Text of Judge Vinson's decision:
Loading user information from Channel 9
Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9
Loading user information from MSDN
Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN
Loading Visual Studio Achievements
Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements
Text of Judge Vinson's decision:
The Bulletstorm walkthrough with CliffyB is more funny.
Which constitution it violate? On 3g, don't want to waste my bandwidth right now.
"They were in a hurry... and the constitution is several pages long."
@magicalclick: The United States Constitution... to quote part of the ruling:
Or what if two of the purported “unique” factors [of the health-care market] — inevitable participation coupled with cost-shifting — are present? For example, virtually no one can opt out of the housing market (broadly defined) and a majority of people will at some point buy a home. The vast majority of those homes will be financed with a mortgage, a large number of which (particularly in difficult economic times, as we have seen most recently) will go into default, thereby cost-shifting billions of dollars to third parties and the federal government. Should Congress thus have power under the Commerce Clause to preemptively regulate and require individuals above a certain income level to purchase a home financed with a mortgage (and secured with mortgage guaranty insurance) in order to add stability to the housing and financial markets (and to guard against the possibility of future cost-shifting because of a defaulted mortgage), on the theory that most everyone is currently, or inevitably one day will be, active in the housing market?
Alas... this comes too late for those who have or are scheduled to lose their insurance as a result of the law in the first place... but still a good step along the way.
I wrote a guest editorial on this subject, http://www.theatlanticright.com/2010/03/26/the-constitution-and-taxes/
Republicans are focusing on the 10th amendment problems because they want to make a more general argument about the Constitution since they think its been abused regularly by Congress and the Court. But its actually the more difficult argument to make -- the easier argument with it boils down to the fact that our Constitution limits the way in which the federal government can enact taxes.
Congress can't just pass any tax they want, thats why the Sixteenth Amendment needed to be ratified to allow the income tax. A fine for failure to buy healthcare be prohibited for the same reason that an income tax was at that time.
I explain why at the link.
However, there is a big distinction though. I can do a "fixed rate" housing mortage by choice while I do "NOT" have the same choice to health insurrance. The example is not compatible when medical bills and health insurrance increase their rate by 20% every single year and all the government people don't care as they don't use private insurrance companies. Having a choice in private health insurrance is an illusion, because there is no such thing as, "we are not paying for the poor people who intentionally freeload on emergency services that cost 10x of regular visits".
While I agree the argument is sound, but, we are already in that hole with an illusion that we have a choice.
@magicalclick:Don't get me wrong... the previous system (prior to this law) had it's faults... faults almost entirely created in large part by the degree of government regulation.
This was the problem with even the 'public option'. Why introduce a single new competitor which has a super advantage compared to any others... when you can introduce hundreds of all sorts of different sizes. Simply allowing out of state buying would have done more to lower the cost of insurance and return the market to something closer to an actual free market than anything the law did or could do.
@brian.shapiro: The 16th amendment wasn't even legally ratified. You really don't need a constitutional amendment, you just need hundreds of million of sheep, in order to keep the grass level in the pasture.
Anyways, I prefer taxes/fees that can be closely associated with activities; for example, look at tollroads. I have no idea how this idea could be extended to health care. The best thing I can think of would be an array of sales taxes, taxes on food and risky behavior. But the last thing I want is to encourage the establishment of a nanny state or the collection and misdistribution of other people's money, even if it is in their own self interest.
If you take 312,000,000 people and take about $3,200 per person per year, you get about a trillion dollars. I'm not sure how high you would have you make a sales tax, but it could be figured out. At the end of the fiscal, if there is anything left over, send everyone a check proportionate to their annual receipts. If at any point, the money runs dry, start a ASPCAish pledge drive with pictures of pathetic looking faces on every newspaper and or website until we've got enough to cover sister sue's knee surgery and the associated costs of the campaign.
Don't tell me you are going to play the Ohio card... ignoring all of the states that ratified it beyond those necessary.
Not sure what you mean by this. The same American drug sold cheaper outside of USA. It has being done and I envy those out of state people who bought cheaper American drugs.
Short version... we have an insurance system which in response to WWII price controls, employer provided insurance has such a favorable tax situation that the individual market has a hard time competing... also you also have 50 states which each individually regulate insurance plans to the point that it is virtually impossible for someone in the individual market to shop around for a plan... let alone receive similar tax benefits.
