A peculiar ruling on health care reform

December 14, 2010

I find Virginia Judge Henry Hudson's ruling that National Health Care is unconstitutional peculiar on several counts. First, this country was all set to have national health back in 1912. We were, even then, the only industrialized nation not to protect our citizens, and the legislation had been proposed and approved, the American Medical Association and the public were solidly behind it — and then we went to war with Germany. Since Bismarck had begun Germany's health care program, the blueprint from which all other plans were built, in the 1890s, Congress decided that is just would not do for the U.S. to take up any nasty German habits, so the project was scrapped. But, it was constitutional then, so I don't see how it can be unconstitutional now.

Second, Judge Hudson says the courts do not have the power to "compel an individual to ... [purchase] a commodity in the private market." Now, I don't know about the laws in Virginia, but in Maryland, the state does compel one to have auto insurance if one wishes to drive a car. Any homeowner knows the bank certainly compels one to have homeowners insurance. Why should there not be a mandate to have health insurance, especially since that is the one type most people are apt to need most often?

Anne D. Rice, Bradshaw

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.