Barnett and Foley: The Nuts and Bolts of the ObamaCare Ruling
For months, progressives smugly labeled the legal challenges to ObamaCare as "silly" or even "frivolous." Today their confidence must be severely shaken.
Late Monday afternoon in Pensacola, Fla., U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson delivered the second major judgment that the centerpiece of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—the "individual mandate" that forces Americans to buy health insurance whether or not they want it—is unconstitutional.
In December, District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled against the mandate in a separate lawsuit brought by the state of Virginia. But Judge Vinson's sweeping and powerfully reasoned decision this week went much further, striking down the entire health-reform law on the grounds that the individual mandate was not severable from the rest of the statute. And the plaintiffs in Judge Vinson's courtroom included the attorneys general of 26 states, not just one. His opinion thus casts a dark shadow over ObamaCare until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling on the matter.
Consider the problems posed by the insurance mandate. The Obama administration argued that it was supported by the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. True enough, insurance is [...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center. Ms. Foley is a professor of constitutional and health care law at Florida International University College of Law.
I like Obama. I like the way he deals with people and nations, and I think he's got good priorities. That said, I've always disagreed with mandates regarding things people have to pay for. I understand that, for instance, homeowner's and liability auto insurance are mandated because if something happens on or due to the property of a person who can't pay for the damages it leaves the damaged party out in the cold as far as compensation. While I agree that that would be unfortunate I think even those mandates are unconstitutional (good thing I'm never gonna be on the Supreme Court, huh :D). Things like requiring parents to buy car seats are even farther out of bounds. Of course a car seat is a good idea. Of course it's hard to imagine the justifications of people who wouldn't use them. But it's not the government's job to decide how one will parent and this mandate was only one of many steps it has taken to being incredibly intrusive in doing so. Forcing people to wear seat belts and helmets, even *further* out of line, given that if a person wants to risk their own life they have that right. Of course, if a person isn't wearing a seat belt or a helmet when they have an accident there might be consequences as far as any help or payout they might have otherwise gotten from it if insurance weren't mandatory. That would be appropriate. It would put the onus of consequences for one's choices on the one making them.
Forcing a person to carry health insurance is an even more egregious form of extortion, and it is along the lines of the USSR/Communist China kind of socialism. On the other hand, ensuring that anyone who needs health care can get it (rather than forcing us to insure against issues that haven't arisen and may never arise for a given individual) would be more along the lines of successful socialist programs, such as those in some of the northern European countries (and Canada and the UK, although their programs are not as successful in some areas). My personal belief is that if people knew they'd be able to get care when they need it but weren't paying an arm and a leg for it (insurance) or required to have continual problems to continue taking advantage of it (SSDI) they'd feel less obligated to use health resources unnecessarily. I was asked once in a discussion about this what I think about, for instance, cosmetic procedures under such a plan. My feeling on that is that as long as my neighbor can get the care she needs for her neuropathy (which, by the way, she's not getting under Medicaid or -care, whichever she's on) I don't care if someone wants to pay for a boob job or Botox out of the national health care pot. It'd be super-duper nice if we could also cover family pets, service animals, and livestock, too, but at least just people would be nice to start with. (I could be wrong. It could be that if we could all have all the health care we wanted we'd all just choose to be sick all the time, just like if weed were legal everyone would just get high all day - or so the argument goes - but I think neither of those outcomes is very likely.)
Comments
Post a Comment