Healthcare Law Appealed To Supreme Court

26 states and a small business group have filed separate appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to strike down Obama's 2010 healthcare law. In August, an appeals court in Atlanta ruled that the individual insurance requirement was unconstitutional, making it almost certain that the bill would go to the Supreme Court. From the article: "The Obama administration earlier this week said it decided against asking the full U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit to review the August ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that found the insurance requirement unconstitutional. That decision cleared the way for the administration to go to the Supreme Court. The administration has said it believes the law will be upheld in court while opponents say it represents an unconstitutional encroachment of federal power."

Comments

What other products

[tripleevenfall]

What other products will they eventually mandate that we buy from corporations, purely by virtue of existing?

Re:What other products

[FunkSoulBrother]

Clothes. Try walking around town naked and homeless.

Re:What other products

[Gr33nJ3ll0]

Seatbelts, and motorcycle helmets are a couple of good examples.

Re:What other products

[tysonedwards]

The distinction here is that health care is pretty vital to "promote the general Welfare" (US Constition - Preamble)
welfare |welfe()r| (noun)
the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group

To that end, it seems pretty obvious that the founders of the United States cared enough about the health of it's citizens.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Re:What other products

[im_thatoneguy]

The problem isn't that we're mandated to buy it. The problem is that it's a mandatory service that *SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT*.

I'm ok with being denied service based on my wages for a lot of things but when it comes to life saving medicine I don't see that as a "would be nice" feature.

This goes back to the "Do you let them die?" question. Should a hospital let someone bleeding to death die in their Emergency Room if they have no insurance? I think except for at republican debates the answer is "no".

So we've accepted that getting medical treatment is guaranteed.

I'm going to probably shock people with this but you're already required to buy all manner of things. Do you want airbags? Too bad, buy a car and you get them. Do you want a life raft space for you on all cruise trips? Too bad, you have to buy one.

Now yes you can choose to not drive a car or ride a boat but you can't choose to not be born. And once born our medical system is your life's liferaft.

Re:What other products

[RingDev]

On the other hand, we are forced to pay for Healthcare of others. It's already a socialized system. No one will be turned away from an emergency room. And our payments are bloated to cover the loss from uninsured patients and set-cost payments (medicare).

So if I'm already forced to subsidize everyone else, why shouldn't they be forced to either subsidize along with me (the socially responsible choice) or to pay a penalty, to atleast put some skin in the game.

It is unfortunate that we don't have much for non-profit or a government option. Because I'm getting pretty sick of paying 20 cents on the dollar to pay Cigna's CEO's pay check while getting raked for $20k+ a year in health care expenses.

-Rick

Re:What other products

[ravenspear]

People do not have to wait for life threatening care with single payer, just non-immediately needed procedures sometimes. Stop your ignorant talking points.

What we have now is wealthcare. The wealthy like the fact that they get quicker service for non life threatening care by removing millions of people from being able to access care at all. That's not equal opportunity for all.

Re:What other products

[im_thatoneguy]

Yes it is. Move to Canada or Europe if you're so in love with socialism programs.

Move to Somalia if you want to live in a libertarian fantasy land.

Or we could both acknowledge that a country's healthcare system is just one small aspect of where you want to live.

Re:What other products

[Rockoon]

With regards to your question... the federal government does not mandate automobile insurance for drivers on the interstates. The federal government mandates compliance with state laws on the interstates, and not all states require automobile insurance (just proof of assets equal to state liability minimums, such as Wisconsin.)

Are you often caught arguing without the facts?

Re:What other products

[compro01]

Paul said no, but the screaming nuts in the audience certainly said yes.

Single-payer, like Medicare, would have been fine

[Animats]

Single-payer national health insurance, like Medicare, would have had no constitutional problems. If the "public option" had been retained in the bill, it might have ended up as the only option.

That's not a bad thing; Medicare's overhead is about 3%, while private insurers run a lot higher.

Should have gone with single payer....

[Beelzebud]

The only way this will ever get better in the U.S. is when we have a single payer system, that covers everyone. There is simply no excuse for us to not have it. This is what has been most disappointing about Obama. He's passing center-right and right wing policies (mandates were originally the Republican idea, folks, Clinton rejected it in the 90's), and The Left is taking the blame for it. If we had a real liberal in there, he would have fought for "Medicare For All", and not a 1990's Republican plan.

Re:Should have gone with single payer....

[Uberbah]

Simple economic theory dictates that one provider = higher costs. Many providers = competition = lower costs. But feel free to enjoy your liberal pipe dream.

Speaking of pipe dreams, explain why no one in France loses their house due to medical bankruptcies. Explain why other countries spend 1/3 as much as the U.S. does while receiving better care. Explain why Cuba has comparable health stats to the U.S. while spending less than $300 per patient per year. Explain why men in their twenties die in the U.S. from an infection that spread from a goddamn toothache, because they couldn't afford to have it treated.

Explain why a for-profit system that depends on increasing your premiums while denying your claims is magically "more efficient" than a system where you get what you pay for: health CARE.

Re:Queues?

[Fallingcow]

Seriously, considering how big a boost single payer or similar would be to economic mobility and entrepreneurship Free Market(tm) loving Republicans should be clambering for it. Trading a shitty "freedom" like picking which insurance company rapes you for a better one like dramatically improved job mobility is a no-brainer, and pretty much the exact kind of thing we have government in the first place.

Any Free Market worshipper who wouldn't support something like single payer is almost certainly a hopeless ideologue ("who cares that the end is closer to my proclaimed goal, the means to get there are technically counter to my idea of how things should work so screw the whole thing!"), a lying douchebag shill, or a complete dumbass. Maybe all three.

Want to help the "job creators" hire people? Enact a "socialist" health care law modeled on any of a couple dozen successful systems tomorrow and watch as 50,000 new businesses show up seemingly out of no-where, wages rise, health care costs drop, and offshoring slows.