It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush-appointed federal judge strikes down health insurance mandate

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Bush-appointed federal judge strikes down health insurance mandate


www.rawstory.com

A federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush struck down on Monday a key provision of President Barack Obama's health reforms, declaring unconstitutional the mandate that every American purchase insurance.

In a suit filed by Virginia's Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, US District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson agreed that under the commerce clause, the requirement for citizens to purchase a service did not pass muster of law. The state of Virginia recently passed a law which
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Hopefully this ruling will stick, though I'm not holding my breath. It is absurd to mandate that every American buy health insurance. I agree that health care is too far out of reach for many Americans due to cost and that something should be done, especially when we pay far more for health care than every other developed country. However, when you force Americans to patronize the insurence industry, you are only benefitting that industry.

I believe the best solution would be to allow Americans to treat themselves. Right now, if you are sick or injured, you are basically forced to hire the services of people and entities (who are only approved by government by the way) that can and do take advantage of this fact by charging whatever they want. What we need is a whole radical shift in thinking, where we aren't forced to rely on government approved professionals for our health care. That way, we can derguate the industry, yet they would be forced to offer competitive prices in order to compete. I know that I would much rather treat myself say for an infection or a gash, than to be forced to patronize anyone who charges as much as they can get away with.

What Obama did, was take a problem and make it worse. Many people who support Obama's so-called "health care reform", argue that Obama had to compromise in order to pass this "reform". However, that compromise only helped the industry, while it burdened Americans more, even those that support universal healthcare. All Americans lose with Obama's health care reform, while the medical and insurance industries reap the benefits.

Universal health care is not what you got, instead you got corporatist policy that only helps the industry at our expense. You either have to do one or the other, either universal health-care or not, you can't strike a compromise and expect the American people to benefit. There is now nothing to keep this industry in check and if you think there is, then you are sadly mistaken.

With this latest ruling, we are getting somewhere, though I'm certainly not holding my breath.


--airspoon

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
There are 2 other threads on this topic. Mods need to remove this one. Sorry AS~



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
The ruling should stick simply because the Federal Government had to go to court and argue that this healthcare law falls under the taxing laws and therefore they can mandate it.... however the court ruled, correctly, that this is not a case of economic necessity and rather is the government forcing individuals to purchase an actual product.

I laughed the most when I found out that the Fed's lawyers actually had to argue that it is a tax.....especially after how many millions of dollars Obama spent trying to convince Americans it wasn't a tax.... and the amount of hours spent debating that very issue in one of the many threads dedicated to the subject.

Interestingly enough, this does not nullify the entire thing. Rather, only section 1501 (?) was found to be unconstitutional -- the personal mandate clause.

However, without forcing everyone to purchase health insurance -- the very part ruled unconstitutional -- there is no way to fund the entire healthcare bill.

The only thing left, after going all the way to the Supreme Court with this thing, would be for Obama to create a specific tax that everyone has to pay, and then allocate those funds to pay for his healthcare plan. However, people would still not be required to purchase healthcare....they would only be required to pay the tax.

I can't really see that happening though without a full revolt from the American people.

I'll take this as a victory for the Constitution.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Like I said in another thread, this ruling doesn't mean much. Of course one of these cases will end up in the Supreme Court...of course you would find some republican appointed judge to rule against it. I have no concerns with it reaching the Supreme Court...I think we all know that they will uphold it.

And you are right, this version of the HCR bill isn't the best for the American people...because a group of American people are downright idiots and screamed for the part of the legislation that WOULD benefit them...the public option. They did this out of ignorance because they were force fed that it was "SOCIALISM" and it isn't hard to convince a moron that something good for you is actually bad for you if you appeal to their emotions and stupidness.

So yes...this won't be the best...but it is a start...and yes he did need to compromise. You get this passed...you let the American people see how stupid they were by screaming against the public option and let them see how screwed they will get...and soon they will scream FOR the public option.

Or if the mandate does get removed (which I don't think it will), then the insurance companies will be screwed and the whole system may collapse...then we will get nationalized healthcare.

In the end...it will be what liberals wanted anyway...but we just have to do it the hard way because of the conservative base are a bunch of idiots.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Yea, because liberals are just an awfully intelligent bunch arent they?

In the realm of idiots, leftists are just as bad as jesus freaks.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


Oh. OUCH! One sidedness is appalling isnt it?



