Virginia – Health Care lawsuit has traction

The Constitution says nothing about the right to healthcare.

The Federal government is going to argue that they are not mandating that citizens BUY healthcare, rather that they must pay the TAX (or whatever they want to call it) that will cover healthcare SERVICES.

The problem with that argument is that that type of argument will make ANYTHING aloud to be regulated.  Where are the limits?

In the spirit of the Constitution this is not the limited government that our forefathers envisioned.  They warned us against it.  What freedoms we relinquish, we will never be able to regain, because the more we give away, the bigger the monster government becomes.

The more we give away our freedoms to the government, the more we become Socialist, the more we become Socialist, the closer we get to Communist and the closer we get to Communist the more we become a Fascistic Dictatorship.

Federal Judge Gives Virginia’s Health Care Lawsuit the Green Light:

August 2, 6:07 PMFairfax Libertarian ExaminerKevin Latchford

Henry E. HudsonToday, Federal Judge Henry Hudson granted the lawsuit, brought by Virginia Attorney GeneralKen Cuccinelli, against the US Government on the grounds of unconstitutional mandates from the central government forcing every citizen to buy an approved health insurance plan. The Honorable Judge Hudson has stated that both sides have legitimate cases and the suit should go further to a hearing. Both Mr. Cuccinelli and Virginia Governor Bob Gov. Bob McDonnell, R- Va., is apologizing for not including a reference to slavery in his proclamation of Confederate History MonthMcDonnell were pleased with the decision saying it was the right decision considering both it’s constitutional ambiguity with forcing citizens to involve themselves against their will in regulated commerce and the Federal law conflicting with the Virginia measure, that was brought into force just days after the passage of the health care reform law, allowing citizens the choice of having health insurance or not and the codified protection of their decision.

The Department of Health and Human Services has retorted that because people will need health care at least once in their lives they must pay for it all the time just to be sure. Since the cost treating these individuals with no insurance is about $43 billion a year, they see it fit to use the Commerce Clause to deal with the problem. Furthermore, they believe that their case will prove germane when the matter is brought to a hearing later this year. In support of the government, Ron Pollock of Families USA, a pro-reform lobbying group, called the actions in Virginia a “politically motivated ploy aimed at diverting attention from the many benefits of the new law.” He goes on that states should continue their efforts to prepare for the law’s future implementation across the nation.

It should be considered that while Mr. Cuccinelli is no constitutionalist, he does have a valid point on the matter of the health reform measure passed last April. The new law is putting every American on a health insurance plan. The problem is that these health insurance plans will continue the coercion of patients by threatening to curtail care or raise premiums if the individual in question is not living their lives within the guidelines of the proscribed lifestyle. Once again, another method of public control by an overbearing government determined to meddle in the lives of the citizenry. Just because Americans will need health care services in their lives does not mean that they should be forced into an already failed system of managed care, which has never worked very well in the first place despite its superiority to single-payer systems. As to the remarks by Mr. Pollok, the question should be raised, what are the benefits of this law. Every American is to be placed in a system of already rationed care, high cost of services, unresolved litigation issues and poor doctor-patient relations.

If the law were properly designed, it would reflect the need for more decentralized and personalized care. It should include such old fashioned things like collective “lodge” practice (which was banned after the American Medical Association complained of it’s low cost exposing their members to competition) as well as more modern models of health care delivery like concierge medicine. Similar methods are used in the veterinary field and none of us have any problems with the care our beloved pets get. The simple fact is we have a bad law on our books and, even worse, it is probably not constitutional.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: