Affordable Care Act held to be Constitutional

Roberts writes the opinion for the majority finding that the punishment for the Universal Mandate was simply to pay a tax, and since the government has a wide range of authority over its power to tax, that the entire Affordable Health Act is upheld. However, this decision strikes a huge blow against expansive readings of the Commerce Clause, as it is also a clear 5-4 vote against this act under the Commerce Clause. The Obama administration spent most of 2011 claiming that the result of failing to acquire health insurance was not a tax, but a penalty, and it is so phrased in the law itself. But their lack of foresight there did not doom them as Roberts and the left wing of the court decided it was.

Politically this will be read as a huge win for Obama, but I disagree with that analysis. Polls are running slightly against Obamacare nationwide, and this will ad fuel to that fire. The very thing that saved the ACA, the taxing power, might be the most unpopular power of government. I would expect a backlash.

134 comments

  1. Nathan says:

    US Supreme Court has upheld ObamaCare 6 to 3.

    According to Drudge:

    SUPREME COURT RULES:
    Mandate survives as a tax…
    Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court…
    The Medicaid provision is limited but not invalidated…
    ‘Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

    I expect President Obama to do a happy dance in the Rose Garden today along with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. However, the big winner today may actually be Mitt Romney as it gives him and Republicans ammunition for the election in November. Another question that should be asked is if the federal government now has precedent to compel citizens to buy specific goods and services.

    • Stefan says:

      I have the vote at 5-4:

      ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered
      the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in which
      GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with
      respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an
      opinion with respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D. GINSBURG, J.,
      filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part,
      and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which
      BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV. SCALIA,
      KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. THOMAS,
      J., filed a dissenting opinion.

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      Romney cannot effectively or credibly campaign against Obamacare as Romney instituted a state version of the Individual Mandate while serving as Governor of Massachusetts that Obama claims served as the inspiration for his national version.

      How can Romney be credibly against Obamacare when it can be argued that Obamacare would likely not even exist without Romneycare as a precedent in Massachusetts?

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        Yep, no point whatsoever in voting for Romney, as having a majority on the Supreme Court is no guarantee that the “conservatives” can win court cases.

  2. David C says:

    Big loss for Mitt Romney, as court upholds the national version of the successful law he pioneered. (Yes, that is the point we have arrived at.)

        • Noway says:

          I disagree, Stephan. Now that it’s law, anyone, anyone who threatens to overturn it will be faced with commercials featuring the undeserving parasites saying, “Don’t take away my healthcare…”

          We’re done as a freedom loving nation. Finished. Thank you, you saintly poor for literally killing this country. No surprise, though. Tapeworms will eventually kill the host.

  3. View from Brookhaven says:

    Fine job by CNN in FUBARing that one.

    I assume the PP Tip Line is already flooded with press releases from reps who need to let the world know how outraged they are!!!1!

    Now…when do they get to work on the exchange here in GA?

  4. Stefan says:

    What’s really interesting is that The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn’t matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.

  5. Stefan says:

    Another point here, apparently your new swing vote is Roberts and not Kennedy. That is going to change how cases are argued at the court in the next term. You will have to pitch your arguments to him.

    • David C says:

      Kennedy’s a swing vote only because his libertarian leanings sometimes drive him left (on Immigration, Social Issues or Criminal Justice) and sometimes right (on issues like this and Citizens United). He’s more of an extreme to each way than a split the difference swing vote a la Sandra Day O’Conner.

  6. CobbGOPer says:

    And now we’ve opened a can of worms. Can the government now force us all to buy government bonds when they need a quick influx of cash? “It’s for the public good, so it’s covered under the commerce clause. Pay up or go to jail.”

    What has happened to freedom in this country?

    • saltycracker says:

      Key word – it is a tax not a penalty and not under the commerce clause.
      Freedom went when congress required that one pay for another’s care years ago.
      The states appear to be in a better position on medicaid but nationally it can get ugly.
      How many companies will dump their employees on the govt insurances ?
      What are the unintended consequences ?

      The devil will be in the details.

      The Republicans have a great opportunity here. They can present a plan to repeal it all (bad) or work it out in a way best for all Americans, one that gets a grip on costs.

      • saltycracker says:

        P.S. Small business: Not a smart time to be hiring unless really needed until this cost sorted out.

      • John Konop says:

        ……The Republicans have a great opportunity here. They can present a plan to repeal it all (bad) or work it out in a way best for all Americans, one that gets a grip on costs……

        I 100% agree!!! We should be focusing on how to lower the cost ie end of life directives, public exchanges…….. Instead this debate has been about everything but the real issue.

        • Three Jack says:

          Focus on lowering cost? By adding 40m freeloaders to the system but only if they submit to death panels and government exchanges. Yea, that’ll work.

          How to lower cost of healthcare in 10 words or less — pay or don’t receive service. It’s that simple.

          • John Konop says:

            Bart ie Three Jack,

            I do give you credit for being intellectually honest about the anti-mandate position. I do not agree with the let them die and or suffer libertarian position, but I give you credit for being honest about it.

    • Stefan says:

      I don’t understand. Your example is where Congress passes a law that says, if you don’t buy bonds, you will have to pay a tax, right? How is that different from doing what they already can do which is tax you?

      Your argument should be, “Congress passes law saying you must turn in all guns to local police OR pay a 10k tax per gun”.

        • Stefan says:

          Regardless, your bond analogy doesn’t work. Deprivation of a small sum of money isn’t the same as the obviation of a right conferred on the people of a nation. Use the one I gave you, its way better.

  7. Stefan says:

    Oh, and Peach Pundit readers, congratulations on reading a site that is more correct that CNN on news (well, for 2 minutes or so) and faster than FoxNews by 17 minutes.

  8. Calypso says:

    What would limit the government from imposing a tax of 100% of one’s last years earnings (or any exhorbitant amount) in lieu of one purchasing the insurance?

    • CobbGOPer says:

      I’ll join in putting blame on Bush for this one. John Roberts is obviously John Stevens’ secret clone.

      • CobbGOPer says:

        “I’ll join in putting blame on Bush for this one. John Roberts is obviously John Stevens’ David Souter’s secret clone.”

        Long day.

  9. Harry says:

    Many marginal employees will lose their jobs. Some pigs will be more equal than others. This is no good for the economy.

    • saltycracker says:

      I understand the squeeze on small businees and those that don’t offer much. But, I’m trying to sort out how it is bad for big business that already provides coverage. I’d think they are secretly thrilled, they now have an option like they did with medicare, dump it on the Feds.
      That must be addressed.

  10. Engineer says:

    The more interesting thing is that the Supreme Court basically ruled that the individual mandate is a tax. This gives the Republican Party an opportunity to cite this as proof that Obama is a pro-tax president or that he has increased taxes.

      • Stefan says:

        Yeah, Roberts addressed that. Upholding the ACA as a tax is another reason this is bad for Obama. BTW, apparently you and I are in the minority of people who think this is bad for the re-elect.

        • Engineer says:

          Then when you take into consideration that Judge Roberts sided with Obama and the recent rulings on the AZ immigration laws, Obama loses the opportunity to argue about the leaning of the Supreme Court.

          So this brings 2 big losses for Obama.

          • I’m gonna have to disagree in part. That’s not a very good argument for Democrats to make. Sure it kind of worked once during the great depression, but if you look at polling Democrats and the people that vote for them are much more into the establishment (ironically) than conservatives. We’re the ones trying to destroy what they’re trying to conserve -remember? Much better politics on the Republican side to point fingers at a Supreme Court who is either standing by and doing nothing or aiding in the destruction.

            So while I know some Democrats were pre-emptively saying that would be something Obama could do when they were worried he would lose this case, at the end of the day it wouldn’t have been a comfortable shoe for him to wear.

            • Engineer says:

              Don’t get me wrong now, I’m not saying they have no opportunity what-so-ever to argue the leanings of the court. However, much of the impact of their claims, of the court being way too conservative, have been dampened (remember, prior to the ruling on the health care bill, there were Democrat speakers and representatives all over the TV talking about how bias the court is; mostly this took the wind out of their sails).

              • Oh I agree but I think on a whole “look who f-ed up the government is” is not a winning argument for the incumbent President. Obviously you and I know that there are three branches and they intertwine and aren’t controlled by the same person but I just think in general “federal government warring with each other” isn’t a great headline if you’re the incumbent.

                I’d personally much rather take “President spent his time passing something that is constitutional afterall.”

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        It’s more like extortion than a tax. If you don’t do business with Big Insurance, you get paid a visit from the mafia.

        Now pay up that protection money.

  11. seekingtounderstand says:

    When you add up all the taxes coming from fed, state and local its quite a big hit. You think things have been tough just wait for another leg down folks!
    And the spirit of America is “we are Screwed” won’t help as folks will just stop caring so down further we go. The government chains have been placed. Your a serf who can not escape so shut up and sit down.
    Obamacare has so much unrelated stuff in the bill of which nobody I talk to even has a clue what is coming. Being white is not a good thing. Maybe you want to be a native american from this day forward. Both the right and left sold us out. Republicans will not change it as they have seen the power and money coming their way from big pharma. Politizied medicine.

  12. saltycracker says:

    Rubio on CNBC: Obama is raising taxes on the middle class and it is wrong to put the IRS on millions of Americans if they do not have insurance and do not pay the tax penalty. This IRS issue will grow and hurt economic growth. We have a health insurance problem and need to fix this in the right way.

    Romney: He will act to repeal Obamacare. SCOTUS said it was constitutional but did not address that it is bad law.

    • AMB says:

      I listened to Rubio the other day. What a perfect politician. He talks and talks and says absolutely nothing of substance.

      • saltycracker says:

        Hmmm – he had a lot of bullet points on the “right way” in his interview – maybe he hasn’t proposed an alternative plan with them…..

  13. xdog says:

    Not surprisingly, lots of goper angst today expressed as fantasies. SCOTUS OKs ObamaCare, crushing loss for Obama! Just like when SCOTUS hammered Arizona’s anti-immigration bill! What a loss for Obama that was too!

    Moving forward, if anyone expects substantive goper legislative action on either repealing or replacing what they don’t like about the current bill, or anything like a reasonable goper responses from the likes of Romney or Rubio, I believe you will be disappointed.

    • CobbGOPer says:

      That’s why I’m mad. I have zero faith the GOP will repeal this thing, and they probably won’t even try. Romney will campaign from this day till November on “I will repeal Obamacare.” But if he gets elected, I fully expect him to put it on the back burner while he addresses the economy. And it will stay on the back burner, because he and the GOP leadership have no desire to go through that fight again.

      We’re stuck with it now.

    • Three Jack says:

      I agree with you xdog. GOPers led by the man who passed the bill that Obamacare is based on have little to no chance of success. While it might make for a great campaign issue (at least until Romney is on the same stage w/Obama studdering through another defense of Romneycare), we might as well face the fact that mandated government healthcare is upon us with the big winners being democrats, freeloaders and the health insurance industry.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        Especially the insurance industries.

        “Do business with us or else we’ll send the IRS to your house.”

        I don’t know how the democrats every bought into the idea that this was supposed to help protect people from those ‘greedy insurance companies.’

        • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

          “I don’t know how the democrats every bought into the idea that this was supposed to help protect people from those ‘greedy insurance companies.’”

          The Democrats didn’t buy into the idea that this was supposed to help protect people from those ‘greedy insurance companies’.

          …The Democrats were given gifts, campaign contributions and effectively bought by those ‘greedy insurance companies’ just like the Republicans were.

      • SallyForth says:

        T/J, you are SO on target that the big winner on this thing is the health insurance industry. Their multi-million dollar lobbying prevented the single-payer system that would have been in taxpayers’ best interest, and instead kept the whole ball game in their stadium. They will be raking in money from all directions, and keep right on hiking our insurance premiums every year.

        But people need to stop listening to the talking heads on radio (sorry Eric) and TV — read the bill and the court ruling for yourself, people! Become a truly informed citizen before you start ranting on this.
        There are a lot of good things in this law that will help all Americans by increasing the risk pool, bring rates down by having those healthy 21-26 year olds in there (IF the insurance companies will play honest on this thing).
        And that PENALTY FEE (not tax) for not carrying insurance that everybody has been whining about? It is only $95 per year on lower income folks, rises on higher income folks who choose not to have insurance — no big deal! And at least it will stop people from going to the hospital emergency rooms (the most expensive thing on earth!) for routine primary care that should be done in a regular doctor’s office – and we taxpayers having to pay the ER costs.

