We don't need health care reform. This is exactly what is suppose to happen. When a company violates a contract they held, they are suppose to be sued in federal court. It is a long, tiring, drawn out process to ensure that a person or company is actually guilty of criminal activity. In this case, the justice system actually worked (for a change).
Yes, the insurance company Time is apparently a heartless, money-grubbing company that needs to be fined to the point of bankruptcy. However, that certainly doesn't justify the federal government violating the Constitution to take over the health care insurance industry. Claiming that this incident proves we need health care reform is the same fallacious reasoning used to state global warming doesn't exist because we have snow in DC/Maryland. 
I suspect that the victims would disagree...
You are right, what we need is a single payer system which puts the heartless bastards out of business! Now are you happy!
There is nothing in the article that supports your suspicion...
No, because we don't need that, and the Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to do so.
Then I guess Medicare is unconstitutional also? If they can do the one they can do the other! You pay your taxes they give you Health Care, where does the Constitution come into it?
The Constitution states everything the federal government is allowed to do. Unless it is in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it. Go find where it says the federal government is allowed to issue health insurance. And yes, Medicare is unconstitutional, along with social security, signing statements, warrantless wiretaps, and so on. Just because something is unconstitutional doesn't stop the government from trying to do it.
You DID notice the "Health Care Hell" title, right?
Yes, I read the title, and I also read the entire article. That is how I know that neither the article's writer nor Jennifer Latham made any statements about health care reform. It is also how I know the article is poorly titled, as nothing in the article indicates Jennifer Latham received poor health care, merely poor health insurance.
If you read the article, you'll note she received all the necessary health care, without any regard for her ability to pay. She was healed as best she could be, seems to be perfectly happy with the care she received, and doesn't even slightly begrudge the amount asked for by the doctors. I would also point out (again) that the current system worked exactly as it is suppose to, and she did recover the amount she was entitled, plus some many times over (as she deserved), and the company has been seriously punished.
So the call for health care reform is completely unfounded, and claiming this article is evidence of need of health insurance reform is fallacious (specifically, anecdotal evidence, with a nice dash of appealing to emotion).
You do realize that the money spent on her health care had to come from somewhere? By somewhere I mean from your and my pocket in the form of higher hospital bills for those that can pay them or have insurance, in which case in the form of higher premiums on the rest of us! Much better if everyone was covered in the first place!
You're lucky to be so sheltered.
You do realize the money spent on her health care came from the insurance company she sued? So no, you are completely wrong when you claim it came from our pockets. No higher hospital bills, no higher insurance costs, nothing that you claimed resulted from this case. And in regards to you comment that it is better if everyone is covered in the first place, that is only true if the cost of that coverage is less than the price we pay now. There is no evidence of that, and given the government's past record, there is some precedent it will be more.
So now you start up with the personal attacks. How about you actually try to refute the facts?
>However, that certainly doesn't justify the federal government violating the Constitution to take over the health care insurance industry.
We've been over this before in a long thread. We came to the conclusion that it would violate YOUR INTERPRETATION of the constitution, not he Supreme Court's interpretation. You keep stating that phrase over and over again as if the caselaw supports your stupid, uneducated assertion. If I remember correctly, you ended up saying "I'm not basing this on caselaw, but the text of the constitution!" or some such silly comment.
In any event, and back to the content of the article, this is par for the course. For every person who successfully sues an insurance company, there are likely thousands getting screwed over.
>he Constitution states everything the federal government is allowed to do. Unless it is in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it.
Yo dawg, it's called Article 1 Section 8 clause 1 and 3. I have over 100 years of caselaw to support my (and everybody else's) assertion that health care reform is constitutional.
Rather than double-posing, I'm going to respond to your flawed claims in one post that the general welfare clause gives power for the government to do whatever it feels like. The last time I showed how flawed you were, I stated that I was basing my statements on what the Founding Fathers said about the general welfare clause. So you are lying when you claim it is my interpretation. It isn't any interpretation, it was what the writer's of the Constitution intended, in their own words.
For instance, James Madison said this about the general welfare clause:
Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made.
Read that carefully. It says that the general welfare clause is only to be invoked for items specifically enumerated by the Constitution. If not, you can't use it. It is right there, in black and white text. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The general welfare clause does not allow the federal government to enact some massive health care reform.
If you think I am still making this up, here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding the general welfare clause:
[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.
There is the exact same statement, from another Founding Father. The general welfare clause gives no power outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Those aren't interpretations, those are straightforward words. I'll say this again, you are basing your arguments on people who came after the Founding Fathers and are twisting their words to mean something they don't. I have provided quotes from the Founding Fathers proving it. You (and many others) are doing something those men predicted over 200 years ago, trying to vastly expand what is suppose to be an extremely limited federal government, under the general welfare clause. No amount of case law can disprove those words.
As to any claim that clause three allows the federal government to enact health care reform, here is the full text of clause three:
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
There is nothing in there about health care reform.
James Madison's view of the constitution was not the majority view at the time. He had a MINORITY view. I stated that back in the other thread. If you want to read what the majority view was at the time (and what ended up prevailing to define America), you will have to read Hamilton's Federalist Papers (the majority of which he wrote), which defined the general taxation clause (aka general welfare clause) as an enumerated power of the federal government. The Supreme Court subsequently agreed and has ruled that way for over 200 years.
You keep quoting Madison as if he mattered at all in the context of what Washington, the first few Congresses, and the Supreme Court thought and did.
Been over four years and I bet she and the Hospital haven't seen a penny of the Insurance Companies money yet, or will any time in the near future! So no the money didn't come from them,it came from the same place that all the Hospital bills of people who can't pay for it come from, the rest of us!
You can bet whatever you like, but you don't have any proof she hasn't provided the money, nor the hospital, so you are now making up things to try to support your viewpoint. The facts are very simple. The insurance company tried to illegally refuse to pay her bills. She sued, she won, and now the company is responsible for the medical bills. That is exactly how the system is suppose to work. What exactly needs reformed here?
Oh, of course, James Madison, also known as the Father of the Constitution, is clearly in the minority view. After all, he only was the Constitution's chief architect and author. Clearly some random Supreme Court judge is going to know what James Madison meant far better than James Madison does.
You're very confusing. Madison did not hold the majority opinion on many issues. Many parts of the constitution were intentionally left vague as a result. Hamilton held the majority view on the general welfare clause. That's why it's interpreted the way it is. It has been since the beginning of our country. Calling health care reform unconstitutional is almost as hilarious as calling the FDA or FBI unconstitutional- it takes a special form of mental retardation to come to that conclusion.
You can bet your ass they are going to appeal the decision and drag it out for years rather than fork over that kind of money!
Well, it is too bad you find confusing the fact that the author of the United States Constitution explicitly wrote, long before you were born, something that completely discredits everything you've been claiming. Also, claims that Madison was in the minority are completely false given that he was elected (twice!) to the Presidency over Federalists! Those are the facts, and apparently left with nothing else, you now result to personal attacks against me.
Yes, most likely, but if your problem is with how long the judicial process takes, then go reform that. You didn't answer my question; what, specifically, from the article you provided, needs to be reformed? How will health care reform solve anything that happened here?
I guess you never read the part about not allowing them to use rescission anymore!
That's because there isn't anything in the article about not allowing the insurance company to use rescission anymore. I even re-read the entire article to make sure I didn't miss anything. So again, I ask you, what, specifically, from the article you provided needs to be reformed? Are you suggesting no insurance company should be allowed to rescind an insurance policy? That insurance companies must cover a person at a specific price, even if that person lied?
This is another of those fight to fight type things.. Point and reason no longer in play.
lamparty
And a lot of people say, "We don't need no Stinking Health Care Reform"