I’m not sure if the conflicting judicial rulings that have come down regarding President Obama’s healthcare legislation are more like ping-pong, or an Olympic wrestling match. The rulings are back and forth, and any progress is incremental for either side.
Conservatives have a sworn allegiance to killing the healthcare bill by any means necessary. Unable to outright repeal it (not enough votes in the Senate, and it would be vetoed by the Prez anyway) they have adopted a strategy of death by a thousand paper cuts; bleeding the many components of the bill of funding to keep them from full implementation.
Another battle from is in the courts. There have been several conflicting rulings by different lower-court judges. Conservative judges have said the bill is unconstitutional; others have said it’s not. Who to believe becomes a matter of personal preference. Those who have never liked President Obama never wanted a healthcare bill and believe it over reaches, while those who support the POTUS believe the bill is a great starting point.
The latest federal court ruling says the bill is unconstitutional, thereby almost guaranteeing a Supreme Court showdown to ultimately decide the fate of the healthcare bill, the legacy of Obama’s presidency and the future of healthcare in America for generations.
At the heart of the judicial battle is the Commerce Clause and whether it can be used to mandate that every American purchase health insurance (if its not already provided by an employer). This is the linchpin of the who plan; by mandating that everyone have coverage, it ensures a large enough pool of patients to spread the risk and keep rates low enough to make it affordable for everyone (in theory).
The argument of the program being unconstitutional rests on the premise that the Commerce Clause can not be used to essentially force someone to purchase something they otherwise would not have bought, and was never intended to give Congress that much authority.
The Commerce Clause states: “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”. That’s it. That’s all it says.
Leaves a lot of room for interpretation, doesn’t it? There is a little more information, called the Necessary and Proper Clause that essentially allows Congress to make laws and carry out powers as necessary within the parameters of the Constitution. None of this is very clear at all and ultimately will rest with the Supreme Court.
With today’s Court leaning conservative, there is a better than even chance that the court will rule against the bill, requiring a complete reworking of the bill and its provisions.
If that happens, I have not heard any alternative plan put forth by conservatives to make healthcare more accessible and affordable for citizens.
Conservatives have a sworn allegiance to killing the healthcare bill by any means necessary. Unable to outright repeal it (not enough votes in the Senate, and it would be vetoed by the Prez anyway) they have adopted a strategy of death by a thousand paper cuts; bleeding the many components of the bill of funding to keep them from full implementation.
Another battle from is in the courts. There have been several conflicting rulings by different lower-court judges. Conservative judges have said the bill is unconstitutional; others have said it’s not. Who to believe becomes a matter of personal preference. Those who have never liked President Obama never wanted a healthcare bill and believe it over reaches, while those who support the POTUS believe the bill is a great starting point.
The latest federal court ruling says the bill is unconstitutional, thereby almost guaranteeing a Supreme Court showdown to ultimately decide the fate of the healthcare bill, the legacy of Obama’s presidency and the future of healthcare in America for generations.
At the heart of the judicial battle is the Commerce Clause and whether it can be used to mandate that every American purchase health insurance (if its not already provided by an employer). This is the linchpin of the who plan; by mandating that everyone have coverage, it ensures a large enough pool of patients to spread the risk and keep rates low enough to make it affordable for everyone (in theory).
The argument of the program being unconstitutional rests on the premise that the Commerce Clause can not be used to essentially force someone to purchase something they otherwise would not have bought, and was never intended to give Congress that much authority.
The Commerce Clause states: “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”. That’s it. That’s all it says.
Leaves a lot of room for interpretation, doesn’t it? There is a little more information, called the Necessary and Proper Clause that essentially allows Congress to make laws and carry out powers as necessary within the parameters of the Constitution. None of this is very clear at all and ultimately will rest with the Supreme Court.
With today’s Court leaning conservative, there is a better than even chance that the court will rule against the bill, requiring a complete reworking of the bill and its provisions.
If that happens, I have not heard any alternative plan put forth by conservatives to make healthcare more accessible and affordable for citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment