Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare
Discussion
A sensible decision in the end, but it was very tight as expected. This whole saga does make me glad we have the NHS in this country though, it's easy to take things for granted.
This was probably the best Obama could hope for, I wouldn't be surprised if what he really wants to do is remove the words 'over 65' from the Medicare book but he'd never get that through so there has to be a compromise.
This was probably the best Obama could hope for, I wouldn't be surprised if what he really wants to do is remove the words 'over 65' from the Medicare book but he'd never get that through so there has to be a compromise.
unrepentant said:
That's mainly because they've been lied to by the rabid right.
How so? Both the democrats and repubs are beholden to the health insurance and drugs companies All Obamacare does is extend the writing of blank cheques to even more lobbyists and accelerates the bankrupcy date of the federal govt.
12gauge said:
How so? Both the democrats and repubs are beholden to the health insurance and drugs companies
All Obamacare does is extend the writing of blank cheques to even more lobbyists and accelerates the bankrupcy date of the federal govt.
And that's why Single Payer would have been so much better. This is a start at least, and provides health insurance for a lot of people at a price they can afford. You'll be amazed how much cheaper prevention is than cure, and hopefully the US government will start to reap the benefits of that. All Obamacare does is extend the writing of blank cheques to even more lobbyists and accelerates the bankrupcy date of the federal govt.
AndrewW-G said:
Anyone care to sum up why this is a good thing?
I was hoping for that too.As I understand it, currently if you don't have insurance but can afford it, if you need medical care you have to pay for it. If you don't have insurance and can't afford it, tax-payer funded medicare/medicaid pays.
Now if you can afford insurance and don't buy it you get fined by the IRS and if you can't afford it you get fined by the IRS?
Or have I got that wrong?
Victor McDade said:
Will be interesting to see what Mitt Romney, the architect behind 'Romneycare' in Massachusetts, has to say about all of this. Given the two schemes are so similar, I guess he has to back Obama right? 
He has always said that RomneyCare was never meant for the entire country as a whole and was just meant at state level. If he gets in he has made it clear on day 1 he will repeal ObamaCare.Caulkhead said:
I was hoping for that too.
As I understand it, currently if you don't have insurance but can afford it, if you need medical care you have to pay for it. If you don't have insurance and can't afford it, tax-payer funded medicare/medicaid pays.
Now if you can afford insurance and don't buy it you get fined by the IRS and if you can't afford it you get fined by the IRS?
Or have I got that wrong?
That's one part of it. The other parts of the law set up insurance exchanges and force the insurance companies to use larger risk pools which should both drop the price of coverage a lot. As I understand it, currently if you don't have insurance but can afford it, if you need medical care you have to pay for it. If you don't have insurance and can't afford it, tax-payer funded medicare/medicaid pays.
Now if you can afford insurance and don't buy it you get fined by the IRS and if you can't afford it you get fined by the IRS?
Or have I got that wrong?
12gauge said:
Not surprising. Maobama has gone to great lengths to install judges who hold the constitution in contempt.
You win the prize for the most uneducated moronic comment of the day. 
The Supreme Court has a 5/4 Republican bias and the swing vote was that of chief justice Roberts, an appointee of George W Bush who opposed the 4 other Republicans who voted the party line.
davepoth said:
Caulkhead said:
I was hoping for that too.
As I understand it, currently if you don't have insurance but can afford it, if you need medical care you have to pay for it. If you don't have insurance and can't afford it, tax-payer funded medicare/medicaid pays.
Now if you can afford insurance and don't buy it you get fined by the IRS and if you can't afford it you get fined by the IRS?
Or have I got that wrong?
That's one part of it. The other parts of the law set up insurance exchanges and force the insurance companies to use larger risk pools which should both drop the price of coverage a lot. As I understand it, currently if you don't have insurance but can afford it, if you need medical care you have to pay for it. If you don't have insurance and can't afford it, tax-payer funded medicare/medicaid pays.
Now if you can afford insurance and don't buy it you get fined by the IRS and if you can't afford it you get fined by the IRS?
Or have I got that wrong?
sirtyro said:
He has always said that RomneyCare was never meant for the entire country as a whole and was just meant at state level. If he gets in he has made it clear on day 1 he will repeal ObamaCare.
Yes, its amazing how ignorant most people (here too it seems) are with regard to state vs federal powers. It was the same with Ron Paul on many issues. Tell them he disagrees with it on a state level but agrees with it on a federal level, and their brains go into meltdown. Thats what a federal system is. A basic set of national rights, powers to enact things like healthcare on a local basis.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=207908
said:
Finding first that the Commerce Clause bars the government from compelling one to enter into commerce, the analysis then turned to whether there was any way to save the constitutionality of the act.
The justices found one.
They re-interpreted the penalty clause as a tax.
And of course, Congress can levy taxes.
That's the path taken by this tortured process -- a path that could only be dreamed up if someone had already determined the outcome they sought instead of being an independent jurist.
The justices found one.
They re-interpreted the penalty clause as a tax.
And of course, Congress can levy taxes.
That's the path taken by this tortured process -- a path that could only be dreamed up if someone had already determined the outcome they sought instead of being an independent jurist.
davepoth said:
And that's why Single Payer would have been so much better. This is a start at least, and provides health insurance for a lot of people at a price they can afford. You'll be amazed how much cheaper prevention is than cure, and hopefully the US government will start to reap the benefits of that.
Rubbish. Things like the mark up of costs on drugs to US consumers and insurers are why costs are so bloated in the US. This legislation does nothing to change that, and in fact entrenches it. What they have is the worst of both worlds. Private profit motive and an anti free/competitive market national monopoly system creating cartel like conditions. I dont need to explain what that results in...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff