Health Care Ruling Shows Judicial Activism Is Alive and Well -- and Living on the Rig

[driveby]

Driving is a privilege, not a right, your reach of an argument ends there.......

That is irrelevant. The fact still remains that government requires you to purchase a product you may not want. There is no constitutional right to receive health care either. Therefore, driving being a privilege does not create an exception to the constitutional permissibility of government requiring you to buy a product, that would not also apply to the question of health care.

If you don't want to buy car insurance, stop driving, if you don't want to buy health insurance, stop breathing, got it, thanks........

 

[Truthmatters]

Health insurance can equally be argued to be a public safety and liability issue. People without insurance are less likely to seek out health care when it is needed, which can contribute to the spread of communicable diseases. Seeking out health care at all could be seen as a public safety issue. I don't get flu shots, ever. It's my choice. But by not getting the flu shot I can potentially become a danger to anyone I pass as I walk down the street. The flu causes thousands of deaths every year. But somehow, I don't think that you would consider this enough to make a government mandate that everyone purchase a flu shot. That's because the constitutionality of the matter is not based on the fact that government is requiring a person to purchase a product. It is, instead, based on whether the policy presents and serves a legitimate government interest.

Those who do seek out health care at whatever time, via emergency rooms, often will not pay their bills. This causes health care providers to lose money, and causes the prices on others to rise. Additionally, people without health insurance are less likely to seek out health care when they need it when infected with communicable illnesses. The government does have a legitimate interest in addressing these concerns.

Hey stupid, having health insurance and getting a flu shot will not keep you from getting the flu or spreading it to others. How old are you? Twelve?

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


How is it you are confusing refusing life and death treatment to a patient because they cant pay with getting a flu shoit?

 

[gekaap]

I made statements of fact. So what's your problem

I made a statement regarding the alleged judicial activism of this court decision, to which you replied with the effects of the statute in question. I pointed out that the effects of the statute does not have any bearing on whether this is judicial activism.

That all seems logical to me, so it's me who should be asking what's your problem?

 

[Truthmatters]

Driving is a privilege, not a right, your reach of an argument ends there.......

That is irrelevant. The fact still remains that government requires you to purchase a product you may not want. There is no constitutional right to receive health care either. Therefore, driving being a privilege does not create an exception to the constitutional permissibility of government requiring you to buy a product, that would not also apply to the question of health care.

If you don't want to buy car insurance, stop driving, if you don't want to buy health insurance, stop breathing, got it, thanks........

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The American people already decided this one and your evil view lost.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Health insurance can equally be argued to be a public safety and liability issue. People without insurance are less likely to seek out health care when it is needed, which can contribute to the spread of communicable diseases. Seeking out health care at all could be seen as a public safety issue. I don't get flu shots, ever. It's my choice. But by not getting the flu shot I can potentially become a danger to anyone I pass as I walk down the street. The flu causes thousands of deaths every year. But somehow, I don't think that you would consider this enough to make a government mandate that everyone purchase a flu shot. That's because the constitutionality of the matter is not based on the fact that government is requiring a person to purchase a product. It is, instead, based on whether the policy presents and serves a legitimate government interest.

Those who do seek out health care at whatever time, via emergency rooms, often will not pay their bills. This causes health care providers to lose money, and causes the prices on others to rise. Additionally, people without health insurance are less likely to seek out health care when they need it when infected with communicable illnesses. The government does have a legitimate interest in addressing these concerns.

Hey stupid, having health insurance and getting a flu shot will not keep you from getting the flu or spreading it to others. How old are you? Twelve?

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


How is it you are confusing refusing life and death treatment to a patient because they cant pay with getting a flu shoit?

I'm not confusing anything. I'm stating a fact.


Oh that's right you don't know what facts are.

 

[The T]

Because you don't is not proof it is, you nattering nabob of nonsense.

What a stupid thing to say. If you think that this is judicial activism then the burden is on YOU to support that proposition. Otherwise, you're arguing from ignorance.

People wanting to call this "judicial activism," have you even read the decision? If not, then you cannot claim it is judicial activism because you don't even know what you're talking about. So far, I haven't been able to find the opinion available anywhere.

But....if this does turn out to be unconstitutional, and we accept that the government cannot force me to buy insurance, can I cancel my car insurance?

good grief, who the hell is FORCING you to buy car insurance or even to DRIVE A CAR.
sheesh,

Correct. Constitutionally? Government is charged with posting (Building) roads, therefore they can dictate how they are used, and whom may use them by requiring Insurance to protect other users (Public).

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

Nowhere in the Constitution does does it address healthcare. The Founders kinda thought we were big boys and girls and would take care of that responsibility ourselves.

No where in the enumerated rights also does it mention healthcare. With the large amount of Liberty recognized that we have requires responsibility
to take care of these matters ourselves.

The Obama administration using the Commerce clause is totally wrong. They cannot compel anyone in this case to purchase anything. And then turning around and saying it was then a TAX under the guise of Congressional ability to impose taxes was also the wrong approach.

This whole affair will see light of day in the SCOTUS. This is a true Constitutional matter. The Judge in this case ruled correctly.

 

[driveby]

That is irrelevant. The fact still remains that government requires you to purchase a product you may not want. There is no constitutional right to receive health care either. Therefore, driving being a privilege does not create an exception to the constitutional permissibility of government requiring you to buy a product, that would not also apply to the question of health care.

If you don't want to buy car insurance, stop driving, if you don't want to buy health insurance, stop breathing, got it, thanks........

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The American people already decided this one and your evil view lost.

The people spoke in November and your socialist view lost.....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I made statements of fact. So what's your problem

I made a statement regarding the alleged judicial activism of this court decision, to which you replied with the effects of the statute in question. I pointed out that the effects of the statute does not have any bearing on whether this is judicial activism.

That all seems logical to me, so it's me who should be asking what's your problem?

I responded to your asinine comment about canceling car insurance. And as I've stated this has nothing to do with judicial activism. So you may as well give up that strawman argument.

 

[Jarhead]

Driving is a privilege, not a right, your reach of an argument ends there.......

That is irrelevant. The fact still remains that government requires you to purchase a product you may not want. There is no constitutional right to receive health care either. Therefore, driving being a privilege does not create an exception to the constitutional permissibility of government requiring you to buy a product, that would not also apply to the question of health care.

If you don't want to buy car insurance, stop driving, if you don't want to buy health insurance, stop breathing, got it, thanks........

I love these people that use Auto Insurance as an example. Auto insurance is 100% optional. As you say, you dont want it, then you dont need to purchase it. You need to have it to drive as car, but you are in no way forced to buy it.

According to the healthcare law, the minute you are born you are forced to purchase or have someone purchase for you healthcare insurance. No choice, no alternative. The federal government mandates you buy it regardless of what you wish to do or not to do.

If you have a drivers license and you own a car, you still dont need to purchase auto insurance. You can keep the car on your private property unregistered.

Regardless of where you live....in a closet for your entire life if you wish...you need to own healthcare insurance or you are breaking the law.

NO COMPARISON WHATSOEVER.

 

[gekaap]

It only requires you to purchase auto insurance if you choose to own and drive an automoblie.

Once again, that does not change whether it is constitutional for the government to require you to purchase a product. This line of argument is based on nothing more than people's emotional responses and whether they like/tolerate the effect such laws have on them. You're basically saying that something becomes unconstitutional when you don't like it, or when you don't feel like you have an opt-out.

And one more thing, my children learned to drive using my old ranch truck and driving around my property. Never once had insurance and wasn't required by law to have it. The law only applies to public land and roads dumbass, not private property.

Yes, Lonestar logic 101. Only what happens in Texas has any bearing on what is true everywhere.

 

[driveby]

It only requires you to purchase auto insurance if you choose to own and drive an automoblie.

Once again, that does not change whether it is constitutional for the government to require you to purchase a product. This line of argument is based on nothing more than people's emotional responses and whether they like/tolerate the effect such laws have on them. You're basically saying that something becomes unconstitutional when you don't like it, or when you don't feel like you have an opt-out.

And one more thing, my children learned to drive using my old ranch truck and driving around my property. Never once had insurance and wasn't required by law to have it. The law only applies to public land and roads dumbass, not private property.

Yes, Lonestar logic 101. Only what happens in Texas has any bearing on what is true everywhere.

Each post of yours is getting more ridiculous.......

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It only requires you to purchase auto insurance if you choose to own and drive an automoblie.

Once again, that does not change whether it is constitutional for the government to require you to purchase a product. This line of argument is based on nothing more than people's emotional responses and whether they like/tolerate the effect such laws have on them. You're basically saying that something becomes unconstitutional when you don't like it, or when you don't feel like you have an opt-out.

And one more thing, my children learned to drive using my old ranch truck and driving around my property. Never once had insurance and wasn't required by law to have it. The law only applies to public land and roads dumbass, not private property.

Yes, Lonestar logic 101. Only what happens in Texas has any bearing on what is true everywhere.

Are you required to buy or drive a car? No?

Then you're not required to buy car insurance.

Damn you are one stupid child.

Oh and show me any legal statute that requires a drivers license and car insurance when driving on private property.

I'll wait.........

 

[gekaap]

Hey stupid, having health insurance and getting a flu shot will not keep you from getting the flu or spreading it to others. How old are you? Twelve?

How old are you? You can't handle someone presenting thoughtful points that disagree with your position, so you have to call them names?

First of all, having a flu shot WILL help prevent you from getting the flu and spreading it to others. That's what a vaccine is.

Second, having car insurance certainly will NOT prevent you from getting into an accident. So your entire argument fails. The constitutionality of the matter is based simply on whether there is a legitimate government interest being served.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

cutting taxes and waging expensive wars have failed this country.

Those were your ideas, you voted for them

And this has what exactly to do with Obamacare being deemed unconstitutional?

 

[gekaap]

Are you required to buy or drive a car? No?

Then you're not required to buy car insurance.

Damn you are one stupid child.