        Overall, parents of children with health conditions, as well as the under-26 bunch, are happy with what has been implemented so far, and once the law gets fully implemented we will all be able to see what it actually does. And if it doesn’t work out like we want, Congress can always change it as needed. Like most laws, it was sausage being made, has some good and some bad thrown into it. But at least it’s forward motion on our broken healthcare system currently being run by insurance company bureaucrats, primarily clerks, making medical decisions.

        • Three Jack says:

          SallyForth, it is not called a ‘PENALTY FEE’. It is called ‘SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT’ and is considered a tax according to ruling that you suggest everyone read, but apparently did not do so yourself — http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

          “(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
          294. Pp. 33–35.
          (b)
          Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibilitypayment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.”

          • SallyForth says:

            Gosh T/J, and we were doing so well there! ‘Sorry to just get back to you; I’ve had a busy evening. I actually did read the ruling, which is so voluminous that we can all cherry pick parts and read in isolation. I didn’t figure our P/P’ers would want to slog through all this, but here are exact excerpts from which I drew my use of the term “penalty” used in the opinion:

            “Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a “[s]hared responsibility payment” to the Federal Government. §5000A(b)(1). That payment, which the Act describes as a “penalty,” is calculated as a percentage of household income, subject to a floor based on a specified dollar amount and a ceiling based on the average annual premium the individual would have to pay for qualifying private health insurance. §5000A(c).”

            “The Act provides that the penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties, such as the penalty for claiming too large an income tax refund. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(g)(1). The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2).”

            “… Amicus contends that the Internal Revenue Code treats the penalty as a tax, and that the Anti-Injunction Act therefore bars this suit.”
            “The text of the pertinent statutes suggests otherwise.The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” §7421(a) (emphasis added). Congress, however, chose to describe the “[s]hared responsibility payment” imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a “tax,” but as a“penalty.” §§5000A(b), (g)(2). There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to “any tax” would apply to a “penalty.”

            Congress’s decision to label this exaction a “penalty” rather than a “tax” is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as “taxes.” See Thomas More, 651 F. 3d, at 551. Where Congress uses certain language in one part of a statute and different language in another, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983).”

            “The individual mandate, however, is not in subchapter 68B of the Code. Nor does any other provision state that references to taxes in Title 26 shall also be “deemed” to apply to the individual mandate.”

            [amicus argues that it is a tax, and the Court responds]
            “The Government disagrees. It argues that §5000A(g)(1) does not direct courts to apply the Anti-Injunction Act,because §5000A(g) is a directive only to the Secretary of the Treasury to use the same “‘methodology and procedures’” to collect the penalty that he uses to collect taxes. Brief for United States 32–33 (quoting Seven-Sky, 661
            F. 3d, at 11).
            We think the Government has the better reading.”

            “The Code contains many provisions treating taxes and assessable penalties as distinct terms. See, e.g., §§860(h)(1), 6324A(a), 6601(e)(1)–(2), 6602, 7122(b). There would, for example, be no need for §6671(a) to deem “tax” to refer to certain assessable penalties if the Code already included all such penalties in the term “tax.” Indeed, amicus’s earlier observation that the Code requires assessable penalties to be assessed and collected “in the same manner as taxes” makes little sense if assessable penalties are themselves taxes. In light of the Code’s consistent distinction between the terms “tax” and “assessable penalty,” we must accept the Government’s interpretation: §6201(a) instructs the Secretary that his authority to assess taxes includes the authority to assess penalties, but it does not equate assessable penalties to taxes for other purposes.”

            “The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits. The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits. The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits.”

            [concerning use of taxing authority as basis]
            “Whether the mandate can be upheld under the Commerce Clause is a question about the scope of federal authority. Its answer depends on whether Congress can exercise what all acknowledge to be the novel course of directing individuals to purchase insurance. Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educations. See 26 U. S. C. §§163(h), 25A. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.”

            “We have nonetheless maintained that “‘there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.’” Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S., at 779 (quoting Drexel Furniture, supra, at 38).”

  14. debbie0040 says:

    As soon as the ruling came down, we picked up on this and told reporters this could have broad implications. Essentially, the Feds can’t punish Gerogia for not implementing their mandates. May apply to other programs as well. Still to soon to tell.

    Sorta like a city setting a speed limit but no punishment if the limit is not obeyed.

    Court holds that states have choice whether to join medicaid expansion
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/court-holds-that-states-have-choice-whether-to-join-medicaid-expansion/

    Medicaid holding may have broad implications
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/medicare-holding-may-have-broad-implications/

    Medicaid holding may have broad implications
    While the Court’s upholding the mandate is deservedly taking front stage in the media coverage, the Court’s decision to strike down a part of the Medicaid expansion may ultimately have broader jurisdprudential consequence. That, at least, will be a subject of debate among lawyers and academics in the days and weeks to come. This is the first time (as far as I know) that the Court has actually found a Spending Clause condition unconstitutionally coercive. Whether it establishes principles that make many other programs vulnerable is a question that will require further analysis and debate. Lyle Dennisten will start that analysis in an post later today or tomorrow morning.

    • Stefan says:

      I don’t totally agree with your opening here. The Federal Government can withhold any new funding the Medicaid – that works as a form of economic disincentive (or punishment…or tax). Second, I don’t think from an implementation perspective the Federal Government needs that much help from Georgia in implementation.

      • debbie0040 says:

        The Feds can only with hold funding for new mandates or programs they implement. It can not effect existing programs states have already opted in for. For example, the Feds can not with hold monies like normal adjustments for exisiting opted in programs.

        Obamacare uses Medicaid expansions to provide coverage for lower income Americans that don’t have it now and bring millions of new people into the Medicaid system. If states opt out of that, it will help curtail ObamaCare’s over reach. I can tell you that tea party activists in Georgia will be calling Gov. Deal and their legislators demanding Georgia opt out. We are looking at health care exchanges as well. If the Feds can not punish you for not implementing them, why set them up? Why not just set up free market information exchanges?