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
I agree that health care is too far out of reach for many Americans due to cost and that something should be done, especially when we pay far more for health care than every other developed country. However, when you force Americans to patronize the insurence industry, you are only benefitting that industry.

I believe the best solution would be to allow Americans to treat themselves. Right now, if you are sick or injured, you are basically forced to hire the services of people and entities (who are only approved by government by the way) that can and do take advantage of this fact by charging whatever they want. What we need is a whole radical shift in thinking, where we aren't forced to rely on government approved professionals for our health care.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding you there, but are you suggesting that we self treat medical problems and stop paying doctors, hospitals and clinics to do so? We diagnose ourselves, determine the best course of action and, if we determine that it's appropriate, write ourselves a prescription for medicine? Because that seems absolutely mad. If you can provide a reasonable argument as to how that's even remotely feasible for the general public, I'm willing to listen.

On the "cost of health care" front, I'm currently in the process of switching health insurance providers, and have about a two week window between coverages. Unfortunately, bad planning on my part resulted in running out of a critical medicine this week, so I went up the druggist and asked for a refill. She came back with "you're not covered any longer, so your $35 medicine is going to cost you $220". Sadly, this isn't an "optional" medicine that I take to stave off the aches and pains, I take it to stave off death, so I had to suck it up and pay the overage.

But it occurs to me that if one can't afford health insurance, one likely can't afford $220 / month for this medicine, so what do those people do? Get by on something less expensive (or nothing), I suppose, but does that threaten their quality of life, or shorten it? Would have to think so.

The real injustice is that the makers charge $220 for something that probably doesn't cost ten percent of that to actually manufacture, but I do understand the economics of the pharmacological industry, so what are you going to do?



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I'm saying that we should have the option to self treat, if we so desire. Right now, we don't have that option, thus we are forced to patronize the medical industry and they have the liberty to charge us as much as they want. After all, our lives do depend on it so they know we will pay whatever we have.

As it stands, in order to get an anti-biotic, we are forced to patronize a government approved doctor. If I want a medical treatment, say a small surgery or something, I can't have my wife/son/father/neighbor do it. Instead, I'm forced to patronize an industry that takes advantage of that force by charging ungodly amounts for their "service".

If someone wants to hire a government approved professional, then they should have the liberty to do so. However, if someone can't afford such a service, then they should have the liberty to treat themselves or have a family member do it.

If we had the option to treat ourselves, it would severely limit the industry's ability to extort us out of the shirts off our backs. They would have to price their services according to the market.

I find it a little absurd that if I have an infection or broken bone, I'm forced to patronize a government approved doctor for the proper procedures, tools and medicines. What's worse, is that these doctors can and do over charge for this service because after all, we are forced to patronize them by law. Either that, or die from our enjuries, which is also often illegal.

The whole system is screwed up and we are indoctrinated to believe that it is the only way. What we need is a radical new idea, the idea that we should have the liberty to treat ourselves if we so desire, instead of being forced through a middle man who often marks up the price by 5,000+ percent.

As it stands, we have one group of people who are arguing for deregulation of the medical industry and then we have another side who thinks the industry is taking advantage of our needs thus need to be heavily regulated. How about we do both? Deregulate the medical industry from government oversoght, then let the free-markets regulate the industry by allowing the average joe to compete.

We could bypass this whole problem that both sides are currently arguing over, by making it completely irrelevant.


--airspoon



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
As it stands, in order to get an anti-biotic, we are forced to patronize a government approved doctor. If I want a medical treatment, say a small surgery or something, I can't have my wife/son/father/neighbor do it. Instead, I'm forced to patronize an industry that takes advantage of that force by charging ungodly amounts for their "service".


Yeah, I'm still not getting it, sorry. What makes your neighbour qualified to do surgeries? If he's a retired doctor or something, I suppose, but if he's a meat cutter who's "picked up a few things on the Internet", do you feel like putting your life in his hands? And apart from not having the equipment, what's to prevent you and he from going down the basement and having your surgery there today? "Practicing medicine without a licence", I suppose, but if you don't say anything, and he doesn't say anything, who's to know?"

