The common law does not impose a duty to rescue. And that's an important point. What that means is, if I see a man drowning in a swimming pool, and I could easily throw him a life preserver, the law does not compel me to do so. And if that man drowns as a result of my inaction, the law will not punish me either civilly or criminally. The basic fundamental reason is this: The government has almost unlimited power to prohibit its citizens from engaging in certain activities, with very limited exceptions set forth in the Bill of Rights. But the government has no power to compel its citizens to do anything, with the only exception being the power to draft male citizens into the military to take up arms against the nation's enemies. If the government can force its citizens to purchase a product such as health care, then there is no limit on what the government can do. Think about what that means: The government telling us what kind of car we can drive, what kind of food we can eat, what kind of clothes we can wear.
It's an interesting way to look at the healthcare debate. I heard one of the Supreme Court justices parrot that earlier. I was not aware of that before.
One question though since I know you are a lawyer... I've heard that if a doctor sees someone in public not breathing or choking... they are legally bound to help in terms of CPR or the heimlich maneuver. Is that in terms of possibly losing their medical license or could they actually be penalized legally?
You are correct, I am a lawyer, which I've mentioned a few times. Some of our PF liberals like to say I'm not a lawyer because ad hominum attacks are easier for them then arguments based on logic or facts.
I am not aware of this duty, but if there is one it is imposed as a condition of holding a medical license, not a duty imposed simply for being alive.
You had better not skipper a ship any time soon, Blackrook. If you are at sea, you have a duty to help people in need. Now, what this means for healthcare at home is a different story . . . but I think that societal conscience would require you to assist someone. I guess they simply figure there are more people around on land, so there's no need to require it . . .
The argument today took that up and considered it plenary power if they could. For instance, if eating healthy leads to lowered health care costs, under the new power created by this law, could the government then require you to purchase only certain foods? In other words, what else could be eventually thought of as rational to the commerce of health care. The Justices continually asked for the limiting power and it does not appear to me that they could find one. It is apparent to me if they had instituted single payer as a tax then it would have passed muster easily and would not even risen to the Supreme Court since there is precedence set with Medicare. The HC Bill is not being argued as a tax but as a penalty for not participating in commerce which is what is new and different about this case.
Governments already influence consumer behaviour through often heavy taxes. Take tobacco and alcohol. They don't yet tax hamburgers. But one day they will. Mandates are just another way to achieve the same end of influencing consumption.
Tax is the key word, this is not being argued as a tax and that is the problem. The government is also not making you pay a penalty if you are not a smoker to pay for other costs related to smoking that might effect you.
Perhaps the government should just tax people who have no insurance. The idea being to help fund the health care resources these people use when they are sick.
Some other avenues that would not fall foul of the constitution were discussed but the one that would have passed without any problem was the single payer through government. The government argument was that it decided to take an avenue using insurance companies because it would be more efficient than something like Medicare.
