Their new twist: public health care is not constitutional

[question everything]

I kid you not

An op-ed in the WSJ. And no, do not just dismiss the WSJ. This is where they now express their opinions and find new ones:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562948992235831.html

Written by David Rivkin and Lee Casey who worked in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush

Is a government-dominated health-care system unconstitutional? A strong case can be made for that proposition, based on the same "right to privacy" that underlies such landmark Supreme Court decisions as Roe v. Wade.

(snip)

The court's underlying rationale was not abortion-specific. Rather, the justices posited a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must remain free of government regulation, except in the most exceptional circumstances. As the court explained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), "these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life."

(snip)

====
Yeah, tell this to all the seniors on Medicare now.

[madaboutharry]

1. Every thing these people have to say is fraudulant.

Now they're worried about your privacy. It is impossible to take these people seriously.

[TomCADem]

2. Exactly - How Does That Not Implicate Medicare Right Now? GOP Political Suicide?

If the GOP really believes this argument, which appears to be trying to create a wedge between pro-choice advocates and healthcare reform advocates, then health care reform is really irrelevant, because they can make these arguments right now with respect Medicare. Also, the public option means that individuals can freely choose a public option.

Did these GOP attorneys actually pass the bar?

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. And that is exactly the difference between a public plan and private

health insurance:

The private insurance company MUST know all the private details to decide if they are going to pay or not.

The public plan just pays. Regardless. No details necessary - that's between you and your doctor.

[question everything]

6. Worse. It is the employer that can, if he chooses, know all the details

which is one reason why, for the past 10 years, I have paid for my own, even though both of us were covered by the different employers that we had.

We had one employer who, routinely, would get a copy of each claim. It was a small company and for his it was just one more piece of paper that he gave us.. that's how I found out.

No, it did not detail the cause for a claim but does employer really has to know if a family member saw an OBGYN with a reputation to be the only one in town that provides abortion? Does an employer has to know when a family member visited an oncologist?

And then I was the HR administrator in a small company, where the medical info that new employees had to fill in was kept in their personnel files, for anyone, including the owners, to see.

[thereismore]

4. That means they have nothing else left. nt

[izzybeans]

5. I guess dumbass is a credential requirement to be in a Republican Administration

[BR_Parkway]

7. One could make the argument that "promote for the General Welfare"

means that healthcare is Constitutionally mandated - and not have to stretch anywhere near as much. Gawd knows the "provide for the General Defense" has certainly had the $$$ thrown at it