the wrong way)

Just to add some facts to the debate - I found some numbers that show just how much we spend on research. Here's a Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care

In section 2:

In terms of pharmaceutical R&D spending, Europe spends a little less than the United States (€22.50bn compared to €27.05bn in 2006) and there is less growth in European R&D spending. Pharmaceuticals and other medical devices are the leading high technology exports of Europe and the United States. However, the United States dominates the biopharmaceutical field, accounting for the three quarters of the world’s biotechnology revenues and 80% of world R&D spending in biotechnology.

Of great interest to me is that the judge used the Presidents own words from the campaign in his decision.

To me, another example of how this man just simply does not tell the truth..how it is all about the votes (of course, this is a man who has never done much but run for office so it is ingrained)

He says what is convenient at the moment but he says it oh so nice !

The Health Care law is still law until decided differently by the US Supreme Court.

Remember the 3 branches of US Government? Unless you are Charles Schumer.

Originally Posted by Tbugs

The Health Care law is still law until decided differently by the US Supreme Court.

Remember the 3 branches of US Government? Unless you are Charles Schumer.

Actually, no. The Federal Judge threw out the whole bill and that stands. Obamacare is now declared Unconstitutional in total. It now needs the Supreme Court to redefine it if it so chooses.