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.
- FDA hopes hospitals will switch to newly regulated pharmacies
- CMS Sets 2014 Pay Rates for Hospital Outpatient and Physician Services
- New G-Codes to Pay Doctors for Broad Array of Non-Face-to-Face Care
- States Rejecting Medicaid Expansion Forgo Billions in Federal Funds
- Why You Should Involve Patients in Nursing Handoffs
- Not-for-Profit Hospitals Find Opportunity Amid Uncertainty
- Substance Abuse Resurfaces Among Anesthesiologists in Training
- Douglas Hawthorne—A Chance to Do Something Big
- Safety Net Executives Renew Call to Preserve DSH Payments
- The Most Polarizing Topics in Healthcare IT