What Should Americans Do After the Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling?
2) There are plenty of good ideas for free market health care reform.
One silver lining that has come about from ObamaCare has been an outpouring of proposed free-market alternatives to the current law.
One small sampling of many such proposals includes the Docs4PatientCare, “Physician’s Prescription for Health Care Reform,” proposals from the American Association of Physicians and Surgeon (AAPS), and “The Pipes Plan: The Top Ten Ways to Dismantle and Replace Obamacare“ by Sally Pipes (Pacific Research).
Likewise, Dr. Milton Wolf, John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods), and Andrew Bernstein (author of Capitalist Solutions) have also published free-market health care solutions.
Although proposals differ in various details, they share many common features and they would all move us in the direction of a fully free market in health care. These include fixing the tax code to put employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance on a level playing field, repealing costly mandates specifying which benefits insurers must offer, allowing individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines, and eliminating monopolistic medical licensing requirements that prevent doctors from practicing across state lines.
Such reforms would uncouple insurance from employment, allowing consumers to keep their own policies when they change jobs. Furthermore in a free market, consumers could purchase riders while still healthy to guarantee future insurability in the event they develop later medical problems (so-called “health status insurance“).
Similarly, there are various proposals to restructure Medicare to allow patients more control over their health spending, as an interim step towards the eventual goal where, “Medicare as we know it is phased out and the transition to private health insurance is accomplished” (per Docs4PatientCare).
There’s certainly legitimate room for debate on specific points of these proposals. But whereas the debate in 2010 was on how best to create a government-run health system, the debate starting in 2012 should be over how best to replace ObamaCare with free market reforms.
Send emails and leave voice mails at all Democrat members offices, because they are going to party hard on OUR MONEY over this for a long time.
Needless to say, the Democrat Party will be drunk on their power for a long time.
When I saw the SCOTUS decision, I wondered, what will Dr. Hsieh say about this?
Good article, good advice. Yes, we must seize this opportunity and win this fight.
Memo to Obama
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.– Thomas Jefferson
By now, we should know better than to depend on Congress to do anything. As individuals we must take a stand. History repeating itself can sometimes be a good thing. Read this article and pay close attention to the last line. http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2012/06/supreme-courts-declaratory-act.html
Considering the comments of Roberts, we now can see him far more clearly as a pragmatist: “. . . The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause,” … “That Clause (Commerce Clause) authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.” If it’s then “reasonable to construe” that you are stating you cannot violate individual rights under the Constitution (via the Commerce Clause), you ought to have the balls to hold that as a fundamental premise. Yet, you go on to say that it’s actually ok to violate individual rights as long as you call it a tax. Well, what you actually have done today is to legitimize the largest single tax increase (potentially) in American history. Where does that stop Mr. Roberts, please tell us all?
Amen to your diagnosis about the future rule of Democrats if they win: But our country will lose, not just the GOP. The truth is that we are sunk in a deadly morass of IRS, EPA and Obamacare totally unless we elect Romney and a GOP house and Senate. That’s a tough chore, but must be done if we are to survive.
Unfortunately, we aren’t guaranteed that the republicans and Romney will actually repeal this law in its entirety. We have been fooled by them in the past, in particular, the RINO’s such as Snowe, Graham, etc. They say one thing when they are running to get you to vote for them, and do what the bloody well please in office.
Term limits are what is needed for the whole Congress so they don’t go to Washington to make it career, but to truly serve as Washington did. Sad day for America, indeed.
What Roberts effectively said is that elections have consequences. In 2006, Americans gave control of Congress to the Democrats. In 2008, Americans gave control of the White House to the Democrats and increased their majorities in Congress. In 2010, control of the House was given to Republicans but the Democrats held control of the Senate and White House.
If we want to change this, we can’t afford to sit on the sidelines this year. While Romney wasn’t the desired choice for many of us, he has won the nomination. We need to work extra hard to see that he wins. That alone won’t be enough. Republicans need to retain control of the House and win a strong majority in the Senate or the abomination of ObamaCare will never be repealed.
That doesn’t excuse idiot Justices who think fair taxation is only on some particular group of people who the government decides to tax.
That’s not a tax, it’s a penalty.
It’s also very close to a bill of attainder.
They are making failure to buy health insurance a crime. Any other view is simply stupid.
Roberts is a jerk.
Romney says it best: “If we want to replace Obamacare we have to replace President Obama.”
The full text of his response is excellent.
http://legalinsurrection.com/
Vote for Romney. He’s not my ideal candidate, either, but we cannot endure four more years of Emperor Barack I. This is no time to cut one’s nose off to spite one’s face by wasting one’s vote on a third party candidate.
Work with the Tea Party to nominate and elect genuine small government fiscal conservatives as GOP candidates.
Remind everyone that OBAMACARE IS A $1.3 TRILLION TAX INCREASE. Obama said Obamacare would not constitute a tax increase; SCOTUS ruled today it is a tax increase. Therefore, Obama is a liar.
Right. AND we also have to win a Republican majority in the Senate. If your Democratic Senator is up for reelection, vote for his Republican opponent!
At this point I’m not only willing but EAGER to throw in with Romney. I don’t know how conservative he’ll be once he reaches the White House (that all depends on how close the People hold him to the fire), but I will gladly take the guy who possibly might agree with my positions over the guy who most definitely does not agree.
I’ve made my peace with Romney getting the nomination. I’ve researched him for my blog and noticed that though his positions change, they consistently change to CONSERVATISM. He may not be so bad.
So we have finally reached the point where congress has effectively unlimited power to force us to do whatever it chooses. If the existing Constitution (as interpreted) no longer protects us, then it needs amending. Here is my proposed amendment:
A: Neither the Federal government nor any agency thereof shall require any private individual, group or company to purchase any good or service, nor apply any fine or tax for failure to do so.
B: Neither the Federal government nor any agency thereof shall provide goods or services in competition with private individuals or companies, nor provide funds to any individual, group or company except in return for goods and services. Any such activities ongoing at the time this amendment becomes law shall be terminated within the four ensuing years.
C: Neither the Federal government nor any agency thereof shall require the participation of any individual in any program or activity except voluntarily in return for benefits or as punishment for a crime.