        • Bob Loblaw says:

          Georgia ranks darn near the top of Medicaid Members already in the U.S. While the ruling took the “stick” away, Georgia cannot cut Medicaid Membership in all reality. This isn’t Connecticut. We’re broke: $300M in the hole already trying to cover those already in the program. If a Health Insurance Exchange had already been established, we’d have a quasi-free market model already in place for Georgians to buy insurance. Maybe folks wouldn’t go to Medicaid. If private plans would cover pre-existing conditions, then folks like me who have applied ad nauseum to only see rejections wouldn’t have created such a large populace that the Federal government intervened. There’s enough “bad” on everybody’s part to go around. But at least today I can tell my wife and kids that I have insurance now.

          • debbie0040 says:

            Medicaid should not be expanded to bring in new people under ObamaCare . Georgia should fight this .

            Some elected officials wanted to jump the gun on setting up healthcare exchanges in order to get the money that goes along with it. There is no need to jump the gun now on it until we give the ruling a few days to set in. If we are not penalized for not setting up the ObamaCare Healthcare Exchange then why not set up a free market healthcare exchange like we advocated for in the past legislative session that addressed pre-exisiting conditions?
            Activists are livid and will call Gov. Deal and their legislators and demand Georgia opt out of the Medicaid expansion. We are in the hole and should not be expanding Medicaid. We will see which elected officials are truly about states rights and which ones just want to get their hands on Federal money..

            We are already planning another big rally now.

            • xdog says:

              ‘We are in the hole’

              Isn’t that because Perdue and his legislative enablers thought it a good idea not to require business to pay their fair, legally mandated share for a few years?

              ‘Activists are livid’

              So what else is new? With respect, isn’t that your and your followers normal state? Are you people ready to hold your breath and follow DeMint off the nullification bridge? Please say yes’

            • John Konop says:

              Debbie,

              How can you be for creating more teenage mothers via the new stricter abortion laws in Georgia, and against Medicaid for children? Would that not make the Tea Party pro-birth not pro-life?

        • “Why not just set up free market information exchanges?”

          WHAT are you talking about? Seriously, this is so detached from the debate that’s going on it’s not even funny. You are “free” to call any health insurance broker in the state right now and ask what their products cover and how much it costs, but if you can’t afford to purchase insurance because you don’t make enough money or because a pre-existing condition makes it too expensive (or no one wants to offer you insurance) you are then “free” to go the emergency room when you get sick or just forego medical treatment.

          “Obamacare uses Medicaid expansions to provide converage for lower income Americans that don’t have it now and bring milliosn of new people in the Medicaid system.”

          Ah yep, that about sums it up. Now, a group mostly consisting of older and wealthier Georgians funded by wealthy corporate interests will want to take that away. I guess it helps that most tea partiers I see out there protesting either already have government health insurance because of Medicare or will soon.

          Just a little tip to the tea partiers out there: Obamacare is here to stay, and there are a lot of state level decisions that can be made by Republicans here. Take this as an opportunity to put what you consider a free market spin on our exchanges and our implementation of the law. Embrace universal coverage (like conservative super hero Jim DeMint did as recently as 2007 in a letter to then President Bush) and show how free market solutions can help lower the cost.

          Or – you can keep fighting against what will ultimately be seen as a law that expands access to healthcare and helps the majority of Americans pay for it. Your choice.

          • seekingtounderstand says:

            You can claim you have insurance but it can be really crappy care and not health care at all. Which is what you have won, so congrats!

            Stop crying liberals its the republicans who will be milking off big pharma and health care companies with positions on boards and promises of big jobs after they vote a certain way…………..republicans will profit like no one has ever seen. One thing they will not do is ever give a crap about your health.
            We politicized teachers and ruined their profession, nurses get ready. And here comes the union thugs and less of everything good about healthcare.

          • debbie0040 says:

            I have health insurance with my job . We are going to keep fighting and just added a great number of activists to our ranks nationwide and in Georgia. We are going to fight the state setting up healthcare exchanges and expanding medicaid. It is time Georgia stand up and say no to the mandates the Feds put on the states. Imagine if a number of states do the same. It would diminish the impact of ObamaCare. After the ruling today, the Feds can’t punish the states fot not implementing the mandates.

            The ruling today helped elect Romney. There were senior citizens, tea party activists and middle class that were not thrilled with Romney. After today, they all love him !!

            • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

              “The ruling today helped elect Romney. There were senior citizens, tea party activists and middle class that were not thrilled with Romney. After today, they all love him !!”

              Not so fast, my friend, as Obama, with the help of the liberal-dominated non-Fox mainstream media, is going to campaign that is was Romneycare that inspired Obamacare.

              It was Romney who was the first to enact the Individual Mandate as Governor of Massachusetts.

              It was Romney who laid the groundwork for Obamacare as it could be argued that Obamacare would likely not even exist without Romneycare.

              The fact that Romneycare served as a precursor and a seemingly direct inspiration for Obamacare does not make this election a choice between a socialist in Obama and a capitalist in Romney, but instead makes this election a choice between a big socialist in Obama and a little socialist in Romney whom likely can be defined as a hypocrite and flip-flopper given that he has to campaign against legislation that he rather gleefully laid the political framework at the state level, seeming to express that he hoped that Romneycare would become a national model for health care reform legislation before running for President.

              Why should people vote for a soft socialism in Romney when they can have the real hardcore socialist thing in Obama, even in a capitalist society with a supportedly strong Libertarian streak like the U.S.?

            • I have health insurance through my job as well. I also have many other rights and privileges as an American citizen. Unlike you, I want to expand these rights and privileges to those who aren’t afforded them due to circumstances beyond their control.

              You seem to just want to draw a moat around what you’ve got and yell keep out unless you pay my toll. Proud of you for having a job that offers health insurance. You’ve done well. Now why do you oppose expanding that same peace of mind to others who aren’t as fortunate? And before you go blathering BS – please remember, there are PLENTY of people who have made the EXACT same decisions in their life as you and ended up in a job that doesn’t offer health insurance, or with cancer and unable to afford insurance through work or the private market or many other circumstances.

              Why is it that you think it’s more important to stand up for the rights of a hypothetical citizen who can afford insurance but doesn’t want to buy it (a position that, barring disaster you will never even find yourself in). How did you get so blinded by ideology that protecting the rights of a straw man that doesn’t even exist became more important than standing up for the rights of those who actually suffer?

              • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

                It is not about advocating for the rights of those who can afford insurance but can buy it so much as it is advocating against a nearly cost-prohibitive and dangerous expansion of the powers of the federal government.

                Expanding the powers of an already entirely-too-powerful Internal Revenue Service to now harass, threaten and bully people who don’t have overpriced health insurance? Really?

                There’s no question that this society has a very substantial health care affordability and access problem, but there are much better ways to deal with the problem than increasing the taxing and police powers and massive debt of an already nearly insolvent and entirely-too-big federal government.

                Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.

                There are much better ways to help increase health care affordability and access that honor America’s very strong Libertarian traditions than to expand the taxing, harassment and bullying powers of the federal government by way of the I.R.S.

  15. Former College Lib says:

    Long-time reader, first time poster – isn’t that the obligatory opening?

    All day long, I’ve seen messages, posts, etc. likening the individual mandate to the required purchase of car insurance and making it seem like it’s NBD. However, it’s quite different. Car insurance isn’t needed if you don’t have a job. Car insurance is not tied to your job (for the record, I think this correlation is the most ridiculous way to “lower health costs”). You can shop around for competitive car insurance alternatives. Regardless if you are sick or not – or if you want it or not – you will now have to have health insurance.

    “And if it doesn’t work out, Congress can always change it as needed.” If this was the case, then I should have my Congress-provided unicorn by now. Changing the ACA would require passing new legislation – and with every bill that impacts government operations, there’s a fiscal note detailing how much the revisions to current operations will cost. If the bill passes, there has to be money in the budget to cover those costs.

    What’s our budget deficit again? And how long has it been since Congress passed a budget?

    You can’t just “change” it and make it work. The ACA will cost almost 2 TRILLION to fully implement. Saying, “whoopsies! That didn’t work, let’s try something else!” isn’t an option…

    • Nathan says:

      Actually, you’re only compelled to have car insurance if you drive a vehicle on public roads. You can drive it on your own private property as much as you want without car insurance.

      • Former College Lib says:

        You are correct – thanks for pointing out. And the line in my previous post should have read “if you don’t have a car”. I was just so excited about my first PP post…:-)

    • Stefan says:

      The universal mandate, which upsets you so much, IS the funding mechanism. People without insurance get treated at the ER, which is way more expensive that once a year doctor visits. If we can shift that coverage from the ER to scheduled doctor visits, that will be a huge savings. All the parts of ACA that people like cost money: pre-existing conditions, kids on insurance until 27, etc; its the part that saves money, the universal mandate, that people hate.

      Oh, and a better comparison would be homestead exemptions. We want to encourage owner occupancy (for myriad reasons), so we offer homestead exceptions. If you do not do what the government encourages (i.e. use a home for rental income) you have to pay a penalty.

      • SallyForth says:

        Also don’t forget the examples the SCOTUS ruling gave of already-existing tax incentives used for purchasing homes (deduction for interest paid) and costs of professional educations. We could also add choosing to make energy-efficient changes to your home, having children, free-port providing tax exemptions for companies, etc. of tons of existing taxes paid if you choose not to do something otherwise exempted.

  16. Former College Lib says:

    I get the homestead exemption comparison. Not that I agree with it, but I think if you buy a piece of property, you should be able to do whatever you like with it. All within reason, of course – don’t run illegal operations from it and don’t set it on fire just because. 🙂

    The ideology of preventative care makes sense. But won’t there still be out-of-pocket costs for office visits, procedures, medications? If you can’t afford health insurance now, and your doctor orders a CT scan for some reason, who will pay the difference? Our insurance requires us to pay $800 per scan, out of pocket. Has this been addressed? I’m not trying to be a [email protected] – I really do want to know…

    • Stefan says:

      I agree with your point about property, but all property uses aren’t equal, and so the government subsidizes some and penalizes others. We like farms, so we tax them at a lower rate than car dealerships. You can have a farm or a car dealership, you will just have different tax implications for your choice.

      There should be some out of pocket costs, but the idea is to lower the costs enough to encourage the visit. That’s what your health insurance (which is actually a fusion of a subsidy for regular care and a catastrophic health insurance policy) does by requiring a co-pay. If your cost to visit the doctor is $50, you’ll go when you are sick or once a year, but you won’t go just to get the lollipop at checkout.

      As for paying $900 for a CT, ideally you will have enough information when choosing your own insurance, or your HR representative who is choosing the plan, will decide that a higher percentage of coverage of CT scans will encourage employee retention to such a degree that it outweighs any additional cost to the company.

      Or maybe you can get all your coworkers to go get the CT scan at the same time, thus lowering the cost per person.

      [All non Former College Libs can stop reading here]
      The reality is that the cost of the CT scan is made up, because the market is broken for the item. It should be cost of the machine plus cost of running the machine (elec plus film) plus cost of the technician, divided by number of uses in its lifetime, amortized a little, plus 10% or so, but it bears no relation to that whatsoever.

      What happens is the provider says this will cost $500. The insurer says, our rule is we pay 60% of retail costs, so we will pay you, provider, $300 for this service.

      Next year, provider says, ok, we will now charge $836 (because they want to make $500) but insurer now says we will only pay 50% and we have added a utilization review to determine whether or not the insured needs at CT scan.

      So now the provider, who needed to make $500 the first two years per scan, was paid $300, and $418, in its first two years, now has $150 worth of labor time in getting the CT scan approved, now must charge $1300 for every CT scan in order to get paid its break even $500 (50% -$150 in additional overhead) and that’s ignoring having to make up its losses over the first two years of ownership.

      And it is doing this with 15 different insurers, all of whom have different and changing policies and requirements. And I know what you are saying, the provider could only take the insurers who offer the highest reimbursements on CT scans, but then it would be turning away all other potential patients (who aren’t making insurance decisions based on CT pricing, see above), and there would be no market change because the insurers are a syndicate, or a cartel, perhaps, and do not set prices in a vacuum.

      So enjoy your $3500 CT scan.

    • Stefan says:

      Oh, and to this ” If you can’t afford health insurance now, and your doctor orders a CT scan for some reason, who will pay the difference?”

