The Affordable Care Act

[alcx77]

How does it feel to learn that we are now serfs
According to chief justice Roberts our government, under taxing
authority can now require everyone to enter into private contracts
with private parties against our will. Wow-

[GA Russell]

It's not clear to me why the Roberts court is called conservative. It's very possible that I don't know what a conservative is anymore.

In the Kilo v. New London case, the court stretched the concept of eminent domain to previously unknown territory, and now it is doing the same to the concept of taxes.

I am less troubled by various government policies than I am with the Court redefining concepts.

What say you, Squire, Sam et al?

[kronos9]

It's not clear to me why the Roberts court is called conservative.

Holding my tongue on this one. Except to say, the republic is dead (Citizens United?). Maybe we should just describe the whole shebang in Washington D.C. as a plutocracy. Glad to be able to get this in before the thread is locked (which it will be ).

[fallingwickets]

off topic somewhat, but my renewal letter from my insurance company arrived in the mail yesterday....perfect timing LOL

Up 25% which means, me alone, all by myself no others in sight.....$980 per month. Its insane

clive

[Squire]

Clive that's more than some SS recipients make a month.

[cjc15153]

IAAL but IHNRTFD (I Have Not Read The Fine Decision).

Justice Roberts' decision is conservative in that narrows the the Commerce Clause authority from that possible under Morrison and Gonzalez. The government can regulate economic activity, but cannot compel citizens to engage in economic activity, even when the requirement is part of comprehensive regulation of goods and services that the citizen would inevitably purchase. See also:http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/the-co ... n-roberts/

Regardless of its characterization, the mandate gives the Broccoliberger/CFR cabal no additional power over the American people. Under the most feared interpretation of a mandate-enabling Commerce Clause, Congress has had- for 70+ years- the power to force people to buy broccoli. The Republic did quite well during those 70 years, despite a few scurvy deaths.

This is because public policy can deviate significantly from the laissez-faire without putting us on the road to serfdom, or even the road to Sweden. Saying this doesn't fire up the base, but for the past 200+ years it has been proven true. Twenty years ago this truth was apparent even at the Heritage Foundation: they proposed individual mandate as a market-based alternative to single-payer. No one doubts that a single payer program like Medicare would be constitutional, but they wanted a more market-oriented alternative.

Conservatives continued to support the mandate right up until it appeared to be viable way to ensure universal coverage. They jumped off the ship as it reached port and then they tried to burn it. What this says about them and their motivations I leave to you. If nothing else it proves that in 20 years, one can go from being a conservative to being a communist America-hater without changing his position.

[malocchio]

off topic somewhat, but my renewal letter from my insurance company arrived in the mail yesterday....perfect timing LOL

Up 25% which means, me alone, all by myself no others in sight.....$980 per month. Its insane

clive

...........some public hospitals in my area are on the verge of collapse do to monumental numbers of illegal immigrants getting free healthcare ,while private hospitals like Kaiser,that refuse nonmembers are reaping profits of $80 BILLION per quarter !

[Kyle76]

Of course, the devil is in the details, and there are thousands upon thousands of details to be worked out. But, this I know: we already provide universal health care to everyone, whether they have insurance or not -- often through hospital emergency rooms, which are a singularly expensive and inefficient means to serve patients with ordinary illnesses. I see nothing wrong with the concept of compelling those who can pay something towards their care to do so. Otherwise, the rest of us foot the entire bill -- again, made much more expensive because the patients don't have a doctor of their own. The government already forces me to have car insurance. Universal health insurance really should be a given in a society where the care itself is a given.

[desertbadger]

Now there is more government in people's lives which means the government has more control over the people.

Regards,
David

[GA Russell]

Those with eReaders may be interested in reading the opinion. This is a pdf.

http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showth ... p?t=183370

[merkri]

My reactions to the ruling are complex and somewhat neutral overall, but I do wish more of the public discussion was focused on reducing costs rather than how to pay for those costs (although I do appreciate the latter). I don't see how the problems of health care cost will improve without fundamental changes in medical regulation and infrastructure. Perhaps this will focus attention on that side of the equation.

[ShadowsDad]

What "affordable care" did was to make the federal government bigger and to reduce our freedom. The goal is to destroy the middle class, and that's always been the goal.

The last chapter of "The Limits to Growth" draws it out for anyone who can just read it and realize that the author)s) mean precisely what they write.

Now the feds can dictate any tax on anything we do or don't do.

Gents, without your permission or willingness you've all been entered into a contract.

We fought a revolution to prevent exactly what just occurred.

And everyone is talking dollars like they're accountants. The issue is much bigger than dollars and cents.

[alcx77]

Of course, the devil is in the details, and there are thousands upon thousands of details to be worked out. But, this I know: we already provide universal health care to everyone, whether they have insurance or not -- often through hospital emergency rooms, which are a singularly expensive and inefficient means to serve patients with ordinary illnesses. I see nothing wrong with the concept of compelling those who can pay something towards their care to do so. Otherwise, the rest of us foot the entire bill -- again, made much more expensive because the patients don't have a doctor of their own. The government already forces me to have car insurance. Universal health insurance really should be a given in a society where the care itself is a given.

But in the case of car insurance are there not competing private concerns and market incentives as opposed to the looming DMV like prospect of
"State run health care exchanges"

[alcx77]

What "affordable care" did was to make the federal government bigger and to reduce our freedom. The goal is to destroy the middle class, and that's always been the goal.

The last chapter of "The Limits to Growth" draws it out for anyone who can just read it and realize that the author)s) mean precisely what they write.

Now the feds can dictate any tax on anything we do or don't do.

Gents, without your permission or willingness you've all been entered into a contract.



And everyone is talking dollars like they're accountants. The issue is much bigger than dollars and cents.

I especially concur with your statement
We fought a revolution to prevent exactly what just occurred.

Some might say two revolutions

[drmoss_ca]

Glad to be able to get this in before the thread is locked (which it will be ).

Delighted to oblige. I hate it when my brain explodes.

Chris