×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Healthcare Law Appealed To Supreme Court

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the just-a-matter-of-time dept.

Government 1019

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

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1019 comments

What other products (5, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542412)

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

Re:What other products (1)

Ferzerp (83619) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542452)

Well, the RIAA and MPAA have infiltrated the government pretty well, and it seems to fit with their ideals....

Re:What other products (4, Insightful)

FunkSoulBrother (140893) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542464)

Clothes. Try walking around town naked and homeless.

Re:What other products (1)

swamp boy (151038) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542586)

Not really. The government doesn't mandate that you buy clothes -- just that you wear them. Probably not a meaningful difference for most people, but it may be for the Amish.

Re:What other products (2)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542654)

The state does, not the federal government. Obamacare might have been constitutional if adapted and managed by the states, on a state-by-state basis. States (are supposed to) have much more power than the federal government in managing their own commerce.

Re:What other products (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542752)

I agree, but the argument I've hears against that is in regards to poorer states not being able to get enough "healthy" people to cover the costs of the care. Of course, no real numbers were given... only speculation.

Re:What other products (2)

munky99999 (781012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542676)

Government isn't mandating that you buy health care -- just that you have it.

Re:What other products (0)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542740)

Government isn't mandating that you buy health care -- just that you have it.

It is doing neither.

What is with all you liberals that dont know the difference between health care and health insurance? Seriously.. its getting old.

Re:What other products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542778)

buy, have... same thing. Unless you suggest stealing health care is an option.

Re:What other products (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542840)

"Government isn't mandating that you buy [a yacht] -- just that you have it."

By simply replacing a word/object your statement, I have to ask:
Can you steal healthcare?
How does one "have it" without "buying" it?

I think I know what you're getting at (your company provides insurance?) and if that's the case, you cannot say that you have not bought that healthcare. You are buying it, at the cost of lower wages.

Re:What other products (1)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542644)

Well that's a dumb analogy, given the fact the person would be given eventually clothes at some point. As far as beging homeless, they would be given some shelter if they were arrested obviously.

You know, living in a society there are a few things you can actually get free (gasp socialism! everything should be paid for obviously) in a modern society complete glutted with products. I'm really sicked by people that make those arguments that the poor don't have it so bad since they have a TV. Oh it's so hard to acquire a TV. Let's just chuck those old CRT's in the landfill then while we buy our new flat screen TV's rather than give them to people that lack one.

That said, I really hope the law is struck down so that perhaps we can move towards an actual single player system like every other civilized country, rather than that horrible half-measure combining the absolutely worst of both private and public. Yeah those private health insurers are definitely looking out for my interests more than some government managed system would.

Re:What other products (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542880)

That said, I really hope the law is struck down so that perhaps we can move towards an actual single player system like every other civilized country

I prefer multiplayer coop.

Re:What other products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542908)

Yeah those private health insurers are definitely looking out for my interests more than some government managed system would.

Results matter more than intent, don't you think?

Re:What other products (4, Insightful)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542492)

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

Re:What other products (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542546)

It is a choice to ride a motorcycle or drive a car. It is not a choice to exist.

Re:What other products (1, Interesting)

reebmmm (939463) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542876)

It's also not really a choice NOT to participate in modern, American healthcare.

One of the proposed "fixes" originally was only to "require" insurance of people that partake of the healthcare system which is, at some level, everyone born in the United States. In other words, if you've never or will never use any healthcare, you'd be freed of the obligation. There are lots of practical problems with this, including, what to do with "free riders" or protestors that show up to a hospital, clinic, etc. when they're already sick or in need of healthcare.

And when people tried to posit scenarios of someone who would never need U.S. healthcare, you get politicians like Rep. Steve King citing babies discarded in dumpsters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOrBpTdZ2tc&feature=player_embedded [youtube.com]

The fact is, everyone participates in the current healthcare system even if they don't want to. Even those that affirmatively try to avoid the system could wind up there nevertheless via an ambulance and a 911 call. Allowing certain people to NOT participate is highly inequitable and without any rationale basis.

All of that said, this result of the ACA is largely the Republicans' and insurance companies' fault. The more sweeping, Democratic vision would not have had the same problems and would not be unconstitutional on these grounds.

Re:What other products (1)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542576)

And both have been railed against for the exact same reason as this law. And you don't have to buy or use either. You only have to use them when on public roads (there are a LOT of farm vehicles that don't carry license plates or liability insurance).