Had this been law, not only would Obamacare have been impossible, but the housing bubble (fueled by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and the student loan/inflated tuition mess could never have developed. It would also prevent any repeat of the insanely wasteful, debt-inflating bailout. Congress needs its wings clipped – badly!
Good points, but constitutional amendments are not the solution. The Bill of Rights remains intact, but Americans addicted to free lunches avoid it like the plague. Since 60% get more from government than they pay (taxfoundation.org ‘Who Pays Taxes 1991-2004′), majority opinion won’t work now. Another revolution might, but must be carried out by a small, brave, hopeless but dedicated minority, like the first one. It’s time for Atlas to shrug – again.
Great, so now where are we Canadians supposed to go for good and fast medical care?
It’s your parliament, your government, your politicians, and you as a member of a political party. Get working. For the next few years you are likely to have to depend on yourselves. That, after all, is not a bad idea anyhow.
Don’t know about you, but Americans are going to Michael Moore’s healthcare paradise – Cuba. Heard they “almost” cure Hugo’s cancer.
Yea, heh, heh; Their life support systems are state of the art.
We all need to get in front of this thing and make some lemonade out of this lemon. Supermajorities gave us Medicare, Medicaid and now Obamacare. A bi-partison solution must be found to take this toxic mix, throw in all the government worker health plans, such as VA and and end up with a socialized medicine plan we can afford and that is more fair and rational. Throwing out Dems or cursing at them won’t work. We are past that. They won. But we, as a nation, lost. We have the most screwed up mess imaginable now. Maybe it is so bad, legislators will actually do their job and fix it.
>>>>>>Chief Justice Roberts also noted that the Court “does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Healthcare Act.” Rather, “That judgment is up to the people.”
…exactly.
I don’t like the decision much, but the judges have no authority to decide if the law is good or bad. Only if it’s constitutional or not. Which is just what they did. The place to fight bad laws is in Congress and in elections, not the courts.
What the judge said seems to me to be the closest he can publicly can come to saying “my hands are tied, but repeal this law, idiots.” But he, rightly, only came *close* to saying that, and did not actually say it.
I much rather have such a judge than a judge who determines if something is constituitional or not based on precedent and the language of the Constitution, like this judge, as opposed to folks who use terms like “penumbra” to invent “Constitutional Rights” out of thin air, don’t you?
As I posted in Mr. Adam’s blog:
Roberts is clever, perhaps too clever by half, but very, very clever.
He seems to have folded like a desk chair and given the Left what it wants, but in reality, he’s set Bam up for a huge fall. Thanks to Roberts, Bam has given us the biggest middle-class tax ever–a H.U.G.E. transfer of money from the young to the old, the healthy to the sick, all that, regardless of whether they could pay it or not, regardless of income level or not. Also, the Bamster looks like a liar, “This is not a tax,” yeah, right. Tell that to the Supremes.
Wow, people will go spastic. Those who don’t pay taxes, wow, it’ll be like a two-by-four upside the head. They won’t shrug it off, as was suggested above.
Also, as Daniel Henniger said, this Obamacare garbage is SO yesterday. Backward, awkward…stupid.
Let me tell you, I’m getting apolitical friends sametiming me about a rise in taxes, etc.
I won’t say Roberts did this intentionally, but I bet he did. He’s given the election to Romney (but what Rombo will do with it, I shudder).
So chill out.
The fight is just beginning.
But we need to all focus on it, Libertarians and Conservatives and everybody and their brother. Together we can outweigh voter fraud. Together we can win.
If we don’t, well, as Custer probably realized, “At least I’ll not be forgotten, going down like this.”
We’ll not live forever, whether we wanted to or not. Right?
An Préachán
@An Préachán. You wrote that those who don’t pay taxes will be upset. It won’t work out that way. Those who don’t pay taxes are exempt from the penalty (tax) of the Individual Mandate.
As I said four years ago, Romney would be the strongest candidate. He was much more liberal (and actually supported government healthcare) as the Gov of Massachusetts though he does not like to say that now. So at least when he wins the wars, health care and the economy together with all the other “tough stuff” items would have now been dealt with. Whoever wins the next election should be able to concentrate on maintenance vice big changes. Obamacare needs to be tweeked for sure, but 85% is supported by both parties and Romney will be able to feed that to his base if he wins. Romney, like McCain is a realist once the votes are counted, which is good news for those seeking stability and growth. So I see the future as half full, vice half empty, no matter who wins in November. Dont you agree?
@poor citizen 85% of both sides support Obamacare, am I reading that right? If so, where did you get those numbers from? Two thirds of Americans are totally against Obamacare.
Lunatics in the Supreme Court and in the White house {Kremlin}.
Lets Hand Obummer {King} his Walking Papers in November.
There is only one thing to do, but Americans don’t have the balls to do it!
I may be reaching at straws, but doesn’t Roe v Wade and the courts decision of right of privacy, and the “zone of privacy” hold here? Our bodies are considered zones of privacy, so not having a patient/doctor relationship, which Obamacare omits by putting some other in charge of making our decisions, violate this?
I know the left would be up in arms if we use a decision they regard as fair and principled, but we can and should use their own weapons against them.
Well, it certainly destroys the idea that the government doesn’t have any interest in a fetus. Now ALL abortions are a state matter, along with all other medical procedures.
You’re not grasping at straws, you’re right on the money. If we want Obamacare out we need to use it to make abortion illegal.
So, if I didn’t know better (do I?, do you?) I’d say the SC and this administration are deliberately shoving us into a civil war, or a revolutionary war again. You talk about balls…What happens when millions of people simply refuse to pay it?
You can’t. It’s a tax. The IRS is to collect. Unless you’re the Scretary of the Treasury, you have to pay taxes, or spend times in the Big House, courtesy of the American people.
You missed the ‘balls’ part. I’m self employed, I won’t pay it, and when a million people are in prison, what happens then?
Actually, the IRS cannot really enforce it if you are careful. The act forbids them to levy on your assets or to put you in jail for failure to pay. The can, however, refuse to pay you a refund. That can be managed for most folks by setting their exemptions high or adjusting your estimated taxes.
