Darned that pesky Constitution: Obamacare
Topics: Health
13 Dec 2010
From: Ervan Darnell
A federal judge just threw out the "must buy" part of Obamacare [1] as
not being authorized by the Commerce Clause. Well, of course it
isn't. Just how the heck do you get from regulating interstate
commerce to forcing someone to buy health insurance? Most of the rest
of it isn't either. How about the section that forbids your doctor
from opening a new clinic nearer to you? Sounds in-state to me
(usually).
Liberal reaction is the funniest part of this. I especially like "The
Atlantic" [2], which fishes around and finds a bad precedent
(Wickard), then an even more egregious use of the bad precedent
(Raich) and declares in effect that all limits on Congress are dead.
Yes, Stare Decisis should maybe apply (always difficult when previous
decisions are clearly unconstitutional), but that's different than
expanding on bad precedent where the original argument doesn't apply.
One bad use of the Commerce Clause doesn't mean that any bad use is
therefore acceptable.
Wish I had kept some of those liberal blog posts that opined the whole
suit was frivolous, ha ha. Yeah, I know it's unlikely to survive
without being overturned, but even a blip of sanity is refreshing.
I love this one too: '"If we're going to outlaw discrimination based
on preexisting conditions, the only way to keep people from gaming the
system and raising costs on everyone else is to ensure that everyone
takes responsibility for their own health insurance," said Stephanie
Cutter, assistant to the president for special projects, in a blog
post Monday.' [1] No, you can keep people from raising costs by not
giving them unlimited free healthcare, or more narrowly by not forcing
insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions for the regular
insurance price (or even by perhaps by subsidizing pre-existing
conditions explicitly instead of implicitly as Obamacare does). Oh,
wait, I'm talking about markets, the administration hasn't heard of
those. I just really liked the "take responsibility part". From the
Obama administration? The very people dedicated to rewarding
irresponsibility in every policy they advocate.
"The Obama administration says Virginia does not have the legal
standing to challenge the law on behalf of its citizens, particularly
for something that has yet to take effect" [3] Never mind the
gazillions of mandates on states. I doubt they think individuals have
standing either. Oh well, it's consistent, neither the courts nor the
states have any authority to limit Congress.
----------------
[1] 12/13/10 LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-20101213,0,5667245.story
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/12/commerce-clause-conundrum/67953/
[3] http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BC39D20101214?pageNumber=2
--
Unsubscribe: kelvinistragnar+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/kelvinistragnar?hl=en
Home