http://news.yahoo.com/health-care-liber ... -news.html

In under two weeks the U.S. Supreme Court will answer the question of whether the U.S. government has the power to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance. The Obama administration claims that the federal government's authority to regulate commerce between the states gives them the authority to require individuals to purchase particular types of health insurance coverage. Opponents of the law claim that such a requirement is unconstitutional.

It's important to remember, at this point, that the case isn't about whether the whole thing is a good idea. It's only about whether the federal government has the authority to require individual people to purchase approved health insurance policies.

As for the aftermath of their decision, my opinion is that in the short term it doesn't matter. If the law is upheld, then republicans will use their promise to do away with the law as a way to win upcoming elections. Remember that all of the middle-of-the-road polls show Americans opposed to Obamacare (leave out the polls by media matters, Ariana Huffington, and Rush Limbaugh). Also remember that when republicans gained a lot of seats in the House and Senate last election, much of their support was based on anger over Obamacare. In the end, Obamacare is an issue that will favor republicans in the general election if it is still on the table.

On the other hand, if the law is struck down by the Supreme Court republicans will still use the issue to lambast Obama for championing an unconstitutional takeover of basic human rights and blah blah blah. In that case, most of their gains will be in the category of "energizing" their own base.

In summary, the Obamacare issue is going to hurt Obama's re-election chances no matter what the Supreme Court decides, but the damage will probably be slightly less if the Court actually strikes down the law.

In the long term the decision could have major consequences. Say, for instance, that the law is upheld; Republicans use the issue to help them win the presidency and a majority in Congress, and then they simply vote Obamacare out of existence (a nightmare scenario for some, but just follow along for a moment). That gets rid of Obamacare for now, but the Supreme Court precedent will still stand, allowing government to mandate that individuals buy products or services any time that it can be construed as pertaining to "interstate commerce." That's a LOT of new power added to the federal government, and it's important to remember that someday the people from whichever party you DON'T like will have that power.

Interestingly, there were some polls a while back (I'll try to find them later) that showed a lot of support for various parts of the Affordable Care Act (The actual name of "Obamacare"). These parts included larger numbers of people in the US actually having health coverage of some sort, preventing insurance companies from dropping coverage for pre-exisiting conditions, etc... I'd like to see this kind of poll being done again, to gauge what people think of some of the important aspects of the law.

I think people will generally respond very differently to:

Do you favor or oppose the repeal of Obamacare?

Do you think health insurance companies should be able to refuse to cover a person because they have a pre-existing condition?

Now, the pre-existing condition issue could be separated from the rest of the law, but as it is right now, if the ACA is repealed entirely, so goes the pre-exisiting condition part of it.

I am very interested to see what the SCOTUS decides on this, and how it will play out in the election.

FUCK TWO PARTY POLITICS.

i hope congress gets bombed

if obamacare passes it will never be repealed, because everyday americans will see what it actually does and is meant for, rather than only hearing republican fear mongering bullshit.

learn2NHS.

this is more boring political stuff

What does that mean?

NHS = National Healthcare Service(UK)

Good points, Bobby. There is a lot of reform I would like to see in the insurance business myself. Just keep in mind that anything that ends up costing the insurance companies money (like requiring them to cover pre-existing conditions) will also cause rates to go up.

However, in keeping with the topic of this thread, the real issue is whether the federal government has the authority to require every American to purchase a product or service without conditions. As an example, every state requires people to have car insurance, but only as a condition of driving the car on the state's roads. The health insurance mandate is different. It requires people to purchase the coverage even if they never intend to leave their house. It's a condition of breathing. Leaving aside issues of poor people and health coverage, is that a power you're happy with giving to the federal government? Imagine that the equivalent of G.W. Bush, or someone even worse, gained the presidency and leadership in the Congress. Would you be happy to give him that power?

Anecdotal statement about one person you personally know and "heard of hundreds" of people (out of around 731 million) who are dissatisfied. Does it make you a Republican? No. Does it add much to the discussion? No.

Meanwhile, actual numbers help:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122393/oecd- ... marks.aspx

While attitudes vary from state to state, overall European attitude towards national healthcare systems seems fairly on the positive side, even if they still seem to prefer local healthcare systems. Of course, general confidence in a nation's government can affect views on how they handle any national-level program, so places where there seems to be less confidence overall, like Greece or Italy, also have lower confidence in national healthcare.