Finally, something that really CAN be blamed on Bush.
@poor citizen 85% of both sides support Obamacare, am I reading that right? If so, where did you get those numbers from? Two thirds of Americans are totally against Obamacare.
i hope mitt clearly enunciates some of those free market alternative proposals for healthcare mentioned in this article & comes up with his own policy ideas before the election…
simply opposing obamacare without talking about the positive alternatives may not help his case in the eyes of the politically disengaged sections of the electorate…
if the repubs dont come up with a clear (more sustainable) alternative, then president obiwon will use that old line “the republicans dont care about you little people” & he will play into all those stereotypes about “them nasty republicans opposing healthcare for the poor”, etc…
the republicans cannot give the impression to be against healthcare reform generally or the impression that they are “doing nothing” about the broken american healthcare system apart from dismantling obamacare, otherwise it might help obama win a few more votes…
good luck mitt & good luck america!
I wish I could find grounds for optimism but none seem on the horizon. Those who have written that “we are no longer citizens but merely subjects” are indulging in hyperbole but are at least partially right. I can’t see where there is any limiting principle in this decision. It seems to grant the central government the power to “tax” a personal refusal to engage in behavior that the government deems necessary. How will this play out in the area of enviromental regulation? If I refuse to buy a recommended “fuel efficient” vehicle can I be taxed for my decision?
As for the political implications – It is true that a Republican-controlled Congress could repeal this legislation in toto but I doubt if that will happen. For one thing the Democrats will be promising free stuff to everyone who gives them their vote and the court’s decision will only add fresh fuel to the the class-warfare fires. The Obama administration and the Court have decided that, hereon, the U.S. is to be a European-style social democracy where the nation’s subjects are to be ruled by an self-perpetuating and “all knowing” elite. As Joseph de Lemaistre said – “Every nation gets the government it deserves.”
Since this is a tax, does that mean that the unions who bought waivers from the democrats will get their money back?
When you ask how we got here, what’s gonna happen when the jig is up, don’t forget the Supremes. It’s always about the questions not asked, much less not answered. Obamacare was never even passed, according to the law, that is. You can look it up, it’s rat there in the U.S. Constitution and in the PDFs of the two laws that were “deemed” to have been reconciled.
The rules. Fakery. Blah blah blah. One thing, though: have you noticed that the Supreme Court’s decisions over the last few decades have aligned almost perfectly with the hopes and dreams of the Faculty Lounge? It must be a plot, or maybe an innocent coinciedence.
Not the Stupid Party, but the Silent Party.
Only making a few proper bleats when they need money.
Active-passive accomplices of Crime.gov
It will take a super majority of the Senate, a majority of the House and a President that wants to repeal Obamacare. The bar is even higher if Obama is re-elected because you’d need both houses to override a veto (290 in the House and 67 in the Senate).
If Romney is elected, then you’ll need a Senate with only 40 Democrats/RINO so a filibuster can be broken.
None of the above is likely. The GOP will be lucky to get to 50 in the Senate much less 60 and under no circumstances will there ever by 67 GOP Senators. In the time left in the Universe.
One thing to bet on. There will likely be a “omnibus fix it bill” to adjust stuff. And the GOP and you will lose, yet again.
Since the mandate has just been ruled a tax, it’s repeal cannot be fillibustered. I suppose that Senate rule is subject to change, however, just like all other rules, laws, constitutional provisions, etc. are subject to change when the Dem’s interests are at stake.
I’m afraid kids, it’s lost. These events were predicted long ago by Hayek in, “Road To Serfdom” and the future has been given away by lawyers splitting hairs and neo-fascists posing as ‘political leaders’ who will now wave all the ‘free goodies’ for the sheeple if they’re re-elected and vilify those evil white male Republicans who want to take it away. Expect the next executive order will mitigate or erase student loans for the coup de grace. I am a physician and expect my private practice will fold somewhere midway through the next Obama term (to be followed by an equally loathsome Hillary presidency).
Adios, freedom. The brave and extraordinary human experiment of “America” is at an end.
Sorry Mr. Hsieh, I’ve been reading your critiques of Obamacare for a year now. You have never offered anything more specific than “sell across state lines”, “eliminate malpractice” and “let the market work”. These are not the “replace” in “repeal and replace”. At best these solutions would cut costs by less than 5% doing nothing about the uninsured and uninsurable. If our solution is to do nothing about the uninsured and uninsurable, then we need to just say so. Otherwise we need a compelling solution that addresses the needs of the American people. Your libertarian free market fantasies are just that. Please point to a successful healthcare system anywhere in the world or anywhere in history which depended on the free market yet achieved universal coverage. If you don’t want universal coverage, then at least say so.
Singapore
Nope, sorry Adult. The system in Singapore (ala Wikipedia) uses “compulsory savings, subsidies, and price controls” to achieve its superior ranking. Truly massive government involvement. It does use some “market” mechanisms to keep people in the game, but its hardly free market. Try again.
That’s deep research. Did you get past the 2nd paragraph? How about another article?: http://www.american.com/archive/2008/may-june-magazine-contents/the-singapore-model
“The reason the system works so well is that it puts decisions in the hands of patients and doctors rather than of government bureaucrats and insurers.”
BTW – what is your basis for stating that free market solutions will reduce costs by only 5%? The U.K.’s NIH is the 3rd largest employer in the world after the Chinese army and the Indian rail transportation system. How many bureaucrats, including all the extra IRS agents, is Obamacare going to require? Why does caring for our society’s neediest require confiscating the freedom of 300 million people? No other solutions available?
And? SG is not “free market” by any stretch of the imagination and one needn’t get past the second paragraph to see that. Obamacare is awful policy, but return to the original question: Where in world is their a “free market” health care system that achieves universal coverage? There isn’t.
Getting the government out of the healthcare business would be a big help. Mandating hospitals treat those who cannot or will not pay brought on the crisis as well as unrestrained litigation. The FDA bureaucracy did its part to install a monopoly which will charge what it will, running out of business those who will not pay to play in the political games of the socialist.
The bright side is that this may well fix the SS Ponzi scheme, as we can just send those over 70 home with a pain pill lased with arsenic if their ills cost too much.
I agree Brutus. All the GOP wants is repeal and replace with the currently broke system.
The GOP typically wants “free market capitalism” with little understanding that efficient economics requires some form of regulation (antitrust policy) to steer the market to ideal efficiency. In the case of health care this oversight is required to optimize welfare efficiency and not just economic efficiency.
Brutus, the alternative is not universal coverage or no universal coverage. The alternative is freedom or state supremacy (statism). When you declare that “universal coverage” is the goal that “we” must “achieve,” you are declaring that everyone’s lives and earnings are yours to dispose of, through your surrogates in government, for the purpose of solving what you declare to be “our” problems. This is a totalitarian premise, and if you want totalitarianism in medicine, then at least say so.
But the lives and earnings of your fellow Americans are not yours to dispose of, and neither are they the government’s. We who advocate free markets recognize a moral truth that you ignore; that we only have a moral claim to our own lives and property. We recognize that we have no right to assume the role of criminal; to take from some to alleviate the problems of others, while taking credit for “caring.” We are not phonies. A free market is based on the moral premise that each person owns his own life, and only his own life. A free market only “does” one thing; leaves everyone free to solve their own problems, and to pursue their values without coercive interference.
We recognize that a free market will not guarantee that every individual will solve every one of their problems. But what YOU don’t recognize is that a free market will make it much easier for people to find solutions to their problems. Take “the uninsured and the uninsurable.” That is not a national—i.e., “our”—problem. It is a problem for “the uninsured and the uninsurable.” One obvious cause is pre-existing conditions. The free market solution is to end the third-party-payer system, enabling people to buy and own their health insurance like they do life, auto, or homeowners insurance. When the loss of a job does not result in loss of coverage, the pre-existing “crisis” vanishes, making for far fewer “uninsured and uninsurable.”
Every free market reform advocated by Mr. Hsieh will work in the same way. You don’t want to see it, Brutus, because you’re so wedded to your totalitarian universal coverage fantasies. Your sole idea of “doing something” is simplistic governmental dictates, and your sole idea of a free market is “doing nothing.” You have no concept of the myriad ways in which free citizens can do the doing for themselves, when government roadblocks are swept away.
Excellent reply!
“Brutus” (nomen est omen?) has no moral leg to stand on, and you made that ever so plain! Thank you!
Beyond that, what is best in your response is the unstated logical conclusion that the correct MORAL standpoint also is likely to solve most of the practical problems. Folks like this “Brutus” frequently trot out the allegedly pragmatic “good sense” of their schemes in order to quench any moral counter-arguments even before these are made. In so doing, they not only violate our rights, but also attempt to obfuscate the fact that their “pragmatic solutions” have never worked satifactorily.
So, to restate, “for brute’s sake”: Bad ethics make for bad “pragmatics”, while good ethics lead to things working better. — How come there isn’t a “do-gooder” to be found in the whole world who would jump at that chance? Maybe because he senses dimly that then he wouldn’t be needed? And that scares him?
“Universal Coverage” is just more psychotic liberal ploy of writing checks with their mouths that everybody’s rear ends put together could never afford to cash. How can we promise everything to everybody with a straight face? How could people be sooooo stoooopid as to believe that they can have it all for free?
I think the problem is people have no idea whatsoever about basic common sense economic principles, like, “stuff costs, because there ain’t no free lunch.”
They really believe there’s a free lunch out there if we only have the courage to vote for it. I’m sorry, but such people are tooooo stooopid to remain alive for very much longer. They’re bound to stick their finger into the wrong lite socket sooner or later.
First of all, Paul Hsieh is a medical doctor; so it’s “Dr. Hsieh”, if you don’t mind.
If you’ve actually been following Dr. Hsieh’s comments on health care you’d know already that he has never favored “universal coverage” (stealing my money to pay for your health care).
He has pointed out that the high rate of inflation in health care costs is largely caused by government interference, both in health care itself as well as health insurance provision.
The fact is health care is NOT free. If someone is uninsurable, it’s probably because ….that person is uninsurable. They will have to depend on family or charity to help them. If that is not sufficient then they die. “The needs of the American people” does not equate a right to TAKE from others. The necessities of life are simply not guaranteed to anyone.
“They will have to depend on family or charity to help them. If that is not sufficient then they die.”
And there it is. I know many Republicans have this sentiment, but you’re the first one ballsy enough to actually say it. I for one care for my fellow Americans, I actually care for everyone’s “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. You apparently only care for yours. Quite noble of you.
Ah, Princess! So noble! So self-sacrificing!
We don’t deserve you, really we don’t!
Well, good for you, Chris! I’m glad you care about every “..American’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness..” You’re welcome to continue doing so. Nobody will try to stop you.
Give all you can to your favorite cause, all you have, all you earn, and take out a mortgage on YOUR future earnings. You’re well within your rights to do it.
Where you are NOT within your rights, is to coerce ME to do likewise.
You may ask Dr. Hsieh to help a friend of yours who is in need, and you may ask him to do so for less than his going rate if you or your friend are unable to afford full payment. You may NOT DEMAND it. Your rights end with his considered “No”, should he make that choice. It is HIS CHOICE to make, NOT yours to command at the point of a (government) gun.
Your RIGHTS to further somebody else’s, or your own, life, liberty, and happiness go no further than your polite question, “will you help?”. HIS rights to further his own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness by a choice HE deems appropriate for himself and his circumstances, begins the instant you approach him with such a question. His answer may be a “Yes”, or a “No” even if you offer twice the rate. He may be too busy, no matter what you offer. HIS CHOICE, NOT YOURS! That, dear Chris, is FREEDOM; his, yours, mine. Accept it.
Accept that we are not to be each others’ servants or slaves, no matter what you ( or a diversity of other NewLeftProgressive looters-in-spe) would deem to be a “noble cause”. Remember, there cannot be anything noble created from ignobly negating another’s fundamental rights to his own life’s choices! Remember that, and pass it on to your “friends”.
I recognize that we live in a society where it is required to work together to achieve more than we can do individually. Your philosophy of “me first”, screw everyone else is barbarian.
