Thursday, April 10, 2014
Protesting Obamacare 60's Style
No, I'm not suggesting anyone should burn a draft card or stage a sit-in in the office of Secretary Kathleen Gilligan Sebelius. Those who feel Obamacare will adversely affect them should conduct a "sue-in". They should file individual lawsuits challenging the law on grounds it will harm them as individuals.
The class action lawsuits various states filed against the law didn't force the courts to deal with the hardships the law would create for some individuals. Individual cases can present the courts with actual evidence of individuals who would be adversely affected being forced to purchase insurance. General government guidelines may not allow for the financial situations of everyone. Some individuals will lose their ability to obtain the health care they need if they have to purchase insurance that won't cover their treatment.
In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court stated that health care decisions involve the right to privacy. Requiring people to pay for health treatment by purchasing insurance could be portrayed as being inconsistent with the right of the individual to control personal health care decisions.
Some young adults have huge education debts that would be difficult to pay off it they have to pay for health insurance. In some families the oldest child may want to help younger siblings pay for college. Some are willing to take the risk of not having insurance so they can save money for the down payment on a house or realize the dream of starting a business. What right has the government to tell them they must forget their dreams? Don't "the Blessings of Liberty" the Constitution is supposed to guarantee include a right to take personal risks to obtain those blessings?
Those who claim a financial hardship could offer the judge a choice of eliminating the requirement they purchase insurance or changing the guidelines that determine who receives government assistance to purchase insurance.
Insurance companies don't cover all potential treatments for medical problems. Often they rationalize not paying for the treatment by calling it "experimental". A law that requires individuals to purchase health care through insurance companies in effect may make it illegal for people to seek some types of potentially life saving medical treatment. Such a law would be inconsistent with Roe v. Wade.
Recent scientific research confirms the claims of some transsexuals that they feel they are trapped in the body of the opposite sex. Brain studies indicate some people do have a brain of one sex and the body of the other. Thus surgery to make the body of the same sex as the brain is corrective surgery rather than elective surgery. Transsexuals shouldn't be prevented from seeking such surgery because they have to use their health care money to purchase insurance that won't correct the birth defect that causes their Gender Identity Disorder.
In cases such as those involving experimental treatment or sexual correction surgery, plaintiffs should ask the courts to either exempt them from having to purchase insurance that won't help them or require insurance
companies to cover the treatment these people need. Attorneys might want to point out to Supreme Court Justices that if government or insurance companies can decide insurance doesn't have to cover some procedures then coverage for abortions could be eliminated.
Perhaps non-profit organizations opposed to Obamacare could help finance these lawsuits. Another possibility would be for the states that filed class action lawsuits to represent individuals filing their own lawsuits, Assistance by non-profit groups and governments could encourage a sufficient number of individuals to file lawsuits to convince the courts there is a problem with the law.