The wrong constitutional question...

[kentuck]

The Supreme Court is debating whether or not the "individual mandate" is constitutional. They are discussing obscure issues like the role of commerce in the Constitution and whether Congress is acting legally in requiring everyone to pay a penalty if they do not purchase insurance from an insurance company. That debate is all well and good but it is the wrong constitutional question.

The real constitutional issue should be whether or not insurance companies have the right to control the medical services between individual citizens and their doctors? The issue is not about the rights of the Congress of the United States. It is about the rights of the insurance companies of the United States.

It is my opinion that the insurance companies are acting in an unconstitutional manner by acting as a middle man between doctors and their patients. The Supreme Court is discussing the wrong issue.

[Wait Wut]

1. True.

But, that's not what the right-wing put on their desks.

[kentuck]

2. But the Court did not have to agree to hear the case...

But they did. For purely political reasons, in my opinion.

[RevStPatrick]

3. Of course insurance companies have a right to do that...

...because we let them.
We could each simply pay for our healthcare as we use it.
Of course, most people wouldn't be able to afford to do that, particularly with a major illness or injury.
So we buy insurance.

I think this system sucks, and we should have single-payer.
But I certainly don't see anything "unconstitutional" about the current system.
Immoral, sure, but not unconstitutional.