Several judges in several states have dismissed law suits and others are moving forward with them. It seems that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is being questioned not for its validity by Constitutional law, but by the Commerce Clause and what Congress can do when faced with economic decisions.
In the case of State of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Judge Roger Vinson reminds us that even in the face of a perceived crisis, such as the number of uninsured and rising health care costs, it is not enough that a law be wise and expedient, it must also respect the limits imposed by the U. S. Constitution.
It is obvious to me that this gentleman truly respects that Constitution and will allow the case to move forward. Not all jurisdictions are of the same opinion, and that seems to display a propensity by judges to legislate from the bench. Clearly, that is also restricted by Constitutional law, but the United States Supreme Court seems to ignore it regularly.
Access to health care can be seemed a "right" by some, but it is clear that does not indicate "entitlement" to health care, that is, you are not and should not expect that someone else must pay for your needs if you are unable to afford them yourself.
While I do feel that people do need to have medical assistance to remain healthy and productive citizens, that does not burden the rest of the nation to provide their care and treatments. Perhaps the health insurers and the pharmaceutical manufacturers that have enjoyed such enormous profits and growth, despite the economic downward spiral of nearly every other sector of business and finance, can give their support to the "crisis" in health care.
In the case of State of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Judge Roger Vinson reminds us that even in the face of a perceived crisis, such as the number of uninsured and rising health care costs, it is not enough that a law be wise and expedient, it must also respect the limits imposed by the U. S. Constitution.
It is obvious to me that this gentleman truly respects that Constitution and will allow the case to move forward. Not all jurisdictions are of the same opinion, and that seems to display a propensity by judges to legislate from the bench. Clearly, that is also restricted by Constitutional law, but the United States Supreme Court seems to ignore it regularly.
Access to health care can be seemed a "right" by some, but it is clear that does not indicate "entitlement" to health care, that is, you are not and should not expect that someone else must pay for your needs if you are unable to afford them yourself.
While I do feel that people do need to have medical assistance to remain healthy and productive citizens, that does not burden the rest of the nation to provide their care and treatments. Perhaps the health insurers and the pharmaceutical manufacturers that have enjoyed such enormous profits and growth, despite the economic downward spiral of nearly every other sector of business and finance, can give their support to the "crisis" in health care.
No comments:
Post a Comment