Medicine isn't like a salesman saying which tie looks nice with which hat, or a computer programmer writing a game, it's about incredibly complex issues of life and death, not merely yours, but others that might be threatened by risky behaviour on your part. You propose risking the loss of your life by having unqualified people perform surgery, simply to save some money? That's incredibly short sighted, though, what's more, is you propose giving yourself antibiotics because you think you might need them, in an age where qualified people have overprescribed antibiotics to the point where we see virulent strains of bacteria that no longer respond to treatment, so your self diagnosis and treatment likely threatens the health of those around you.

We have enough incompetent bumblers in the current system that requires some level of qualification, I can't imagine the mortality rates if it were just a free for all, every man for himself sort of thing.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Yeah, I'm still not getting it, sorry.


When we have been indoctrinated to think in a certain way, it becomes harder to see what would otherwise be the obvious. In man's history, it has only been recently (within a generation or two), where it has become illegal to choose anything other than a government approved/mandated medical professional for help. Although this line of thinking/policy is extremely new, it is enough time to indoctrinate society into accepting it, obviously. Therefore, I don't expect people to just understand, at least not with this line of thinking that has been indoctrinated into us.

"Schrodingers dog" posted a great thread, entitled "Five Mokeys", which exlpains this type of indoctrination. Anyway, here is the video:



In order to understand what I'm saying, you need to break free from the mold that has formed your way of thinking. Shouldn't you be able to choose who can heel or work on you? Shouldn't you have the right to lok after your own health or heal yourself, especially if you don't have the means to pay for this very expensive service? If your answer is "no", then why not? Is not each one of us born with an edict from our creator to take charge over our own lives? Or, do you think government officials and politicians were born with a special charter to take charge over you?

Your life is yours alone and it should be up to you to make any decisions that will affect that life, so long as it doesn;t prevent anyone else from doing the same. When you were born, your creator gave charge of your life to you, not anyone else. We were all born buck naked and empty handed, thus no-one came from our creator with any special edict over any other person. After all, you are the only one who ultimately has your best interests at heart. When you delegate control over your life, you are in affect delegating control to somebody who holds their own best interests over your own.


What makes your neighbour qualified to do surgeries?


You do. He does. An agreement between both of you qualifies him/her to do surgeries. Why must you need someone else to make that decision for you? If you don't feel like you or your neighbor can get the job done, then you are free to hire anyone else you want, to include government approved doctors. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't need some politician telling me what is best for or making decisions for me, especially when that decision means 5,000% mark-up through a middle man to do a job that I myself can do. If I can afford that middle man, this means that in affect, the government is not allowing me to live or at least remain healthy.

The point here, is that you shouldn;t be forced to allow anyone to make decisions on what best serves your interests because when you do that, you are basically ceding your best interest to theirs.

Nobody should be able to prevent me from ensuring my health, well-being and prosperity. This is what our founding fathers for and this what our generation and the generation directly before ours failed at maintaining. I bet if you had a time machine and went back in time 100 or 200 years, then told someone what it's like in the 21st century where you are either forced to hire someone to keep you healthy at 5,000% markup and if you can't affford it, then you lose the right to life. They probably wouldn't believe you, as even the most controlling dictators didn't take that riight away. Yet, just like with the "five monkeys", we have been programed to accept it. This is what is ultimately leading us to the problem of health care today, meanwhile the industry is profitting by having power over your life and taking advantage of that power.


--airspoon



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





In the end...it will be what liberals wanted anyway...but we just have to do it the hard way because of the conservative base are a bunch of idiots.


Yeah you know nationalized health care is the best way to do things. Just ask the politicians from Canada, Europe, and all around the word that fly here to get treated. When it comes time for open heart surgery or some new and "experimental" surgery people come here.

Nationalization of a service or industry leads to the death of eficiency and progress. When there is no profit motive for pushing the boundaries things tend to stagnate. If you are going to make the same amount of money regardless of whether you develop the next leap in technology or keep using the old technology, you'll probably go home to your wife and popcorn. It is even more true when you know that insurance will not pay for the new procedure untill it is "proven."

Indiana just denied a child a life saving transplant because it was deemed experimental. 58 out of the 60 past patients have seen a dramatic improvement in their life. However according to government bean counters they need more cases before it is an accepted practice. That means instead of a 96% chance of a full recovery and long life the kid has been told he has to die.