With health care we have a few options, one is to let people die in the streets if they can’t pay as joelm would have. Option two is the system that we currently have where people without insurance go bankrupt from medical bills… and thus society pays for them, or possibly the hospital does the work for “free”… but technically everyone is still paying thanks to an increase in rates.
The individual mandate is a hedge bet that will actually collect money from people before they drop a huge burden on society… and will thus put less of a burden on you and your wallet. Isn’t that what you really want??
Sure, PPACA isn’t perfect but let’s compromise and work to improve it rather than repeal it and just leave the same broken system in place. (As far as I can tell the GOP has no real legislation ready to go to replace PPACA, just a bunch of snake oil promises for a better solution somewhere sometime later.)
Just to feed my own curiosity joelm. I know most of the right wing are heavily religious. I’m curious if you are, and if so, does your religion teach this philosophy of let thy neighbor die in the street?
(I’m just trying to get an understand to what level the GOP’s contradictory morality goes. I don’t intend this post to be offensive, if you take it that way please disregard it.)
No, Chris, it is YOU who does not recognize, nor understand, a thing. We live in a society where it is precisely NOT a requirement to work together for a mutual benefit, except by mutual consent. If you have nothing that I value to offer me for my effort, I will decline working for you or with you, regardless of any considerations for your or any third parties’ actual or potential benefit or need. To coerce me to do otherwise, now that IS barbaric.
This does not necessarily preclude my rendering assistance, when I am able, should I see a need for it, and out of a sense of human kindness or charity. But, I will not do so at “gunpoint”, merely because you or any number of likeminded people conclude it to be my obligation. I do not recognize this sort of an obligation. My help, compensated or not, is voluntary or not at all.
Further, I am not interested in participating in your notion of a “hedge bet”, whatever that is in reality, and do not see where such participation could be of any benefit to me. I buy my own (premium) health insurance, have never been seriously ill, and pay minor to moderate expenses out of pocket. In doing so, I am already subsidizing the health care of others less fortunate than myself, probably well beyond my “fair share”. Doing more will definitely leave more money not in my pocket, but instead in many other pockets whose bearers have done nothing for me and are not likely to in the future. I decline the offer.
Not only is PPACA not perfect, it is an abomination the likes of which we have rarely seen in this country, or anywhere in the world. Hundreds of new agencies and thousands of new bureaucrats (doing exactly what? for me?), not to mention thousands of “goons” to enforce their edicts and mandates, will be a burden I decline to shoulder. You are welcome to it, but I suspect the reason why you wish to cajole, even force, my cooperation is because you do not want it, either. Your choice, not mine!
Furthermore, the level of subterfuge and sheer corruption underlying the enactment of this particular piece in and of itself has been extraordinarily abysmal. I decline to reward such crap in any way whatsoever! It is of exactly “0″ interest to me whether the GOP has anything better, or anything at all, to offer along these lines. I am utterly satisfied with MY situation, as is, and intend to keep it, as “promised” by, I might add, one of the greatest liars this country’s political scene has ever witnessed! The best way for me to ensure my future ability to provide the level of care best suited to my needs, will have to be to ignore this man’s promises while doing everything in my power to send PPACA packing. Have I cleared up your confusion, Chris? I hope so!
(By the way, please excuse my using the “reply”-link meant for your query to “Joelm”. For some reason, your reply to my post contained no such link, so I used the next one down.) Also, in case you are curious, I am an atheist, and although I cannot speak for Joelm, I know enough very “right-wing” folks who will follow Jesus’ teaching and be Good Samaritans when and as needed, as will I, though in my case not for the sake of following in Christ’s footsteps, but for the sake of my own humanity. The result is the same. Again, speaking but for myself, that said, what I will NOT do is support any form of government mandated health care, for reasons stated above and in my previous posts. My life, my body, my health, my happiness, my judgement, are mine to dispose of, and not the collective’s common property. I intend to keep it that way!
“I am already subsidizing the health care of others less fortunate than myself, probably well beyond my “fair share”.”
Exactly!! Your health insurance is more expensive right now because of those people who don’t have health insurance.
Requiring people to get health insurance will actually lower your health care costs.
This is why I don’t understand why the GOP is so against the individual mandate, since it should actually reduce your healthcare costs.
Yes, Chris (below), Exactly, Exactly, Exactly!
You are beginning to “catch on”, although apparently still miles from understanding! A sign of “progress” might be that no longer do you appear to “angle” for the “moral high ground”, where you insinuated that GOP’ers, conservatives/objectivists, and others siding with them, would be akin to “barbaric” for letting poor folk “die in the streets”. That unearned moral “rectitude” which PPACA would create for you at our expense, is and remains ours for freely chosing to help the less fortunate when we can! By definition, moral acts are exercises of individual free will. Under compulsion, they entirely cease to exist, most especially for those proposing the compelling!
My healthcare expenses, (including insurance and anything else pertaining to them), are MY BUSINESS, and mine alone. To the extent I am comfortable with them and satisfied with the level of care and service, why should I want to make changes? And, if not, it’s up to me, me alone, to change those parts which I deem requiring change. It is my privilege, and my responsibility! It is, literally, none of YOUR damn business! YOUR understanding is not required, nor was YOUR “advice” sought!
Nor would any of this be subject to your “consent” or “disapproval” (LOL) as long as it remains subject to MY CONTROL. Which returns us to the real issue of “Obamacare”, aka PPACA. That particularly egregious act of plunder is by design intended to steal much more than our money. Its purpose is to wrest control over some of our lives’ most basic individual choices, its only “voluntary” aspect being the dangling before our eyes of the tiny “carrot” of (temporarily) reduced expenses. A very tiny carrot, indeed! We all know how this tiny carrot would disappear even before the ink dried on our “signatures”.
NO thanks! — I’ll keep my money and spend it however I choose. You are welcome to keep your PPACA and let other people tell you how to spend your money, as well as make medical choices for you. Will you be “delighted” once you “…find out what’s in the bill…”. I don’t know; nor do I care!
