Judge rules entire health care law unconstitutional

Now we know the other side is just making it up as they're going along.

Since last year's health care law passed, right-wing legal eagles have been trying to use the insurer mandate (which they previously supported) as an excuse to get the entire law ruled unconstitutional. Of course, it's not supposed to work that way. If one part of the law is unconstitutional, that does not by any means annul the rest of the law.

Unless, that is, activist judges make it so. And now - outrageously - they have.

U.S. District Judge Robert Vinson ruled today that the entire law is unconstitutional just because of that provision and a sensible provision that withheld federal money from states that refused to participate.

Alright, then that means the entire Telecommunications Act of 1996 is unconstitutional too, because the Communications Decency Act was tossed out.

Seriously now. If this ruling stands, everything good about the health care law is gutted. That means we can forget about sensible regulations on insurers like the new rules against limiting coverage of preexisting conditions or placing a lifetime cap on benefits.

So now the government has a "right" to make me get a prescription for over-the-counter Sudafed, but it can't require insurers to cover me?

Of course, even if the Supreme Court agrees with today's ridiculous ruling, it doesn't make this ruling any less goofy. I'd like to see where in the Constitution it says we can't regulate insurance companies. Nowhere does the Constitution say this. On the other hand, maybe now would be a good time to pass a better health care law - establishing the much-promised public option or (even better) a single payer system.

(Source: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/31/health.care.unconstitutional)