Healthcare Decision Shows Justice Is Not Just, It's Politics

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I enjoy Leslie Marshall’s comments even though I adhere to conservative principals. There is however, a growing problem that I have heard in many of the liberal radio & TV shows – double standards and a “do as I say, not as I do” philosophy.
First, concerning the issue of the challenging the constitutionally of Obama Care. Sure politics are involved on both sides, but from the onset that Obama Care was quickly ushered through a democratically controlled Congress and White House, constitutionally was an issue. Since the law requires all to purchase a product & wants to penalize those who dare chose not to, we should not only challenge the law but celebrate our system that gives us the right to challenge it.
Secondly, there seems to be a double standard that is highlighted by the recent two Supreme Court nominations by the President. The idea that liberals support Justices using their life experience perspectives to shape their opinions on constitutional matters and then argue that challenging Obama Care is only politics – Gee, I guess being liberal and supporting peoples right's only counts when you believe in the liberal agenda.
Since the majority of Americans want Obama Care challenged – what happened to supporting a person's right to have a different opinion?

Ken Sillifant of NY 10:27AM February 05, 2011

I voted for Obama in the democratic primary over Hillary even though I had a great respect for Hillary's dedication and struggles as our First Lady...National health care was widely discussed and debated during that primary...the main reason I voted for Obama and not Hillary? Obama was opposed to a individual mandate...he often called it a punishment for people who can not afford premiums...what does the democratic congress do?...they pass a national health care law that requires insurance companies to provide insurance to everyone and requires everyone to buy it but contains no realistic limit on premiums or a public option and Obama signs it...then the democrat's can't understand why they loose in 2010 to republicans running on almost nothing but a platform to repeal it...and now defend it as their crowning achievement...Weren't they paying attention to their own primary? Don't they hear the people they claim to represent?...A mandate without a public option is simply unaffordable and amounts to splitting the premium pie between a government that never has enough money and insurance companies who never have enough profit at the expense of the working poor.

Larry Fandel of IL 6:09PM February 02, 2011

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/6142-federal-judge-in-florida-declares-obamacare-unconstitutional-in-its-entirety

Tommy Goss of TX 2:45PM February 02, 2011

The Florida ruling went against 100 years of judicial review.
As for whether the government can make you buy something, well, take at look at your paycheck. That's correct, Social Security and Medicare are the exact same as an insurance program.
Under what thought process does one believe that this is some evil form of dictatorship? The argument against national health insurance is ignorant. No, Canada does NOT have lines at hospitals, and people in France have longer life spans than we in this country.
In fact, in France, they have 24 house calls by doctors. AND it's all free.

PS of GA 2:25PM February 02, 2011

The government should not be allowed to force us to buy something. I have heard the example used what if the government decides we should all eat broccoli because it is good for us, should we be forced to buy broccoli? This heath care bill is a friggin disaster. There have been over 300 exemptions given, even to unions that supported Obama. If it is such a great bill why didn’t they want to a part of it? The construction of at least 45 physician owned hospitals has been cancelled, because of the restrictions place on them by Obamacare. No this bill was not about health care, it really was about government control. That is not saying there have not been abuses by insurance companies, there have. But those could have been addressed without this disaster. More choices should be opened, not less.
Now don’t give me the stupid argument that you are forced to buy auto insurance. First of all you only have to buy auto insurance if you choose to buy a car. Second, the insurance the government mandates you buy is liability insurance to protect others, not for your protection. If you actually have to insure the value of your car, that is a lender requirement, not a government requirement. But if you are going to use the auto insurance argument, let’s talk about the preexisting illness clause. Should an auto insurer be forced to allow you to buy auto insurance after you have had a wreck?
We do not want the government to force us to by a specific product, which is what this law is leading to. What if Obama decides we all must buy a new GM car?
One last point, what if instead of placing all of the new requirements that insurance policies can cover, they should have allowed insurance companies to allow a more menu type, for us to pick and choose the coverage we needed, the deductibles wanted and not force the so called free coverage items that we know are just going to result in higher premiums. Just make the law that everyone is responsible for their own healthcare (with a government safety net for low income people). Then allow more competition with insurers and doctors. Some people would not even need insurance if they had the means to pay. Your 70 year old grandmother probably would not want a policy that covered pregnancy. Look at Lasik surgery, it is usually not covered by insurance, and is mostly free market. Guess what, the cost of Lasik has decreased over the years. But this also might make too much sense for government

Kewaal of GA 2:14PM February 02, 2011