A judge orders Washington Medicaid to provide a lifesaving hepatitis C drugs to everyone. Should a judge have this power?

  • A judge shouldn't have the power to dictate that Medicaid provide hepatitis C drugs to everyone.

    No, a judge shouldn't have the power to dictate that Washington Medicaid provide hepatitis C drugs to everyone. Firstly, not everyone is in need of hepatitis C drugs, only those diagnosed require the drug. Secondly, Medicaid is a social organization put into place to assist low-income people with their medical needs. The economical stress of providing this drug to everyone should not be shouldered on Medicaid if it can be procured easily elsewhere.

  • Only if they use it right.

    If the judge does not abuse their power then I think it would be okay for them to have that kind of power to get things done. Sometimes stuff gets lost in the bureaucracy and we need action. It's as simple as that. We just need more action and less talk.

  • People in positions of power and authority should do all they can to serve their people.

    I absolutely think a judge should be allowed this power. When it comes to the safety and well-being of society, we have to trust that there are people looking out for us. People in high positions of power and authority are placed there to serve their people and protect them. A judge having the power to order an organization to provide lifesaving drugs to everyone is directly beneficial to citizens who may otherwise have been unable to access such care.

  • Government exercise of power does not extend to lawful use of private goods.

    The problem with this case is simple overreach. The court is applying a seizure of the affected company's property. This seizure is tantamount to theft. The basic argument is that the rich should be forced to pay for the poor. The Robin Hood mentality of the judge, while well meaning, is fundamentally wrong in the way that stealing from the rich is wrong.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.