As Dr. Hsieh made so plain in his article with its many informative links, if reduced healthcare costs are to be our goal, as well as greater accessibility, we need to get government, especially the Federal Gov. OUT of this business! It’s only been in it since the 1930′s, and the more its “tentacles” have extended into every part of it, the more expensive things have become, and the more unwieldy and inscrutable. So, contrary to your argument that PPACA participation would lower (my) expenses, I remain convinced that it would do exactly the opposite. Getting rid of a thousand randomly chosen federal health regulations would be much more likely to really cut costs! Trouble with that is “there’s no money in it”, politically! Exactly: OUR money, no longer available to spend on one’s politically preferred/correct cronies! This HAS TO STOP!
Sooo, Chris, you have NO ARGUMENT “LEFT”. Go “RIGHT” and “live the freedom”!!!
Roger, the thing you don’t understand is that the selfish attitude of “me, me, me!” is not sustainable. At this point it’s probably impossible for me to explain to you the benefits of working together.
You can keep up your delusion that health costs are increasing solely because of bureaucracy, but the truth is that people are living longer and the medical technologies and techniques that are being developed are ever increasing in cost to invent and administer.
The rest of the world understands this and are working to control costs, only in America do we have the GOP kicking the can down the road for the sake of short term “liberty”… all at the cost of eventual mutual destruction.
No, not quite!
The “me,me,me”, and “I,I,I”, — that’s YOUR song, demanding the unearned; lying about it, to boot, as per your “fearless leader’s ” example.
Mine got earned, over many years of unused pay-ins which effectively will be “confiscated” when the private market gets collapsed due to PPACA, which was PPACA’s stated goal in the first place! (Remember Choom-smoker’s famous pre-campaign speech?! I do!)
But, I predict this: Your looted money will run out, and people like me, who provided it, will no longer provide. Then we shall see.
Happy 4th! Enjoy the fireworks! — Remember Nov. 6th!
As I predicted, you were out of arguments! Me,me,me, LOL !
As I understand it, the tax penalty will not be imposed on people who have insurance, or for whom insurance would cost more than 8% of their annual income.
I have a few questions for commenters here:
Are you currently insured?
If you’re not insured, would you like to be?
If you’re not insured and would like to be, will the subsidies in Obamacare allow you to buy insurance?
If you choose to remain uninsured, what will be the dollar amount of your tax penalty?
If you’re not insured, what do you do if you have to go to the hospital?
Someone has to pay for the indigent care provided by the doctors, clinics and hospitals. It is not their responsibility to give “free care” and neither is it the insurance companies. If the states mandate free care, the states should pay for it out of their treasury. A repayment plan should be implemented for anyone receiving health care..it should not be free. Pre-existing conditions should not be covered by the insurance companies to someone who hasn’t had insurance. You certainly can’t start auto insurance after you have had an accident and expect the insurance company to pay for it. That isn’t insurance, it is WELFARE.
What I don’t understand is hospital ‘insurance’, period.
Especially governments encouraging it through employer-based socialism.
(Caveat- I worked in a group claims office for Aetna for 8 years.)
Why can’t hospitals and providers become their own financing companies?
Thousands of accounts receivables at a low interest rate, a predictable revenue source into the future.
The credit card and auto finance companies make zillions with this model.
Their collections are not collateral-based either.
Wasn’t making affordable payments the norm before 1965?
Insurance is supposed to be catastophic only.
Most didn’t need or have insurance as we know it before ’65; we boomers just saw lots and lots of kids- no “millions dying from the lack of medical care (insurance)”.
In the state of Maine preexisting conditions are covered. The flaw is that people wait until they are sick, then they get insurance until they are cured. After that they drop their insurance until the next time they need it. Once you drop out you should have to go on a pay-per-occurance rather than having the freedom to get insurance again unless they pay up all the intervening premiums.
TODAY I just became a Christian Scientist.
Man, we already have a physician shortage. This is going to exacerbate the problem.
http://bredred.com/how-to-divide-a-country-the-healthcare-question-and-why-the-courts-got-it-so-wrong/
A majority of Supreme Court justices obviously never read The Constitution and just told us we have to buy whatever the government tells us to buy as long as it’s the IRS pointing a gun at us. (Oh!)
Our best bet is to lie low for the next 40 or 50 years, not vote or anything, and let the Democrats destroy themselves. Let’s all do that.
If the government can send you off to war or require car insurance, they certainly can require health insurance. Next step is to either require employers to provide insurance for their workers or single payer.
Do you understand the difference between the state and federal government? The state can require me to buy car insurance but it can’t require me to buy a car because I live there. The federal government is empowered to maintain armed forces to provide for the common defense. On what basis is the federal government empowered to force me to engage in commerce of any sort? They can’t even force me to work. They can limit my choices by banning certain products but they can’t force me to buy anything. This ruling is a travesty. It is imposing a penalty, not a tax. We need five new justices on SCOTUS.
Obama Threatens The Supreme Court… Again Posted by Andrea Ryan on Friday, May 4, 2012
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/obama-threatens-the-supreme-court-again/
Obamacare was never about improving health care or making it affordable. It was about two things:
1. Rewarding connected medical supply companies, various unions who got out the vote, family members and the like.
2. A vast power grab to increase government control over out lives.
They’ve opened the spigots on the federal trough to their friends and family while at the same time putting the shackles around our wrists and ankles. Very slick, but then they didn’t have to be: they’ve been dumbing down Americans in government schools for two generations now and it’s finally paying off for them.
Sen. Rand Paul Discusses on CNBC the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Obamacare – 6/28/12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRANe7BCTUg&feature=player_embedded
Vote for Romney? What good will that do, pray tell? The Court has just given the federal government the power to make you buy whatever it wants to by calling it a tax. Romney can’t repeal Obamacare and he actually supported it and wants to replace it with another statist nightmare. He’s as much a statist as is Obama. What he doesn’t talk about is your individual liberty. The Constitution is dead folks, and it really doesn’t matter much whether it is Obama or Romney who presides over the exercise of naked power over us. Our Liberty has been signed away by John Roberts.
This is one person who is enthusiastic about Romney! I am so sick of everyone saying he’s not likeable. He is a great father, grandfather, husband, loves this country, has been successful in business, saved the olympics ( I know I was a volunteer and had inside info in what was going on before he took over), helped raise 5 outstanding young men, was never ashamed of this country, has stood by his wife, through her health problems (and doesn’t eat dogs), is a good Christian (funny how rev jeffers says he believes obama when he says he’s a christian, but not Romney), has a plan, will get rid of this disaster, has never been a crackhead, will publish his grades etc., if asked.