      Nobody. And your cancer goes undetected until it metastasizes in your kidneys, at which point their function becomes impaired, you go to the ER, diagnosis as stage 4, they remove the kidney, radiation and chemo begins, then dialysis for the rest of your life: Cost to taxpayers? The entire medical cost of all of that (hundreds of thousands, really) and the removal of a someone who could have contributed to the economic health of the nation.

      All for a $500 CT and maybe $5-10k in additional care at the time.

      • xdog says:

        That’s generally true. True also for those libertoonians who decide not to get coverage even though they could easily pay because to do so would support state tyranny or a general unGalt freedomlessness or some such crapola they cadged from Human Events or NatRev.

        With ObamaCare off the table they can get on with kneecapping Holder like good little droogs.

        • seenbetrdayz says:

          I believe the “libertoonian” position is to not expect you to have to pay for our unfortunate circumstances. You are certainly still free to engage in whatever insurance programs you wish. I’m trying to figure out why you get defensive when it comes to people who want to leave you the **** alone. You are confusing libertarians with socialists.

          And, what do you mean by ObamaCare being “off the table”? Last I heard, the program is supposed to be pretty much in full swing by 2014. I doubt it’s going anywhere anytime soon.

          • John Konop says:

            Seen,

            You are a very smart guy, what do you do with people who do not have health insurance and show up at the county emergency room with no means to pay?

            • seenbetrdayz says:

              Force them to join a health insurance pool so that their cost is shared by everyone else in that insurance group . . . just as it is with taxes?

              Think about it. Either way, you pay John. Insurance ain’t a whole lot different from full-on government-run healthcare. Just another middleman who wants his cut.

              • John Konop says:

                First ir is more cheaper of people have in insurance and do not use the emergency room as a general physician. Second if we created public exchanges people could sell-insure like large corporations do and only buy catrastphic insurance. Finally unless someone signs a wavior that if they have no insurance and get sick not to treat unless them unless they have the money, that would be taken the risk. And at that point you could argue about freedom issues.

            • seekingtounderstand says:

              You do not have a law that requires the emergency room to take them. Drop that law and problem solved. Where to people go………….well lets think………..what did we do prior to force emergency rooms to take folks who couldn’t pay?

              Many who go expecting free care at emergency rooms, simply show up there because they are lazy and didn’t get into a clinic or doctors office during the week.
              Easier just to go on the weekend and its free. It was abused by many.

          • xdog says:

            The libertoonian position is as I described it–don’t pay even when you have the means and let the ER sort it out with whatever funds they have.

            I’m all for being left alone, especially by the new Galts among us, but how is it leaving me alone by compelling me to pay more than necessary to fund institutions supporting the public good?

            If my community can get a needed firetruck by raising taxes on 100000 people, should the minority who oppose the need be allowed to opt out? Then when they get burned out, as free men of course, who gets to pick up the pieces? Or are there pieces in your world?

            • seenbetrdayz says:

              Interestingly enough, there are actually still contract fire departments in the U.S., and as far as I know, the world hasn’t ended. There’s occasionally that one guy who didn’t pay and gets upset when his house catches on fire, because he felt he was entitled to coverage that he refused to pay for, but I promise you, he was no libertarian, if that was his reaction. Again, your assumptions about libertarians are completely off-base.

              I suggest we look at ways to cut out some of the middlemen, or at the very least, lessen the reliance on them for every runny nose and knee scrape, if we want to see any real reduction in costs.

              A serious look at Health Savings accounts would be a great start. For example, I don’t have vision insurance. I wear eyeglasses and go for a check up every other year. I go to the bank, withdraw $100, and I pay $100 cash for the check-up and a box of contact lenses, and the doc sees a good number of people who don’t have eye insurance as well (which is viewed as a luxury, I suppose). I’ve been going to that same opthamologist for about 20 years now, and so far, he hasn’t gone out of business. So apparently, there’s still some market factors in determining price when it comes to eye-care, that neither the opthamologist nor the nearly-blind customer suffers unduly from.

              The same cannot be said for the medical industry in general, where hospitals determine prices based on how much they can milk out of the insurers, and insurers determine prices based on how much they can milk out of the insured. It’s a totally screwed up system when compared to the rest of the ‘free’ market, where the goal in healthcare is not to deliver the best care at the lowest price, but to get as much out of the payer as you possibly can.

              Could you imagine a car dealership being run in such a manner if we had a middleman who would buy cars for us? What about the price of goods at Lowes or Home Depot if we had a middleman who was willing to buy everyone appliances? Cut out the middlemen, and reality sets in as to how much average people can really afford. The good news for the middle class is that they typically benefit from poor people putting that free-market pressure on businesses to set prices at levels they can actually afford.

              After all, when was the last time you went to Walmart and they asked you how much you made before they told you what the price on an item was? Nope, it doesn’t work that way. Same low price for the minimum wage worker as it is for the eye doctor who shops there. 😉

              Save the middlemen for cancer or catastrophe.

              • John Konop says:

                Seen,

                ………..The same cannot be said for the medical industry in general, where hospitals determine prices based on how much they can milk out of the insurers, and insurers determine prices based on how much they can milk out of the insured. It’s a totally screwed up system when compared to the rest of the ‘free’ market, where the goal in healthcare is not to deliver the best care at the lowest price, but to get as much out of the payer as you possibly can………..

                That is why I support the concept of an exchange that allows small businesses and individuals to self-insure and negotiate direct with the healthcare provider. But will still must deal with uninsured people, who abuse the system and government healthcare ie Medicare, military, government workers……….This system needs massive overhaul of carrots and sticks to fix the problem. And finally if you do not mandate people that can afford insurance, than as a society we must all agree not to treat children………who do not have healthcare insurance and not enough money. That is a bridge I do not think most will support.

                • seenbetrdayz says:

                  Just remember that the law of unintended consequences is in effect.

                  Remember how kind it was to make sure that everyone enjoyed home ownership?

                  And then remember 2008, where people lost their homes and big businesses were bailed out.

                  I guess folks thought that those who didn’t support the home-ownership scheme were ‘uncaring hermits’ a few decades ago, when they said it would never work, but rather it would lead to higher, unsustainable prices and an eventual bubble popping. Problem is, it’s the ‘uncaring’ ones who can usually predict most accurately how these things eventually play out.

