US files first defense of health care law in court

google ^ | 5/12/10 | RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

[Nachum]

WASHINGTON — Critics who allege that Congress overstepped the U.S. Constitution by requiring Americans to carry health insurance are "flatly wrong," the Obama administration said Wednesday in its first court defense of the landmark health care law.

Congress acted well within its power to regulate interstate commerce and to provide for the general welfare, Justice Department lawyers argued in a 46-page brief filed in federal district court in Detroit. For the courts to overturn President Barack Obama's signature domestic legislation would amount to unwarranted interference with the policymaking authority of Congress, they added.

[wiggen]

“”Congress determined that the health care system in the United States is in crisis, spawning public expense and private tragedy,” said the government’s brief. “After decades of failed attempts, Congress enacted comprehensive health care reform to deal with this overwhelming national problem. The minimum coverage provision is vital to that comprehensive scheme. Enjoining it would thwart this reform and re-ignite the crisis that the elected branches of government acted to forestall.””
Is their argument then that they did,in their eyes,something ‘good’ for the people so legality be damned?
Why else insert the word tragedy, which is subjective,into what should should be an objective argument?

[EBH]

I had a long dissertation posted a while back. Insurance is a service and does not fall under the commerce clause.

[tnlibertarian]

So once the forced purchase of insurance is found unconstitutional (and I pray it is, because otherwise, it’s gonna get ugly), can we use the precedent to opt out of the purchase of the government mandated retirement annuity called Social Security?