A private insurance company looks at the results, then they look at the cost of treating the terminal patient. WHen they see the one surgery is cheaper than multiple admittances for a chronic and terminal issue they aprove the procedure. Then as more procedures are done the cost goes down. More doctors know how to perform the surgery and the technologies to make it more eficient are developed. The doctors make increased money because of their increased knowledge base. The guy that developed it makes more money because he is paid to train other doctors. Plus more people get to enjoy life saving procedures.

That does not occur in nationalized industries. They end up growing stagnant because of the lack of compensation and competition.

We do need to find ways to bring down cost, but nationalizing health care will not do that. Eliminating competition will lead to the exact opposite. How many things does our government do cheaper than private companies?



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Saw that on Prison Planet. Rush L. talked about it and it is all over the news.

My opinion: Good news is always welcome.

Scoutsniper



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


You wrote and asked: "How many things does our government do cheaper than private companies?
Any one or any company that is willing to pay $300.00 for a screw driver is "sick".
Answer: "NONE"

Scoutsniper



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Again, I think that we're running at cross purposes here. I don't think that you shouldn't have the right to seek out whatever treatment you want, quite the contrary. And I don't think that, in the United States, at least, you don't already have that right. If you are told that you have cancer, you can go to the doctor and get treated, or you can do nothing, or you can take herbs, or you can have people pray for you, or whatever.

But I fail to see the logic in saying that anyone who claims that he's a doctor somehow becomes one. People study, are evaluated and spend years working under supervision before they are considered a doctor. That's what a qualification is, and the more complicated something is, the greater the need for qualification, and the higher the standard of qualification need be.

If you don't like the current system, the solution is obvious -- don't use it. Stop going to the doctor. Stop taking prescription medicine. Learn what you can about holistic healing techniques and use those instead. If you have faith in your neighbour or father or someone diagnosing and treating you, stick with that. The only thing that you will lack is access to expensive testing equipment and prescription medicines, but if money is all that matters, you'd be out those anyway.

I would suspect, however, that the life expectancy of someone who followed such a plan would be greatly diminished and the only thing that would make it worse is if you DID, in fact, have the ability for unqualified, untrained people to prescribe controlled medicines (or to make all medicines uncontrolled.) When even slight variations in dosages of some medicines can be sufficient to kill, the likelihood that one would survive long in such an unmanaged scenario seems pretty slim.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by scoutsniper
 


When I was in college a person gave our department $10,000 earmarked for a certain piece of technology. Having this technology would have put us on the cutting edge at the time. The department head could have called the corporation, faxed in paper work, and had the piece there in two weeks.

Instead he had to put the money in to a special account for donations. Then he had to wait for the accountants to acknowledge that the money was there. Then they had to process it and write a reciept. Afterwards they had to credit it to the department's budget. That process took nearly six weeks and cost hundreds of dollars in salaries, building expenses, utilitie payments and so forth.

After the money actually made it to the department's account the program head had to meet with the professors and come to consensus that the technology was necessary. They had to submit this to the department head. He then had to take it to the advisory board. They had to discuss which version of the technology would be best to purchase. Then they had to submit that back to the professors. The professors looked at the advisory board's suggestion and submitted their revisions to the proposal. The advisory board met again and the process continued back and forth. Finally when consensus was reached on which particular version of the technology to buy they had to decide who to buy it from. Eventually they agreed to buy the actual piece from one of the board members. The necessary accesories they bought from another board member's company.

It took nearly three years from the day the donation was recieved. By the time it was actually recieved and ready to use four years had passed. The technology was no longer cutting edge and knowing how to use it was becoming an industry standard. They had also ended up having to buy a less expensive version, and skimp on some necessary features. Instead of buying it directly from the company that manufactured it they bought it from a second tier distributor with a high mark up.

Instead of a $10,000 dollar piece of equipment they ended up with a piece that cost $4,500 directly from the manufacturer. The accesories they purchased would have been unnecessary if they had ordered it from the manufacturer. The manufacturer would have supplied them because it was a non-profit educational institution buying the equipment. They had also spent thousands in extra utilities and administrative fees.

This was a state college. To me it shows the inefficiency of how the government does business.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Before the name calling starts, I would like to say I don't see this as Rep vs Dem, or conservative vs liberal issue. It's a national issue that affects all citizens.

I was excited when people started talking about nationalized health care. I thought it would save the taxpayers tons of money, improve everyone's health, and drive the insurance companies out of business. This compromised bill is flawed though because some people(Reps and Dems both) were concerned about over-reaching government and/or the dreaded S word.