My gads, what more can you ask?
You don’t like some of his opinions, and apparently for some of you it’s not OK, if he has changed to come over to our side.
Is he not tons better than what we have in office?
Let’s get behind Romney and makae sure we get rid of this manchurian president, and all the declaraations he has made under the table!
I am NOT voting FOR Romney
It just ain’t happenin’ in this election cycle.
I don’t trust his instincts, instincts that included raising taxes in Taxachusetts, signing gun bans, and coming up with the prototype individual mandate that Obamacare was based on.
Having said that, I will still be pulling the lever for the guy.
Why? Because his is NOT Obama!
You see, I am not voting FOR Romney, I am voting AGAINST Obama. Just like I am voting against every single democrat on the ticket this time, for the first time in my life.
I fully expect Romney to pull a John Roberts when it is convenient for him, as he is decidedly uncomfortable with the so called right wing. The only way to mitigate that in advance is to elect as many Republicans as possible, from dog catcher on up.
If figure at least that way there is a huge counterweight to his more liberal tendencies.
By the way, I am also a Southerner, born and raised in NC.
As is typical, I registered over a quarter century ago as a democrat. Old school Democrats in the South are more than a little to the right, politically speaking, of the most right wing republican in the north east, so it hasn’t been that big of a deal drawing distinctions between local and national politics.
No more.
Me and my wife are going tomorrow first thing and changing our party registration as this is the first opportunity for both of us to be there at the same time.
We consider it our own small note of protest.
If you want to make a difference, find more Democrats like me and make the modest suggestion – if they show as much anger over this decision as I have – that a small token of protest would be if they likewise switched parties.
You can even suggest it is temporary if you want, and that they can switch back later if they’d like. Maybe have local events wherein a group of democrats switches parties at the same time as a show of solidarity.
You may be surprised at the response you’d get.
Mitt Romney won the election today. The rest will be mere theater.
What should we do? Simple. Elect Romney so that he can purge the government of every vestige of the Obama administration, including repeal of Obamacare in its entirety, purge the cabinet and every department and government agency of all czars and political appointees and career bureaucrats hired after 1/21/2009, abrogate every executive order issued Obama, and suspend pending appeal every department and agency rule, proposed or promulgated after 1/21/2009.
And that is just for openers.
Conservatives and all freedom loving people had best flood the ballot boxes this November, or this country will look like Cuba in a few years.
I am a lawyer and have taught undergraduate students Constitutional Law for several years. Much of what I have taught about State sovereignty, federal powers, and limited federal jurisdiction went away this week. Roberts has sealed the fate of this Republic. You people who are trying to put a smiley face on this tell me: What is the limit of federal power under this ruling except the ballot box? Forget about Obamacare and use your imagination for the future. Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 changed the country but it took many years to bear bitter fruit. What fruit might this decision bear?
Turns out it could bear lots and lots of fruit- and veggies too! Under this ruling Congress could order families to buy fruits and veggies each week. They could send inspectors into every refrigerator to insure compliance. They could order everybody to implant chips (and pay for it using penalty-oops, I mean “conditional taxes”) to monitor blood enzyme parameters. They could order couples to have sex at least 1 time per week since regular sex is important for public health. Congress could require SUBJECTS to assemble at the local neighborhood commissars office at 6:00 a.m. each day for morning calisthenics since exercise is important to health. Miss more than 1 day a week and you pay a $10,000.00 fine- ooops, I mean a “conditional tax.” This is the progressive wet dream- far more important than Obamacare.
Sure some of my off the cuff examples are wild- or are they? Can somebody tell me what is NOT allowed under this ruling? Please identify the limits of federal power on INDIVIDUALS. For extra credit include the recent Arizona ruling and identify the level of sovereignty still retained by the individual STATES. We are no longer the United States- we are the SSA:
The Subject States of America.
Stick a fork in it.
They could do this, but they won’t because the voters don’t want it. If they wanted it, who are you to say no? You have to pay Social Security taxes too which are much more onerous. Only nutcases have a problem with that, why have a problem with this?
Well said, Professor!
I am not a lawyer, nor any kind of academic; I am an engineer. I build machines for my customers. My only courses in law were those required by my engineering program and were basically centered around torts and contracts, although along the way natural curiosity caused me to also spend some time reading the Constitution and a number of cases relating to it. Yet, my initial reaction to this morning’s decision is close to yours:
Let’s see: The mandate to perform some (presumably, any) purchase is illegal due to an absence of constitutional powers, whilst the penalty (in this case redefined as a tax), obviously meant to coerce precisely such undemandable compliance, be a lawful exercise of powers! Wow! What’s next?! Will we be required, in some future bill, to purchase breathing air and, failing to do so, be “taxed” just as though we had?! If CJ Roberts is the best our system of legal education has to offer, and such illogic the best product of our general educational systems, then…I’m outta here!
Folks, with this kind of logic for precedent, every one of the Constitution’s foundational building blocks has received a jackhammer blow. We might as well shredder the whole thing and start over. Freedom, bye, bye!
No limits now to the encroachments that corrupt legislators and creative “legal eagles”, acting together (all too often they are in any case one and the same), may perpetrate upon individual rights.
The pens of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and so many others, framed a charter for liberty which their guns had had to pre-defend at so great cost, but ultimately it was the dollars, of so many times many productive citizens who were for the first time in recorded human history freed from undue government interference with their best rational judgements, which fueled the growth of this freedom into the greatest society and nation the world has ever known!
The $$$ were the fuel of continuing future liberty and prosperity, so long as their greater measure was kept in the hands of honest and productive citizens. The unlimited powers to tax them away, affirmed on this very day by a most gossamer pretence at “logic”, define the “road to serfdom” as the only road remaining to a once free people. Woe to all of us! And a curse upon the likes of a Mr. CJ Roberts!
