What a surprise, eh?
Judge Gladys Kessler, a Clinton appointee upheld ObamaCare in Federal Court. Out of the three judges who've done so, all of them were appointed by thatparagon of law and order, Mr. Bill.
She used the old wheeze that the Interstate Commerce clause can pretty much allow government to do whatever it wants to, whenever it wants to....including mental activity, known as 'decision making'.
Judge Kessler at least had the courage to admit that this was brand new stuff:
As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power…. However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
Of course, if she's correct than any decision-making action, any "mental activity" that has an economic effect is subject to rigid regulation by the feds, just as Judge Vinson said.
This could be used to justify a mandate to buy wheat products, or GM cars or anything else because your decision not to buy them is "economic activity" that affects the price of these goods in the interstate marketplace.
Somehow, I doubt the Founders had anything like this in mind...unless you're talking about a very different founder for a very different system named Lenin.
The Soviets were very big on that command economy thing.
(via memeorandum)
I am not a defender of the individual mandate but it seems to me that this provision overshadows other important provisions such as the one saying that nobody can be denied health insurance based on pre-existing condition which is clearly beneficial to many people.
ReplyDeleteHello Heather, and welcome to Joshuapundit.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, IMO it's important to look at ObamaCare not as a healthcare bill (it isn't) but as a TAX bill and a way for government to control 1/6th of the US economy.
The problem of pre-existing conditions can be solved very easily, without destroying America's healthcare system.
Here's how:
Most states mandate that people who want to drive a vehicle there (my own state refers to it as 'your driving privilege' )either purchase a set amount of liability insurance or post a cash bond for that amount with their state Department of Motor Vehicles.
But as you can imagine, there are some people - drivers with multiple open container or drunk driving arrests, people who have an inordinate amount of tickets or accidents, etc. - who no company wants to insure and who are denied.
What happens is that they are put into a pool labeled 'assigned risk' and doled out evenly to every insurance company doing business in that state,where they pay a set rate legislatively established, depending on their circumstances.
There's absolutely no reason the same thing can't be done with healthcare insurance for pre-existing conditions.
Another piece of the puzzle...even people without insurance manage to get necessary healthcare. For years illegal aliens and others without insurance have been going to ERs and getting treated. They are never turned away, and since they often can't pay for the care, the hospital eats the cost.
There are also various free clinics that pick up some of the slack, a service I took advantage of myself some years ago when I needed treatment but had no insurance.
The idea that there are 'millions of Americans without healthcare' is a myth.
In fact, the places where it isn't a myth are places like the UK, where people may have insurance on paper but effectively are prohibited from using it in a timely manner because of the huge wait to see a doctor for anything but major emergencies.
Regards,
Rob