Slashdot Mirror
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."
> That said, I really hope the law is struck down so that perhaps we can move towards an actual single player system..
Which is almost certainly what is going to happen. Kennedy won't have the balls to invoke the inseverability of the mandate and thus invalidate the whole thing. But any idiot (I assert Obama, Pelosi, et al weren't being idiots) can see the mandate doesn't pass muster. With the mandate gone and the rest of the bill intact the insurance system will quickly collapse. Even with Divine Intervention I can't see the R's mustering 60 votes in the Senate for a full repeal since every last D sees this (correctly) as a hill to die on, as it is the untold power of life and death for the State to wield forever. So if the rest is still on the books but the funding mech is unconstitutional we get single payer by default.
Obamacare was designed to fail in this way. Remember the tape Beck had of that Obama stooge saying something like, "People say this is a Trojan Horse for single payer. No it isn't, its right there."
Hope you like ambulances forming a queue outside hospitals.
Democrat delenda est
Speaking of pipe dreams, explain why no one in France loses their house due to medical bankruptcies.
Because their costs are offloaded onto others, who lose their house because they can't afford to pay for it after they've paid all the taxes.
Explain why other countries spend 1/3 as much as the U.S. does while receiving better care.
Because they pay doctors less, have no incentive to perform unneccesary procedures becuase they know the insurance will pay for it, and let the old farts die rather than spend hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping them on life support when they're going to die anyway?
Explain why Cuba has comparable health stats to the U.S. while spending less than $300 per patient per year.
Because they're commies and lie all the time to make themselves look good?
From what people who've actually travelled to Cuba have said, they appear to have good healthcare for the 'important people' and 'good luck' healthcare for everyone else.
Lovely platitudes without a shred of empirical evidence. Worthy of Obama. Better care is seriously debatable, I read all the time that heads of state and others come to USA for their surgeries, etc., so why didn't they get their "better health care" at home? Those men in their 20s could have gone to the dental college and been treated for free. Or the general hospitals, who treat people who are uninsured. You probably don't know we have those in USA. I can make an appointment and be seen TODAY. You can't do that in socialized medicine. You talk like someone who knows absolutely nothing about health care in America.
The problem is that it's a mandatory service that *SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT*.
WRONG.
Federal government (at least in USA, by the US Constitution) does not have the authority to make a service mandatory. It subverted the laws, it just doesn't care because nobody challenges the government, but the monopolistic federal government must not have authority to subvert individual rights this way.
This definitely should be left up to the States, and money should not be taken away from some states to subsidize others either, so federal government shouldn't be able to tax your income.
I wrote on the entire SS being an unconstitutional ponzi scheme, morally and economically wrong and about the entire issue of health care and insurance being normal products, just like everything else, and being provided at lower cost and better quality when USA had that system, and people did in fact prefer the private insurance and healthcare (my journal entry actually contains information, data from government research. They have wrong conclusions, but they provide good data.)
In a free market economy the individual liberties are much more important than collective ideology.
---
Do you let them die?
- it needs to be possible for a person to die if in a free market society he is not taking the necessary steps to provide himself with insurance (which is very affordable in free market system). Yes.
However the question is loaded. When the cost of major medical insurance policy is 1-2 dollars per person per month (prior to 1965), when cost of a doctor visit is 3-5 dollars and when cost of a single day in a hospital is under 100 dollars, and when the free market is allowed to work then costs of medical care and insurance are normal market level costs, aimed at normal people, not at government provided money.
So as an example when Henry Ford was hiring people in 1914, he was paying twice as much for good workers than anybody else, because the market regulated him by causing high turn over. So he was paying $5/day, setting 8 hour days and 5 day weeks - no medical insurance, no pension fund, but also no income tax, no payroll tax, no union. He was paying equivalent of 120K after tax then, because gold cost just under 20USD/ounce and people had families with stay at home wives, maybe 5 kids, paid out houses and could buy cars with 4 months of salary.
The point is people can afford their own healthcare and education and insurance and retirement when government does not mess with these things by making them unaffordable by substituting the normal market participants with government money. Today health care and insurance and education must be MUCH less expensive then they were before 1965 due to all of the new technology, all of the new inventions and discoveries. It can't even be close. If you don't need to do an exploratory surgery and you do imaging instead. When you can use pills instead of surgery. When you have specialization that allows procedures to be done much faster so many more patients can be seen. The entire idea that health care costs must go up rather than down is preposterous, but it's made possible BY the government WITH government money.
As to people dying in corner cases - in most cases doctors and hospitals do not let people die and in normal market conditions the costs would not CRASH them as they do today, but again, that's because of where government took the costs by free market distortion.
You can't handle the truth.
Neither is healthcare. It's a human right.
a.