I wonder if there was an uproar as volatile as this when education became compulsory?

 

Or car insurance

 

That battle was actually lost in the ruling.

 

The court specifically found that the Federal government COULD NOT force you to buy insurance. So that was settled, this is not like the car insurance analogy.

 

What they found legal was the ability of Federal government to tax you for doing nothing. So you are taxed - just for being alive.

 

What the court also struck down is the coercion of the Federal government to remove existing Medicaid money for not instituting the 'expanded Medicaid' needed to provide 'universal healthcare'. So states may elect to not participate. This will leave millions without an 'insurer of last resort' and thus uninsured. And thus millions will likely have to pay tax - just for being alive.

 

Bobby Jindal has already said Louisiana will not participate for now. Other states will likely follow. They will not lose existing Medicaid monies as they would have under the original law.

I don't think anyone thinks we shouldn't have any. Most of us are tired of many of them being abused to the degree they are. That and the fact that we've gotten to a point where we simply can't afford more entitlement programs. Add to that many of us don't like the government running health care, and for good reason.

 

Government has been "running it" for quite a while. Even before Obamacare, government health care accounted for more than 50% of health care.

The Voice of Reason.

Government has been "running it" for quite a while. Even before Obamacare, government health care accounted for more than 50% of health care.

And look at how it's risen in cost. For good reason we don't want them in it any more than they already are.

And look at how it's risen in cost. For good reason we don't want them in it any more than they already are.

 

And we know that's the reason that it has risen because...?

Self imposed tax? So you're saying all of us won't be paying for this? I'm pretty sure that's quite mistaken...

 

No, the only part that was ruled a tax is the penalty for failure to obtain coverage.

Much like C_W_B shouldn't presume how you will vote, you shouldn't presume that my opposition to ObamaCare is based on being self centered and selfish. Fair enough?

 

There are legitimate philosophical differences here. I'm not a "it takes a village" kind of person. I don't believe that the govt should be able to force me, by the taking of my property, to help my fellow man. If I decide to do it, it should be via my own free will. I don't believe that govt entitlements over the long run are good for the down trodden, but believe they actually hurt the down troddenover the long run. I believe that the more the govt takes care of people, the less important the importance of personal responsibility and the institutions of family and church become. I believe that there is growing segment of Americans that have either become dependent on govt entitlements or are simply willing to get by on govt entitlements and have little desire to work.

 

That is why I am opposed to ObamaCare and other govt entitlement programs. I don't think that is being selfish or self-centered, but if you do, so be it.

 

Fair enough, but I will submit that the individual mandate is exactly in keeping with your personal reponsibility leanings. Under the law prior to the ACA, a person showin up at an emergency room can receive free care with the cost of that care passed on to all those who pay their own bills either by writing a check or by buying insurance. As a society we have decided that we won't allow people to be turned away at emergency rooms. So be it. Now we have a law that says you will have to be ready to take care of yourself. The insurance exchanges alone are sufficient reason to support this law. As someone that has been in small business as employee, manager or owner for almost 40 years, I am looking forward to our 2014 renewal. I expect this law to make it MUCH easier for us to obtain coverage.

And we know that's the reason that it has risen because...?

Healthcare | Libertarian Party

 

Please note I'm not saying government is the only reason it's rising, but they're a big part of the problem IMO. Health care is over-regulated and in need of serious market reforms. Government interventions in health care have driven up the cost of coverage. I just can't see any argument against that.

Healthcare | Libertarian Party

 

Please note I'm not saying government is the only reason it's rising, but they're a big part of the problem IMO. Health care is over-regulated and in need of serious market reforms. Government interventions in health care have driven up the cost of coverage. I just can't see any argument against that.

 

Interesting read. I'm not a fan of their FDA example. Proving that medication is safe is too important.

 

Also, the approach seems too simplistic. Back in the 60s things were good. Big government stepped in, now they're bad. There have been a plethora of changes since the 1960s, not the least of which is a population boom. I guess that it's the scientist in me that says you can't draw a valid conclusion when more than one variable has changed.

 

What part to you think the uninsured play in driving up costs? I haven't seen any figures and am not sure myself.

Edited July 1, 201214 yr by True blue (and gold)

Healthcare | Libertarian Party

 

Please note I'm not saying government is the only reason it's rising, but they're a big part of the problem IMO. Health care is over-regulated and in need of serious market reforms. Government interventions in health care have driven up the cost of coverage. I just can't see any argument against that.