Again with the name calling. Obviously you have nothing of substance with which to respond, all you can do is call me names and hope that I'll just agree with you.

Oh and show me any legal statute that requires a drivers license and car insurance when driving on private property.

I'll wait.........

Actually, you should investigate whether there is a statutory exception to operating a car on private property, because you're the one who made that claim. There's alot of states, so I'll wait. In the meantime, you should also ask yourself why is it that being passed out in the driver's seat of a running car that's sitting in one's driveway can still cause a person to be charged with a DWI. And you should also consider what your chances are of getting out of a driving without insurance charge just because you're in the parking lot at Wal-Mart. That's usually private property, you know.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Two different issues. Driving is considered a privilege, not a right. Therefore, to enjoy said privilege, one must do certain things like get a license and have insurance.

No where is the Federal government granted the right to force U.S. citizens to purchase a product; and assuming that "not doing" something is an activity covered by the Commerce Clause, is, well, a bit of a stretch, and so concluded the court. And I'm certain the SCOTUS will as well, probably 5 - 4.

 

[gekaap]

Government is charged with posting (Building) roads, therefore they can dictate how they are used, and whom may use them by requiring Insurance to protect other users (Public).

I'm not trying to deny that the government has the right to regulate driving. But the fact that they have that right does not create an exception to the otherwise constitutionality, or lack thereof, of the government requiring you to purchase a product. The second amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms. But the government often requires that you purchase permissions to carry a fire arm in public. As much as people want to believe it, there does not appear anywhere in the constitution a protected right that prohibits the government from requiring citizens to purchase a product. Thus, the constitutionality of the issue is not the fact that government is requiring people to buy insurance. The question is whether there is a legitimate government interest being served.

Nowhere in the Constitution does does it address healthcare. The Founders kinda thought we were big boys and girls and would take care of that responsibility ourselves.

And nowhere in the constitution does it mention anything about pet ownership. But that does not mean that my state's government has no right to pass a law that says I cannot own a pet cheetah. And it does not mean that when I one day move to another state, that the government there does not have the right to require me to purchase permission to own a cheetah, as well as veterinary services. The constitution does not anywhere address pet ownership, just like it does not address health care. But that absence/silence does not determine whether the government has a right to require people to purchase a product. What matters is whether there is a legitimate government interest being served.

No where in the enumerated rights also does it mention healthcare. With the large amount of Liberty recognized that we have requires responsibility to take care of these matters ourselves.

This same line of reasoning could also be applied to one's decision to drive a car. If you drive a car, you must take responsibility for taking the risks involved.

The Obama administration using the Commerce clause is totally wrong. They cannot compel anyone in this case to purchase anything. And then turning around and saying it was then a TAX under the guise of Congressional ability to impose taxes was also the wrong approach.

This whole affair will see light of day in the SCOTUS. This is a true Constitutional matter. The Judge in this case ruled correctly.

There have been many court decisions that say the law is constitutional, and I tend to agree with them, no matter how much I dislike the health care bill. At the same time, I'm glad that this court has ruled the law unconstitutional, because the government will now appeal the decision, which will yield a decision that commands more authority. And I feel that the public will be best served by such.

 

[gekaap]

Two different issues. Driving is considered a privilege, not a right. Therefore, to enjoy said privilege, one must do certain things like get a license and have insurance.

Bearing arms is a constitutional right. That does not change the fact that the government has the right to also demand certain things from a citizen exercising that right. Such as buying permits, buying services like gun safety classes, etc. The question is not whether we're talking about privileges or rights. The question is whether there is a legitimate government interest being served.

 

[Bern80]

because you like the ruling is no proof its not judicial activism.

Proof is the constitution. The obamacare farce is unconstitutional. The judge made the right ruling, period. Let the left cry, boo hoo.

By not buying insurance an individual forces the people to pay for their healthcare.

How is that constitutional?

So the best solutin of course is to set a never before seen precedent that grants the government the authoirty to tell peolpe what they must purchase? The narrow mindedness of the left knows no bounds. Here's a crazy idea. if you can't pay for health care you don't get health care. Then none of us will be paying for anyone else. Or if you can't pay for it, bill the people that can't. if their in debt the rest of their life, so be it. That would be far more effective in not only getting people to buy insurance but taking a little personal responsibility for their lives (though I know that's a foreign concept to you lefties).

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Hey stupid, having health insurance and getting a flu shot will not keep you from getting the flu or spreading it to others. How old are you? Twelve?

How old are you? You can't handle someone presenting thoughtful points that disagree with your position, so you have to call them names?

First of all, having a flu shot WILL help prevent you from getting the flu and spreading it to others. That's what a vaccine is.

Second, having car insurance certainly will NOT prevent you from getting into an accident. So your entire argument fails. The constitutionality of the matter is based simply on whether there is a legitimate government interest being served.

Stupid is not a name it's a description and an accurate one in your case.

A flu shot offers protection but does not guarantee you will not get the flu. I know, facts are a bitch.

No one made the claim that auto insurance prevents accidents. Your strawman failed.

The governments interest in this case is to strip away individual freedom and you don't seem to have a problem with that.