                  There’s two more major bubbles forming other than Housing. My prediction is the next one to pop will be Education. But it will be followed by Healthcare. And it’s usually the same general policies of the “OMG we MUST do something NOW!” crowd that inflates the bubbles.

                  I think you’re smart, too, John. And I’ve often read you saying that you were “chicken little” when it was time to warn people about the housing crisis.

                  I suppose it’s my turn to be chicken little.

                  • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

                    Tell people that the sky is falling when it is actually falling and they’ll refuse to look up.

                    • seenbetrdayz says:

                      But not before calling us crazy, I suppose.

                      This won’t last. It won’t last *not* because people are ‘heartless,’ and they ‘want to see people thrown in the street’. It won’t last because it cannot be sustained.

                      We have, essentially, the medical version of a housing bubble—but this time, with the mandate, it’s compulsory to buy a house.

                  • John Konop says:

                    seen,

                    You are right the educational debt bubble for students is a huge issue.

                    ……….Amount of Debt
                    • The amount of debt that students graduate with is staggering. The average college student graduates with about $24,000 in student loans to start paying off (as of 2009). According to the “Wall Street Journal,” student-loan debt is the largest type of debt held by Americans, even more than credit-card debt. Americans had over $829 billion in student loan debt outstanding as of June 2010………

                    Read more: Student Debt Issues | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8084075_student-debt-issues.html#ixzz1zD0o52CZ

              • Stefan says:

                “Could you imagine a car dealership being run in such a manner if we had a middleman who would buy cars for us?”

                What’s with the analogies on this subject? The car dealer IS the middleman! In fact, legidslation was introduced in Georgia to allow consumers to buy directly from the manufacturer and it got blocked, so if you want to get government out of somethjing that will lower prices, work on that one.

                • seenbetrdayz says:

                  Point taken, it was not the best analogy, but middlemen do increase price. That cannot be denied.

                  • saltycracker says:

                    Middlemen raise costs: Except when they bring efficiency, expertise and honesty to the procxess.
                    The government brings bureaucracy, inefficiency, misplaced priorities, fraud, weak oversight and a lot more bad things to the medical table.

    • I’m not sure exactly how this works – I honestly don’t know how co-pays and deductibles will work for those in the subsidised exchanges. I think at the end of the day a similar principle will apply as that of subsidised school lunches – those who can’t afford to pay will have it provided for them, those who can need to pay their own way. Is it fair? Depends on your perspective I suppose.

      Thoughtful comments.

      Now as far as car insurance goes, the reason that market works and is competitive is the mandate. Now, you can opt out of the mandate by not driving, but that’s just not the same case with healthcare. Nor do you have the problem of someone opting out when they don’t need it to save money and then entering the market when they do to try to game the system. If you choose for whatever reason to go without a car this year you impose zero costs on the car insurance market – I suppose in theory if you’re a really safe driver you are imposing some cost because your profitable subsidy to unsafe drivers will be missing. But for the most part no one’s expensive years are ahead of them. And you’re ultimately only required to insure yourself against the damage you do to other parties – you’re never required to carry personal coverage. Outside of health concerns, the most damage you can do is limited to the value of your car (or replacing it) and so you’ve got to weigh whether you want that coverage.

      But – there is a crucial difference in the healthcare market. You can do a lot of damage to yourself – way more than the cost of a used car. And ultimately someone else will pay for it instead of just saying tough luck. I understand that the administration lost on the commerce clause argument, but six of one half a dozen of the other – you’re part of the hospital-industrial complex the day you’re born unlike the road-industrial complex which you can opt out of.

      I believe, like the Obama of the campaign, that the majority of people that don’t have insurance aren’t trying to game the system, they’re doing it because they can’t afford it. So I’d LOVE to see some conservative alternatives – one that I like would sell people the option to buy insurance at a later date – but at the end of the day there are STILL people that would opt out of that and so anyway you slice the onion without forcing people at some point to pay up (whether to a government or an insurance company) stinks.

  17. wicker says:

    Victory for Thurbert Baker. A lot of people forget the controversy a couple of years back when Baker was being pressured to join the states suing to contest ObamaCare. Baker, whom lest we forget had compiled a blue dog conservative Democrat record up until then – much to the chagrin of the civil rights leaders and others of the progressive/left/liberal crowd – refused to join in the lawsuit stampede and took a ton of heat for it … was called everything but his name. Baker’s rationale: it would be a waste of time and the state’s resources because the Supreme Court was not going to overturn it.

    Looks like Baker was right and was vindicated in retrospect. And Perdue’s making an end-around Baker and joining the other states in their lawsuits … well that was just another failure of his administration.

  18. Harry says:

    “This Election Just Became About Obamacare.” The forthcoming discussion will be about reducing, not raising the 18% GDP being spent on healthcare out of voters’ pockets. Obamacare doesn’t get the job done. Romney knows what will and won’t work, and he can communicate it in a thoughtful, enlightening and inspiring way. Make way for Romneycare!

    • John Konop says:

      Harry,

      I agree with you times 10!! This debate needs to be about reducing cost not the latest bs on both sides!!! We need more people like you calling out the bs…………btw the latest projections are if we do nothing like we have done for years healthcare cost will be 25 percent of our economy. Any rational person knows that is economic suicide.

      • Harry says:

        Obamacare will be levying tens of billions of excise taxes (“annual government fees”) on insurers and pharmaceutical companies which, of course, will be passed to the consumer in the form of higher charges for drugs and insurance. I don’t see how Obamacare is going to lower costs – maybe it will benefit indigents, but not the middle class. It really is socialistic.

        • John Konop says:

          The biggest positive about Obamacare is the public option which would save money if the states opted in over Obamacare. But you are right even with that, the bill did not deal with the core cuts that need to be made. .

        • seekingtounderstand says:

          Harry: you need to be worried about political pay offs and graft with the power of this healthcare law. That will raise costs, corruption always does.

          • Harry says:

            That’s a fact. Replacing a free market with a regulated, oligopolistic one promotes corruption and higher prices.

      • debbie0040 says:

        Yes I do but the states are required to set up the exchanges, but the Feds can not penalize the states if they don’t implement them. We are asking Georgia officials to stand up for the Tenth Amendment and say no.

