Universal healthcare: Is it constitutional?
The heart of the challenge to the new federal health-care program is this image: an individual is doing nothing at all, bothering no one, when suddenly a federal bureaucrat appears and requires him or her to buy a commercial product or pay a tax. The program's opponents claim that, in the guise of regulating commercial activity, it regulates "inactivity." This, it is claimed, is unprecedented and tyrannical.
Three federal courts so far have taken a first look at the argument. One, in Michigan, rejected it. The second, in Virginia, indicated that it needs careful consideration. The third, Thursday's ruling from a District Court in Florida, bought it hook, line, and sinker.
- 'Kafkaesque' Value System Unfairly Penalizes Doctor Pay
- Proton Beam Therapy Poised for Growth in US
- mHealth Tackles Readmissions
- 4 Crucial Tactics for Reining in Healthcare Cost
- How Digital Strategy Shapes Patient Engagement at Boston Children's Hospital
- Some Cancer Hospitals' Quality Data Will Soon Be Public
- CNO Leads $1M Charge for New Scrubs, Uniforms
- How, and Why, to Recruit Male Nurses
- PA Ranks See 'Phenomenal Growth,' Lack of Diversity
- Half of All Primary Care, Internal Medicine Jobs Unfilled in 2013