HEALTH CARE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL PER GRISWOLD V CONN. (IRONY ALERT)

Vanity | 3/24/10 | Vanity

[Reagan69]

Could an amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit the Government from making ANY medical decisions for citizens be effective?

[taildragger]

This would be beautiful. Zre0 being a Constitutional Law expert must have missed it. :)

Ding, Ding, Ding....

Post of the day!

I have been thinking this for days.

Yes he would be so PWNED if it occured I would be LMAO for sure....

[The Pack Knight]

Not that long ago in constitutional jurisprudence terms. It is almost 30 years more recent than Wickard, which is already being cited in support of the individual mandate. Also, Griswold is the most direct basis for Roe v. Wade and is one of the social left's sacred cows in jurisprudence.

The Administration will no doubt try to distinguish the current case from Griswold, but they certainly aren't going to argue for overturning it.

[Puppage]

Not that long ago in constitutional jurisprudence terms

Sarcasm. It was sarcasm.

[Canedawg]

Hmmm...

[2dogjoe]

Send it up to the Great One!

[The Pack Knight]

I'm still turning it over in my head, but I think you have something here.

The Administration's lawyers will no doubt argue that a lot of what you've quoted here is dicta. However, from what I've seen, the Justices tend to have a much narrower view of what constitutes dicta than the average lawyer.

You know, even with "community rating" and "guaranteed issue", I don't see how anyone can get insurance without submitting to a medical exam or at least answering a questionnaire about private medical facts. Being compelled to do either clearly violates the right to privacy as defined by Griswold.

[The Pack Knight]

Oops, sorry about that. My sarcasm sense has been dulled by some of the absurdities I came across on another thread today.

[Lobbyist]

Thanks!

[Lobbyist]

Thank you for your explanation on why Griswold is applicable. However, wasn’t Roe used in the Washington State case regarding the right to commit suicide?

[P-Marlowe]

You know, even with "community rating" and "guaranteed issue", I don't see how anyone can get insurance without submitting to a medical exam or at least answering a questionnaire about private medical facts. Being compelled to do either clearly violates the right to privacy as defined by Griswold.

Here's something scary. If the government can compel you to get health care or health insurance, they can compel you to get annual medical examinations..... including.... PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS....

Think about that one for a minute.

[Weirdad]

I did not appreciate that Griswold was actually used (and distorted) in the Roe decision (thanks) — guess I should have recognized that from your post.

I was always leery of advocating that Roe be overturned in a manner that would be used to later overturn decisions like Griswold (as you describe above). In other words, I never wanted to argue “no sir, there’s NOT a right to privacy, so Roe has to be overturned” because that kind of thinking could later could be used against other liberties. To me the focus should be on the rights of the unborn baby, correct, and much more in line with defending our rights.

Could you summarize the Griswold case or link to an appropriate summary? (Guess I could look it up but I am not a lawyer and looks like you could do it properly in two seconds.)

[P-Marlowe]

Here is the link to the Griswold Case.

[The Pack Knight]

Here's something scary. If the government can compel you to get health care or health insurance, they can compel you to get annual medical examinations..... including.... PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS....

Reminds me of this classic video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdAm6UY4xOE

Also, here's one thing I've been wondering about. The states, of course, already have copious bodies of insurance law, both in statute and in the common law. Does this act completely preempt state insurance law in the context of medical insurance? For instance, does the ban on discrimination on the basis of "preexisting conditions" overturn the doctrine of fortuity?

I still haven't had time to read much of the bill, and I don't know how narrowly the courts will read any preempting provisions in the health care act. It's an interesting question, though, because interaction between the federal law and state insurance law could produce some unpredictable results.

[cranked]

Yes, when upholding the Constitution meant something to nearly everyone; when the Constitution was the Constitution, not some "living" thing.....

[P-Marlowe]

Does this act completely preempt state insurance law in the context of medical insurance?

Indeed it does. All medical insurance policies must be in accordance with (as yet undetermined) federal mandated regulations.

Policies which do not cover such items as sex changes, bo-tox for congresswomen, abortions, assisted suicide, HIV, psychiatric treatment, chiropractic treatment; accupuncture, aromatherapy, and other as yet to be determined necessities of life will not be allowed to be sold anywhere in the United States.

But of course Obama just signed an EO indicating that "federal funds" will not be used for abortion (but that will not stop the regulators from insisting that all policies written must cover abortion).

[Para-Ord.45]

bm

[The Pack Knight]

If it overturns the fortuity requirement, then I’m pretty sure I’ll be dropping my health insurance as soon as guaranteed issue and community rating kick in. Why pay premiums when I’m healthy when I can just wait until I have to file a claim to buy it at the exact same price?

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[ForGod'sSake]

Some SCOTUS case law that might be instructive and more ammunition to give our STATE legislators a higher comfort level... ~ping~