The Florida judge ruled in favor of the 26 states' attorneys general. The judge stated clearly, and in no uncertain language, that the Obama health care bill is unconstitutional in its entirety.
North Dakota is one of the 26 states in the lawsuit.
The law was already unraveling like a moth-eaten sweater with more than 730 waivers, many of these waivers granted to unions that supported the President and the health care bill.
The judge noted Barack Obama's position on nationalized health care during the 2008 campaign:
In ruling against President Obama's health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr Obama's own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.So, now unto the Supreme Court.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
With Vermont looking at coming up with a single-payer system for state-wide health care to replace ObamaCare, I think the threshold becomes even higher for the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling. The Supreme Court is likely to look also at states' rights.
By the time this reaches the Supreme Court, expect more waivers for unions and corporations, and expect more states to look at their own solutions. The states now realize they can't afford ObamaCare. Nor can the unions that supported the plan and the President.
Congress is also exempt. The act says that members of Congress are covered by a health plan and thus are not affected by the bill, i.e., exempt. Therefore, those who are covered by a health plan should also not be affected by this bill, using that same reasoning, but that is not true. If that was true, we wouldn't be seeing the waivers or the lawsuit before the Florida judge.
I assume we will see a request for an emergency stay and it will be granted.
One the astonishing things, to me, is the lack of discussion about medical providers. You want to insure an additional 30 million people but I don't hear any discussion about expanding Medical School admissions. Did they consider how many physicians are "baby boomers"? Doesn't it take 10-15 years to get from the beginning of Med School to practioner?
ReplyDeleteThe basic law of supply and demand. They want to expand coverage(demand), but do nothing to expand the number of medical practioners (supply). Are they going to steal physicians from other countries?
Interesting commentary from Woody Brock (economist) on this subject (14 minutes). Click on the first Good Listen.
http://www.sedinc.com/good-listens.html
Several interesting select commentary pieces listed under his "Good Reads" and "Good Listens) tabs, which he belately makes available to non-subscribers. I particularly enjoyed the "The End Game Grows Nigh" under Good Reads.
Mike
Thank you. There were many problems with that bill. I can't even begin to go into all of them, but I will mention two: a) the one you mentioned; and, b) tort reform.
ReplyDeleteI do feel strongly that somehow folks with pre-existing conditions should be able to get affordable insurance (such as those with "juvenile" diabetes) but there has to be a better way than through Washington, DC.
In Brock's discussion he mentioned tort reform as well a type of "Catastrophic" insurance plan which seemed logical.
ReplyDeleteMike
Yes, there is so much "low-hanging fruit" -- so many sensible and easy things that could be done without trying to tackle the entire issue with one bill and all that brings with it.
ReplyDeleteRemember that this legislation was ( pass this bill then you can read it.)
ReplyDeleteOH, i also forgot , that there was Also supposed to be a 5 day waiting period for all to read this bill on the internwt before it was signed into law..
the cheapest way to make health care more affordable is for rationing which republicans do not want ,and tort reform which democrats reject jj
ReplyDelete