As for the American government's ability to handle healthcare, I'm not ready to take a firm stance on that right now, as I just want to keep watching the politicians until election time rolls around. Congress and the public will continue to fire back and forth on the issue weather it gets passed or not, people will vote accordingly, then the [again, likely just loud, smaller numbers of] backers of the looser will go into panic mode about the end of America being nigh once more, and 'round we go again.

Personally, I am not very happy with the mandate because I think a single payer or NHS is a considerably better way to go. Single payer would cover everyone (ACA still doesn't apply to millions of people that are not quite poor enough for medicaid, yet poor enough to be exempt from the mandate), and spread the costs of those pre-existing conditions and bankruptcy causing catastrophic health issues over a ton of people (as the mandate seeks to do by gettting more people enrolled).

As for the constitutionality of the mandate, I am on the fence. I believe that the government should be able to enforce certain things for the benefit of the society, perhaps even this, but that they should not be able to enforce stupid or evil things. I understand where you are going with the idea that if this is allowed, what else might be next, but I don't feel that we should cripple our government from being able to enact useful things just because someone may come along later and try to use that as a step to do horrible things. I know that someone may try, and I will work to prevent those horrible things from coming about if possible. The constitution already allows for a lot of things to come about that I wish would not, such as many of the wars we have been involved in.

well, basically in the US the situation is that the private healthcare system is taking around 2x the cash per person as the insurance companies do in australia, and we get exactly the same thing

so, by changing the healthcare system, obama will be saving money for millions of americans, money which will end up back in the economy rather than in the bank account of some insurance company stockholder

and once the system has been changed, all the money that was saved, is still available to improve the healthcare system even further


you can listen to republican propaganda, or you can look at the "universal healthcare" systems in other countries and think about why they spend half as much but get the same thing (except in australia we have a slight lack of "room" in hospitals, this is mostly due to heavy immigration along with government unwillingess to expand infastructure to cope with the increased population. *building hospitals is a state government job, not federal*)


ironically, from a "quality of service and success rate" point of view, the best thing the government could do is throw a few hundred million towards medical research into nanotechnology and genetics

when every health problem can be cured with a 50$ injection of nanosurgeon bots, who needs insurance?

This attitude seems to be getting more and more prevalent, not just as it pertains to the health care industry, but in the economy as a whole. It also ignores the reality of who a stockholder is. When you say "some stockholder" it gives the impression of one rich guy raking it in at the expense of everyone else. In reality, pretty much any public stock has millions of stockholders all making exactly the same profit in proportion to the amount of their investments. The biggest source of those investments is retirement funds and 401k plans. Normal middle class people invest in those plans by the boatload every day. Even small units of government, like school districts, often own lots of stock in major corporations through mutual funds as a way to invest their cash.

When we focus on the few fatcat CEOs, or the trust fund baby who lives a pampered life due to the massive investments of his ancestors we loose sight of the fact that the "obscene profits" realized by [insert evil corporation here] also generate profits for millions and millions of ordinary people. If you or your parents have a retirement account, you are that stockholder you mentioned in your post. I really don't know how things are done in Australia, but students in The U.S.A. benefit by the fact that most school districts are also that stockholder you mentioned.

If your reasoned analysis is that some sector of the economy is raking in obscene profits, then the best course of action for you is to invest in that sector yourself! If you think a corporation is price gouging, you don't have to be a victim.

There's another aspect to this as well. Your motive doesn't have to be profit. You said you wanted the government to pour a few hundred mil into medical research because of the ways that would improve life for everyone and the economy in general. Remember that when the government invests in something like that, some portion of the money they invest is yours. Rather than ask the government to invest a portion of your money for you, why don't you just invest your money yourself? If funding medical research is a big priority for you (and it's an excellent priority to have), then you should definitely invest in it and try to convince as many people to follow your example as possible. If a lot of people think medical research is a good idea, and plenty do, then the research can be funded without wasting half of every dollar on government inefficiency and corruption. You could research companies that are developing the kind of nanotech you're talking about and buy their stock, or you could even donate to a research university in the hope that your "profit" will come in the form of an improved world.

I got long winded again, but the gist of it is that "some stockholder" is not some greedy guy swimming in a silo full of gold coins somewhere. "Some stockholder" is you and me and a bunch of other people who don't even realize that they are the stockholders.

On a side note, congratulations are in order, DB. You successfully motivated me to derail my own thread! Excellent trollcraft. It's ok though; I don't think there was going to be much more discussion about the Constitutional issue anyway.

"...promote the general welfare..."

I leave you with that thought.

Four words that have caused so much trouble! What did "promote the general welfare" mean in the context of the time it was written and the people who wrote it?

Unless you really are leaving. In that case, no need to answer