Last, not least, an answer to Markus: Assuming your post was not intended to be sarcasm, or in some other way intended to be facetious, I have a question:
By what RIGHT? — Am I to infer that, according to you, if 1 person more than 50% of voters decided that all of us should be slaves to one another, then I would rightfully be required to accept the status of slave? And to comport myself accordingly?
Your SS example is of exactly that nature. I have grudgingly accepted it these many past years, in a sense because I was “born into” it. It was there long before me, and I had no choice in the matter. Yet, I have always been of mind that it is as improper in America as the present Obamination, and essentially equally unconstitutional as a government mandate. — This does not even consider the meanwhile known fact that it has become an unfunded liability because the pay-ins have literally been stolen over the years by just the sort of congress-critters responsible for the current theft of my rights. — That money, in my own retirement fund and my own hands, would still be there. Now, instead, I have become dependent upon the good will of future taxpayers, and the “same thieves” who stole it, to return it to me some day. I have become dependent upon a corrupt government printing press not to print so much un-backed paper currency as to devalue the amount to a virtually unrecognizable fraction of its former worth.
Yes, I have an issue with collectivists, and today’s SC decision is pretty much the last straw. The Constitution was precisely the instrument intended to limit such improper pecuniary desires and power lust of someone of your ilk who would use the brutish argument: there’s more of us than you, so we have the power to make you serve us. Here’s fair notice: you do not! Very, very many people like myself, will stop you. We intend to stop serving you, to stop serving at all, Mr. Roberts’ unholy ruling of today not withstanding!
Now go troll at the Huffpo, a good place for you!
What should Americans do? FIRESALE!!! Everything must go. Get rid of every last person in government with a (D) next to their name. It’s the only way to save the country from following the footsteps of socialist Europe.
Exactly so. Democrat = thief. Thief of money and thief of freedom. Only people who WANT their money stolen from them and their freedom restricted — in ways that are growing more ominous with each passing day — would vote for a Democrat.
The tyrants are toast. They’ve had their day in the sun; now its time to show them who are the real adults. Scathing ridicule is what they deserve and must receive.
What should American’s do after this Supreme Court Obamacare ruling?
That, my friends… is an absolute no-brainer.
Fight for this election like it’s your last.
Cheers.
For us,this is devastating. I have lost my job, my benefits, my savings, my retirement and now they have come back for my eye sockets. We have survived by beign very careful and frugal on one income.
I wish I could psate the pay stuba nd the state quote in here but here are the numbers:
Our company paid insurance:
$303 a month $250 deductible for 2 including dental and vision.
After Jan 1, the company drops us and we go to the state exchange, no vision no dental.
$1289 a month $2500 deductible (Ohio)
I dont have $800 a month. We barely pay our bills as is.
So, very soon, we will have to decide how to keep our home.
The cheering and big celebration of Obamacare is as if they are happy we will lose everything, our home.
But Gay patriot said it best: this will be a great rally for conservatives and is raking in funds for Romney.
Yet the ones that are cheering the loudest are my “friends” who claim that Heatlhcare is now available to them. Healthcare? No, its insurance and you will be penalized if you do not buy it.
They are the same who never bothered buying their own insurance off the state pool which, in Texas, has been available for a long time before Obama ever showed up.
I may be in a similar boat, empire sentry. I am going to quote your story to my gloating FB friends, before I say “You care about the poor? Great. Try not caring about us so much for we are suffocating on your good intentions.”
EASY, I got this one: Keep & preferably expand the existing power balance in the House, kick the bums out of the Senate that will surely block any attempt to repeal Obamacare (i.e. put Dingy Harry Reid on the SENATE MINORITY list where he belongs since he can’t be voted out this cycle), and for God’s sake kick the current occupant out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Done and done.
What Should Americans Do . . . ?
“When in the course of human events . . .”
Keep remembering that Obama was elected by only 30% of registered voters. There was a 58% turnout and of the people who actually voted, 52% voted for Obama. Multiply 0.58 and 0.52 and you get 0.30. Just 30% of registered voters saddled us with Obama. Forget about the polls and just vote. He has not gained followers.
Tune in. Turn on. Drop out. The best thing to do is figure out your breakeven -, and guns and amo that income level where you get the maximum health benifit for your situation. Work salaried jobs to that level and everything else under the table. Take advantage of every government program. Bring down the system. This law removes any incentive to try and maximize your income. Homestead, barter, reduce expenditures, cache precious metals, necessities and guns and amo. Move to a remote place if possible. Go Galt.
some GOP leaders are too willing to support elements of ObamaCare out of political expediency, even though that runs counter to core principles of economic freedom.
More than that, it runs counter to core principles of freedom itself. From which well, precisely, does the gov’t draw it’s water? — the ‘Let’s call it a tax’ well is a dry hole.
Given his past, is anyone willing to put his life on the line that ‘political expediency’ doesn’t include Romney?
I don’t know what Americans should do, but this American is going to stock up more food and reload more ammo.
Don’t forget your aluminum hat.
What about Ron Paul doing a write in vote? He is a true supporter of the free market. He supports repeal of prescription laws, drug laws. Elimination of the deficit. He also is an MD. You aren’t going to find anyone more faithful to what the USA used to be than Ron Paul!
My views about the voting public changed considerably when I enrolled at a city-sponsored art school and I found the “artists” had a very different view of government. As it happens, everyone in my class is female. Most are poorly educated, academically and all get their news from local media which has a pronounced liberal attitude. All want an increased minimum wage, and feel they are “entitled” to health coverage. I’m pretty sure they will all vote for Obama’s re-election.
what should we do? Round up all the homeless take them to the hospital have them assesed and placed on Obamacare.(medicaid). Lets see the rationing begin.
We can still get rid of obamacare. Keep remembering that Obama was elected by only 30% of registered voters. There was a 58% turnout and of the people who actually voted, 52% voted for Obama. Multiply 0.58 and 0.52 and you get 0.30. Just 30% of registered voters saddled us with Obama. Forget about the polls and just vote. He has not gained followers.
For Anita re: term limits
We’ ve had term limits in CA since 1990. They’re not the answer.
ObamaCare is not about health care, it is the massive re-distribution of wealth by the greatest expansion of the government in history through the largest tax increases on the middle class, and the first “punitive” tax on every citizen of this nation.