        • John Konop says:

          Debbie,

          You are right, that is why we should of set them up already. The insurance lobby does not want exchanges, obviously it would cut into their profits if we could self-insure and only buy catastrophic insurance. And I do think many in the GOP are wrong about supporting insurance companies right to kick people out with pre-existing issues. I find it rather bizarre how someone pro-life could support this policy?

        • xdog says:

          Nullification now, nullification forever. Maybe you can’t keep your faction from being marginalized but don’t you worry when you can’t keep it from becoming a joke?

        • sunkawakan says:

          Debbie, the exchanges aren’t a bad thing. Don’t get the components of the ACA mixed up. The big complaint is the expansion of Medicaid.

          And the nullification nonsense really needs to end, unless you’re ready to fight the Civil War all over again.

          • Of course she’s ready. It’s all theoretical to her. Protect the rights of the straw man who wants to live his life UNBURDENED by having to buy insurance. Nevermind that he doesn’t exist. State’s rights! Impeach John Roberts!

            It’s the same story over and over again. 150 years ago it was the poor hillbilly fighting for the rights of the plantation owner. Well substitute Debbie for the hillbilly and the extremely wealthy and big corporations for the plantation owner and you’ve got yourself the same fight with slightly different characters.

            It would be pretty funny if it wasn’t so sad. Remember something. Debbie has insurance. She has a job. Your taxes and mine subsidize her employer to offer her healthcare. Sometime soon she’ll be eligible for Medicare and will have minimum care guaranteed for the rest of her life by the federal government.

            In the real world, Debbie’s got it pretty good – and let’s be fair she seems to be a hard worker who has earned what’s she got. But Debbie chooses to live in her fantasy world instead. This is the difference between our reality world and the fantasy world she lives in.

            In the reality world, Republicans had control of Congress from 1995-2007, the first half having a Democratic President who made numerous compromises with them, the second with total control and a Republican President. Back then, they said their goal was universal access to healthcare and they did nothing. Eventually, a huge majority of Americans voted for a President and Congress that implemented a law that was for all intents and purposes very similar to what they campaigned saying they would do if they were elected. Now Debbie is mad.

            That’s because, in her fantasy world, Republicans have solutions that they are ready to pass if only the mean old Democrats would let them that solve all of the problems of healthcare with a magical free market solution. Nevermind that when they had the ability to actually pass said law, they did nothing of the sort. Nevermind the evidence that buying across state lines doesn’t solve anything, that tort reform accounts for less than 2% of the costs of medical care, that the insurance industry’s real competition is not for customers but between companies to see who can have the healthiest pool. In the fantasy world, none of this exists.

            In the reality world, the vast majority of Americans understand that the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate industries that treat Americans unfairly. They think that is isn’t right that a healthy person who exercises regularly and eats well can nonetheless end up with cancer and be unable to buy the same insurance Debbie has at a reasonable price. These Americans want to play by the rules and be responsible, and they want insurance companies to meet them halfway.

            So refighting the Civil War? Sure! Bring it on, because remember another key element of the fantasy world – the South already won once.

  19. Bob Loblaw says:

    Debbie: Why fight Exchanges? Companies don’t have to participate. People don’t have to shop there. I don’t get health insurance at work. My pre-existing condition meant refusals from 9 health insurers I applied to. Going without health insurance is scary. Should I go look for a job just because it offers insurance? The private sector was not going to offer a health plan for me, period. Thanks to the pre-existing condition law, I can be insured now. And, I pay for it. Exchanges may provide an even better option with willful participants in the marketplace.

    What would you do if you were without insurance tomorrow and told you couldn’t purchase it anywhere?

    • That’s a good question. She will never answer it and even if she does answer it’s not her reality anyway. I imagine like the real Ayn Rand Debbie would end up on the dole if it came to that, but of course she’d never admit that in advance.

      • sunkawakan says:

        Well, let me rock Debbie’s world. In the 2007-08 session, Chip Rogers and Judson Hill dropped SB28, which would have created healthcare insurance exchanges and had a mandate that was far more draconian and punitive than the toothless one in the Affordable Care Act.

      • Harry says:

        Ayn Rand went on social security and Medicare. That’s not exactly the dole but thanks for sharing.

        • Well Debbie doesn’t have a problem with taxpayers subsidizing her company’s healthcare plan but doesn’t want other people who can’t currently get the taxpayer subsidy to have that chance. What’s the difference?

  20. debbie0040 says:

    We support free market exchanges not dictated by government. Government’s role in the exchange should be to create an environment conducive for exchanges to thrive..

    A good friend of mine has a sister in Canada and she said the healthcare there is terrible and so are the doctors- if you get to see one. I don’t want to see America’s healthcare destroyed to be like Canada’s. Here sister moved to Canada thinking it was a dream to have free healthcare but soon realized it was a nightmare-not a dream.

    • John Konop says:

      I do business in Canada and you are comparing apples to oranges. In Canada they have basic plan which is compared to a low level plan here. And if you want better care people buy supplement care from health insurance companies.

    • Lea Thrace says:

      Debbie,

      Respectfully, MY sister lives in and is a Canadian citizen. Shes says the exact opposite of what your friend of a friend says. She has dealt with minor and major health issues and has had phenomenal care with very little in cost to her. My in-laws (all Canadian citizens) all say the same. My father in-law was diagnosed with Lung Cancer a year ago. He immediately received the chemo and radiation that he needed. It was not enough so he ended up needing a transplant. That occurred quickly as well. He is now in remission and doing well, with great aftercare from his doctors.

      Are there flaws in the healthcare system up there? Of course. It’s run by humans. That is to be expected. But by no means is it this disorganized, unwieldy, heartless, money sucking monster that talking heads make it out to be. Please do not malign a system that you know nothing about.

      • Blake says:

        I actually lived in Canada, and the healthcare there was great. So take your sister of a good friend’s dog’s neighbor who lives in the Niagara Falls area and shut your mouth.

  21. Noway says:

    Lean, is your father in law on a Canadian government health care plan? You mentioned that they pay very little for it. Am I assuming correctly that is a somewhat similar version of what we now have here in Obamacare?

Comments are closed.