Think about it... today you can hop in the car and drive to the next state to buy a car or tv, or even order that same item from an out of state vendor and have it shipped to you. Why can't you do that with insurance (of almost any kind)?
The answer is in large part because of state mandates and authority on policies. Even under Obamacare... your only option (on the individual market) will be to buy insurance from state run 'exchanges'... most of which will be offering a fairly narrow band of insurance plans from in-state providers... rather than allow consumers to shop around and get the type of policy they want, with those covered items that they care about.
Many things could have been done to improve the health insurance/care/etc system in this country... alas they took the chance they had and made things far far worse instead.
To go back to what I said... even if you remove Ohio from the list of states that ratified the 16th amendment... Delaware would no longer be the 36th, New Mexico or Wyoming would... both of which ratified it on the same day as Delaware. Not to mention New Jersey the next day, and Vermont 2 weeks later... all before the proclamation of it having passed.
@dahat:Consumers are rarely in a position to shop around when it comes time to receive services, and finding out the actual cost is impossible until well after the service is rendered.
Healthcare and Health Insurance has never been a 'market' in the way that purchasing widgets is a 'market'. The providers would reject predisclosure of costs as they have done for decades, so it's disingenuous to suggest that a 'free market' is somehow the better option.
I am absolutely sick of all of this polarizing debate. How about some solutions? The best congress can do it celebrate republicans and democrats sitting next to each other during the state of the union address. I think they must have gotten the idea from the education plans for a kindergartner class. OMFG! Sitting next to each other?!?!? What a bunch of 5 year olds!
So my boss says next year we may end up on a cafeteria plan instead of the great health coverage we have now. Why? Because each and every year the costs go up 15-20%. That's a great system as long as your on the side that makes money off the sick & injured.
The sad truth is that a vast majority of Americans (a.k.a. Joe six-packs) out there are stupid enough to believe the rederick from either side or from the news media which gets us absolutely no where. Hate & fear are the easiest hooks to motivate people. It works just as well for Osama Bin Laden getting recruits as it does for politicians and the news media in manipulating us. Just scream "It's Un-American!" and wrap it in a flag and you've got most people believing you hook, line and sinker.
I'll put in my two cents.
I am a free-market libertarian. I believe the federal government should stay out of anything that the Constitution doesn't explicitly give them the power to do.
HOWEVER, healthcare just doesn't work in the free market system. If I want an apple, I can shop around and buy the apple that gives me the best value. If I'm lying in a bed about to die if I don't have surgery, I really don't have the option. I would pay any price. Therefore, the only real solution to healthcare is a system like the UK has, where the costs are paid through taxes and everyone gets "free" care.
Since that will never happen in the US, I think the only real solution here is to detach health insurance from employment and to allow interstate competition from insurance providers. A larger pool of people and increased competition will lower costs. Don't mandate coverage, but do keep health insurance premiums as untaxed. In essence, make it much closer to automobile insurance. If I choose to not get coverage and get in a big accident, then I'm stuck paying out of pocket. Make it the same with healthcare.
There was a thread about this here earlier, and my main point about public health care systems is that its a tradeoff, you're trading weakenesses in a market system for weaknesses in a public system. Public health care systems have to find ways to control costs, and different governments manage it in different ways. Whether its queues, or controlling doctor pay, or rationing (more rationing than would occur under a functioning free market system). Giving it to the government isn't a magical solution.
When we're talking about reforming the US health care system, however, I think we have to recognize that we already have government involvement, in areas like Medicare and Medicaid and free clinics. So I think the goal with the US system should be twofold : improve the public side of the system so that works better, and improve the market side of the system so that works better. On the public side, we should work to make sure it covers everyone who can't afford care. On the private side, we should do some reforms that add more competition. If more competition on the private side lowers costs, it'll also lower the costs of public care.
@dahat:dose that even matter? My brother company plan increase 30% this year . I do not see the different between my personal insurance and his company insurance. It is not really an issuance issue to begin with. The medic bill in general is high due to freeloaders and law suits. Even if you go to Nevada or other state, the price is the same due to across the broad price increase.
Anyway your insurance rate is based on city, not state. In California, my mom insurance is cheaper if she moves her address to an other city some miles away. It is like car insurance, the car model is a major factor, not which state you are in. It is much more local than state wide.
Btw the out of state drug price is like Canada or Taiwan. I thought you mean out of united states . Same American drug , same brand, same drug, is cheaper in other country.