Home > Opinion > Peter Roff > Obamacare Ruling Isn't Just About Healthcare, It's About Freedom

Obamacare Ruling Isn't Just About Healthcare, It's About Freedom

Reader Comments
Back to blog

“ As a health care professional” you are in no position to determine my “rights” or pass personal opinions upon me.
Not very clear when you say “I really see no difference in you and those who engage in wellfare or medicaid fraud to leech off the majority of hardworking taxpaying people in this nation. “.
About the stupidest thing you wrote was “It certainly makes it easy for the extreme right to take a stand when they realize a dumbass liberal like myself will catch them when they fall.”. I expect you to do the job you were paid for. Even as janitor.
You misspelled “welfare” nor capitalized “Medicaid”. More likely you are a janitor rather than Doctor or nurse…

Bill Hedges of MO 9:25AM December 16, 2010

As a health care professional. I have no problem paying for the care of those who cannot afford care. However, I do have an issue paying for all of you claiming that having insurance mandated by the goverment is a violation of your rights. I really see no difference in you and those who engage in wellfare or medicaid fraud to leech off the majority of hardworking taxpaying people in this nation. I think you realize that I and the great majority of my coworkers will take care of you with no less compassion and concern than we would for our own family members. It certainly makes it easy for the extreme right to take a stand when they realize a dumbass liberal like myself will catch them when they fall.

Gary of NC 8:54AM December 16, 2010

Peter wrote:
"Hudson has almost guaranteed that the matter will eventually reach the United States Supreme Court. And rightfully so."

Bill Hedges of MO 9:40PM December 15, 2010

peter your view on the fate of the healthcare bill is premature,the ruling by this judge yesterday is just one of many on the road to it,s final destination,the supreme court.

bruce b of NV 8:08PM December 15, 2010

Because you do not like his decision ? You probably didn’t like the 7-2 Supreme Court ruling against Gore. Liked abortion ruling.
Maybe the last highest Court should be you ?
Judge Henry Hudson hide nothing and sold his small amount of stock.
Did you know Congress exemptes themselves from conflict of interest. Martha Stewart went to jail for insider trading. A Congress member can not be.

Bill Hedges of MO 7:32PM December 15, 2010

This decision hardly means anything except that judges can be bought and sold, and these kind of judges are a threat to our democracy and our freedoms.
Judge Henry Hudson should have recused himself from this case because of his clear conflicts of interests.
One corrupt judge's decision is not the final word on anything.
What is clear is that Judge Henry Hudson should resign or be impeached.

Kent of IN 4:55PM December 15, 2010

This is wrong:
"If the federal government can compel individuals or companies to purchase health insurance, and can penalize them for failing to do so, then there is little else it cannot do. The same underlying logic could be used to force people to ride mass transportation, to purchase homes, to dictate the foods they eat and infringe on a host of other personal freedoms as it is specifically proscribed from doing under the terms of the Constitution’s 10th Amendment."
The logic underlying why the individual mandate is necessary and proper to fulfilling the PPACA broader goals of regulating the health insurance market (which no one, not even Judge Hudson believes it cannot do) is that health insurance decisions are economic in nature, but an individual cannot guarantee that they will not use health care resources that aren't subsidized by another person's insurance or taxpayer money.
Your examples, on the other hand, are types of economic activities which an individual could very easily avoid partaking in by growing their own food, refusing to leave their homes, etc...
Individual freedom and governmental regulatory authority are not diametrically opposed. Federal authority over Civil Rights law was paramount to the establishment of individual in the 1960s. Individual liberty also (under any sort of reasonable analysis) the ability to obtain health insurance, which private insurers were denying to their would-be customers. The PPACA prevents that discrimination, furthering individual liberty.
The conception of government vs liberty is a purely dogmatic fiction propagated by the right wing to obscure the fact that for many Americans, the government provides equal access to justice and a fair playing field. Those who obscure this fact are likely to benefit from the unequal distribution of power which is bound up in corporate and capitalist concerns more often than it is in governmental structures. The democratic nature of the federal government limits the ability of interest groups to impinge on citizens' rights. Limiting the scope of democratically created protections for citizens tilts the balance towards injustice. Freedom is founded on fundamental justice and fairness. Don't let Peter Roff and the Wall Street Journal fool you- the public has the power to prevent corporations from preying on its members.

Ben of WA 4:19PM December 15, 2010