His ruling was based on the fact that the government can't force people to buy or face a fine for not having health insurance. The government passed that clause with the argument it is the exact same as car insurance requirement, you must have car insurance if you drive or face a fine... The reason they could make this comparison is hospitals bills increase in price when people default on the payments, since they are legally required to help everyone they have to charge those who can pay more to make up for those who can't/don't pay. The idea behind this was that this would prevent hospitals from having to charge more because everyone could pay therefore bringing down hospital cost, the exact theory behind car insurance, if everyone has car insurance yours will be cheaper because yours will not always have to pick up the bill on accidents(only if your at fault, otherwise the other will). You'll notice the judge said it was illegal but made no act to repel it, this is because it would open up the flood gates for lawyers to represent those opposed to car insurance. I'll admit i am pro-national health insurance, although the current form we have is worse than nothing actually... It just needs to be challenged legally in other areas, this area will be a disaster.
Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law -
13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM
- 1027 Views

*yawn*
13/12/2010 05:46:58 PM
- 689 Views
Another step closer to SCOTUS.....and that will be 5-4 decision in favor of repeal!
*NM*
13/12/2010 05:55:54 PM
- 267 Views

So riddle me this...
13/12/2010 07:23:14 PM
- 679 Views
He's not "making his own law", just denying the government the ability to.....
13/12/2010 08:06:48 PM
- 642 Views
That wasn't my question.
13/12/2010 09:10:39 PM
- 746 Views
I get what you're saying...
13/12/2010 11:30:13 PM
- 739 Views
Agreed; when do I get a refund for my share of the B2 bomber?
14/12/2010 04:40:25 AM
- 679 Views
But see...you are using the B2 bomber.
14/12/2010 03:59:27 PM
- 608 Views
Much as you are using the healthcare system.
14/12/2010 05:55:40 PM
- 728 Views
*nods*
14/12/2010 06:09:42 PM
- 702 Views
Again we're back to whether individuals deign to tolerate majority rule.
14/12/2010 07:27:22 PM
- 820 Views
It's judicial review
14/12/2010 02:47:43 PM
- 695 Views
I really don't understand why people defend the forced purchase aspect
13/12/2010 08:22:03 PM
- 719 Views
This analogy no doubt has its flaws too, but I was just reminded of it...
13/12/2010 08:52:31 PM
- 728 Views
Forced insurance purchase would indeed be terribly unconstitutional.
14/12/2010 04:26:27 AM
- 647 Views
there is a major problem with this..
14/12/2010 01:29:41 AM
- 691 Views
Bad analogy.....
14/12/2010 02:57:28 AM
- 645 Views
Re: Bad analogy.....
14/12/2010 03:23:31 AM
- 660 Views
Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
14/12/2010 03:42:26 AM
- 641 Views
Re: Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
14/12/2010 04:53:39 AM
- 659 Views
Just to note....
14/12/2010 06:11:57 PM
- 661 Views
yeah, but the courts exist to strike down dumb legislation, which is what this ruling does
14/12/2010 03:17:04 AM
- 605 Views
No, the courts exist to interpret legislation, and the SCOTUS to strike down illegal legislation.
14/12/2010 04:36:59 AM
- 623 Views
I'll excerpt some relevant passages, but the full article is in the link.
14/12/2010 02:10:48 PM
- 793 Views
He partially owns the lobby aiming to make it unconstitutional, which the plaintiff was a client of *NM*
14/12/2010 05:35:21 PM
- 334 Views