 

My views are in the other thread. When it comes to deregulation I usually love Adam Smith. But I have come to conclusion that the medical industry operates mostly like a 'natural monopoly'. Thus it needs to be treated as such. That is a different type of regulation from today. So the regulation applied today is mufti-level chaotic patchwork and does nothing to control cost and fees paid by people - that includes the government run single payer systems.

 

When the telephone was invented and was gaining in popularity it became obvious that everyone would need one. Instead of creating a 2,700 page federal law and a potential constitutional crisis the government worked with a private company to provide 'universal access' to a service. It gave them a monopoly. But they worked with the company to set reasonable rates and make this service available to every American at their home.

 

When people talk about competition they usually ignore the fact that in smaller communities with limited facilities (usually one if they are lucky) medical care IS often an actual monopoly. And even in urban areas people do not really 'shop' at the time when they need service. They go to their favorite or closest hospital. So deregulation of something that either is or acts like a monopoly is a real concern. I think the industry should be managed like ATT - let companies do their thing and be profitable. But setup PSC-like entities to set and manage actual rates charged.

Not sure if every understands the ruling from Thursday.

 

It was not a 100% rubber stamp.

 

In fact two key elements hurt, if not kill the 'vision' of universal and cheap(er) healthcare.

 

Lets start with the strike down of states having their medicaid budgets in total taken away. The law required states to expand medicaid to create the 'universal' part of this or the Federal Government would withhold ALL of their medicaid funding. As some famous movie mobsters said - "we are going to make him an offer he can't refuse." This action was just like the Godfather - the states could not have refused since they can not lose their medicaid funding. The court ruled this mobster-type action was illegal. So the hammer to force states to implement 'universal' HC pools is gone. And states are starting to indicate they will just not do it. 'Universal' - not without expanded medicaid.

 

Scott says Florida won't implement health care law - Tampa Bay Times

 

The second item is that the Individual Mandate was not found constitutional under the Commerce Clause. It is a TAX. Now there is a lot of spin on the word 'TAX'. The political spin will go on with this word until November. Beyond the rhetoric of the 'T' word there may be a real legal implication - the lack of 'waivers' for special groups or religions. This has not been well explored by some blogs indicate there is no 'waiving' or opting out of legally due taxes. So this removes the ability to do favors for Unions (the most common use of the waivers) or exempt religious groups. This could make some of the backers who then got exemptions very upset.

 

So there was not a rubber stamp on this law. It now has real, new challenges and they will go on well past November.

There are many things I do not understand about the health care debate. What I do understand is that as a small business owner, family health insurance has gone from about $500 per year to $1800 per year in 6 years. Part of the problem I believe, is that each state has its own Insurance industry regulatory framework with which each insurer must deal with, driving up costs for everyone. Wouldn't a single federal framework, implemented and enforced by the states, allow more competition in the marketplace, thus driving down costs for everyone? Approval in one state would be recognized in all states, just like a marriage license.

$1800 for a family plan for a year? Sign me up!

Not sure if every understands the ruling from Thursday.

 

It was not a 100% rubber stamp.

 

In fact two key elements hurt, if not kill the 'vision' of universal and cheap(er) healthcare.

 

Lets start with the strike down of states having their medicaid budgets in total taken away. The law required states to expand medicaid to create the 'universal' part of this or the Federal Government would withhold ALL of their medicaid funding. As some famous movie mobsters said - "we are going to make him an offer he can't refuse." This action was just like the Godfather - the states could not have refused since they can not lose their medicaid funding. The court ruled this mobster-type action was illegal. So the hammer to force states to implement 'universal' HC pools is gone. And states are starting to indicate they will just not do it. 'Universal' - not without expanded medicaid.

 

Scott says Florida won't implement health care law - Tampa Bay Times

 

The second item is that the Individual Mandate was not found constitutional under the Commerce Clause. It is a TAX. Now there is a lot of spin on the word 'TAX'. The political spin will go on with this word until November. Beyond the rhetoric of the 'T' word there may be a real legal implication - the lack of 'waivers' for special groups or religions. This has not been well explored by some blogs indicate there is no 'waiving' or opting out of legally due taxes. So this removes the ability to do favors for Unions (the most common use of the waivers) or exempt religious groups. This could make some of the backers who then got exemptions very upset.

 

So there was not a rubber stamp on this law. It now has real, new challenges and they will go on well past November.

 

 

7-2 on the Medicaid vote, with Ginsberg and Sotomayor dissenting.

 

Which goes to show they will vote Liberal NO MATTER what.

Read a report today that a few months ago Roberts was in lock step with the other 4 conservative justices and then changed his mind. Lots of arm-twisting then commenced.