I think forcing people to buy health insurance is just stupid, not to mention illegal according to the constitution. The public option could have taken a big chunk out of the insurance business, but people said that's not covered in the constitution either, which it isn't. Maybe we need a constitutional amendment?

Maybe if this bill gets struck down, Congress can try again and make it better. I fully support a public option national health care system.

Flag for your thread airspoon, I think this is an issue that needs national debate.
edit on 12/13/10 by thov420 because: Flag



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
That's what a qualification is, and the more complicated something is, the greater the need for qualification, and the higher the standard of qualification need be.


But who decides the standards, and assigns the qualifications? That's the problem. Big pharmaceuticals does it. If you want to know why the medical industry embraces the approaches to cancer that they do, it isn't because they're particularly successful, but because less than 10 minutes of radiation "therapy" can cost you $800 or more. Money is what moves businesses, industries (including medical businesses and industries) as well as lawyers and our " representatives' " pockets. Same with the FDA which regulates what constitutes a legal drug or treatment, etc. etc. etc.

They are not always looking in your best interests. The doctor might be, but your doctor is only the very end of a long chain of command in these issues and even he's also too often concerned with his paychecks to stand up against his employers or their suppliers and get fired. The ones that do stand up to this broken system are the very ones who end up working for other organizations that get branded as "unqualified" and all the rest by the status quo who are still blasting people with radiation in corporate hospitals.


I don't have to have anything to do with this system -- yet. And that's good. But this new law would require me to pay a penalty for not purchasing health care insurance applicable to this broken medical institution. Fascism is supposedly defined as the merger of big-business and government, or big-businesses paying off and buying out government resources. Even if I would want to get away from this system, they're either going to force me in or require me to pay a penalty. That's completely unconstitutional, and I'm glad my state and many others have challenged the fed on this.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


On the contrary, as you don't have that right. You can pick and choose any government approved doctor, but that's about it. If I need antibiotics for instance, I have to pay a government approved doctor, not only for a permission slip to take the medicine, but also for a visit with this doctor. Then, if he so decides that you can;t have an anti-biotic or if he is lobbied by big-pharma to prescribe another kind, you either have to deal with it, or go untreated. In fact, it's even illegal to go to another doctor for a different kind of medicine (doctor shopping, they call it). So basically, we have to cede our health to what are in effect, "agents of the government" (technically speaking).

Furthermore, it is illegal for me to get my neighbor to say remove a bullet or conduct a surgery on me. That is actually illegal, thus I'm forced to cede my health dicisions to government approved doctors. I think the huge thing here is medicine. I can not medicate myself, even if it is my choice only. In fact, it is completely illegal to even possess the medicine, without permission from an agent of the government. So, not only am I beholden to these government approved medical doctors for simple medications and chemicals, some medications and chemicals will never be prescribed. You basically have to accept whatever this person wants you to accept and all too often, his interests will supercede your own. Then, you must go to these doctors for the majority of your health needs. If you don't see the obvious contradiction to liberty and freedom in this, then maybe you will see the other side of the coin and how it affects you.

Because the medical industry knows that it is a crime to seek help from anywhere else, they know that you can either die or submit to their ultimate authority, thus they can charge whatever prices they want, generally as much as they can get away with. If Americans saw this for what it is, there would be a revolution before the morning and believe they realize this too. So, they devised a plan to put most Americans on a monthly payment for this huge cost and this is what we call insurence. If evry American was forced to pay upfront, then nobody would get healthcare, as everyone is prevented from treatng themselves, thus we would revolt. However, if you pay these heafty costs through a monthly payment, such as the case with "insurace" and you are indoctrinated to just accept that this is the way things have always been, then the shock isn;t so big and you go about your day. What most people don't realize, is that they still pay these huge sums of money, they are just put on a monthly payment to do it. I don't know the exact figure, but if someone has insurance for the majority of their life, I'm sure they will have paid at least a half million dollars for medical issues that would otherwise cost a few cents. With the monthly payments and the indoctrination to just accept this, people don't ever think about the huge costs of medical treatments that you could otherwise do yourself.

Again, people from two centuries ago would never believe this system that we have here, where we cede our health over to someone else, beyond our control.

--airspoon



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


You sir, are correct. There is nothing to add to your post that could tell of government waste any better.

Great post.

Scoutsniper



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join