Re:What other products (1)

swamp boy (151038) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542638)

I wouldn't call those good examples. Seatbelts come with all modern vehicles and not everyone even owns a car. Although motorcycle helmets must be worn in many states for street riders, not everyone owns or rides street motorcycles. Your examples are similar, but not a "good example".

Re:What other products (1)

WrongMonkey (1027334) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542640)

Seatbelts and helmets are not mandatory because cars and motorcycles are not mandatory. Healthcare is first case of being forced to buy a product just for being alive.

Re:What other products (5, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542860)

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

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

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

-Rick

Re:What other products (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542928)

Technically, it wouldn't be mandatory since you could leave the country... but that option pretty much sucks.

Re:What other products (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542716)

Do the feds require that? Or is it the states that do?

No one has questioned whether MA (or another state) has the right to require it's citizens to carry health insurance... the issue here is if the feds can require it of all of us.

Re:What other products (1)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542732)

God and such a terrible burden it is. Of course I guess the alternative in a wonderful libertarian utopia would be deny to medical treatment to anyone not wearing a seat belt during a crash, after all that's that would be the logical thing for an insurance company to do. Yeah let's do that rather than mandating the minor inconvenience in order to save lives and reduce overall health care costs for everyone. I guess you're against speed limits as well? If I want to drive 100 mph in a school zone I have every right!

Re:What other products (5, Insightful)

tysonedwards (969693) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542494)

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

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

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

Re:What other products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542530)

General welfare doesn't include forcefully taking money from one group of people only to give it to another group of people, or forcing doctors to treat patients.

Re:What other products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542696)

So next we should repeal laws stating that emergency rooms have to care for patients regardless of whether they can pay?

Re:What other products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542924)

Yea, I know that sounds like a solid argument, and I've made it myself many times. That is, until teabaggers started replying "yes, they should repeal those laws". And then when I try to really reinforce my obvious point by saying "so what, there should just be piles of poor people dying outside of emergency rooms?", they just say "yes" again. It was around this point that I realized I no longer support the government helping anyone at anytime, and the best solution would probably just be to launch our entire nuclear arsenal at once and be done with it.

Re:What other products (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542774)

General welfare doesn't include forcefully taking money from one group of people only to give it to another group of people, or forcing doctors to treat patients.

Of course it does, you moron.

Re:What other products (3, Informative)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542544)

The distinction here is that health care ,,,

We are talking about health insurance, not health care.

Re:What other products (1)

EverlastingPhelps (568113) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542678)

The problem is that you are being forced to buy it whether you want to use it or not. They don't make me buy a motorcycle helmet even if I am never going to ride a motorcycle.

Re:What other products (1)

tysonedwards (969693) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542708)

However, the receipt of health care in many cases in dependent on health insurance.

If a patient does not have health insurance, they are entitled solely to a minimum level of health care in emergency situations to provide "stabilizing care".

And legally, the definition of an "Emergency" with regards to the medical system is:
(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in:
placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy
serious impairment to bodily functions, or
serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or
(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions:
that there is inadequate time to make a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

Re:What other products (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542658)

The distinction here is that health care is pretty vital to "promote the general Welfare" (US Constition - Preamble)

welfare |welfe()r| (noun)

the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group

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

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

LOL. The Preamble does not give any power to the government. It explains WHY the Constitution was written, nothing more. It is certainly not an enumerated power and does not give the federal government unlimited power to "promoting the general Welfare" or "insure domestic Tranquility".

Re:What other products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542794)

LOL. The Preamble does not give any power to the government. It explains WHY the Constitution was written, nothing more. It is certainly not an enumerated power and does not give the federal government unlimited power to "promoting the general Welfare" or "insure domestic Tranquility".

Yeah, lol. Really funny. Funny that the people railing against things like this are so quick to call upon TEH CONSTITOOSHUNZ for debating power and feel-goodiness, but are more than willing to quickly point out how little power it has when someone thinks to actually look it up.

Re:What other products (1)

zraider (759486) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542698)

Ahem. That's the preamble, and not an enforcable article of the Constitution.

Re:What other products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542728)

Aside from a portion of the second amendment, it's the only part most people read.

Re:What other products (1)

dbc (135354) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542772)

Those words are from the preamble. They don't establish law, not being part of the articles. In any case, it is pretty clear that the authors of the constitution were enumerating limited powers of the federal government, and unless you can find the power listed, the federal government doesn't have it. That has been stretched pretty badly since the days of FDR. The *only* clause in the constitution that can be construed to allow Obamacare is the commerce clause, which gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. That clause has become the camel's nose under the tent that has enabled the federal government to grow like topsy since the beginning of the FDR administration.

I challenge you to find any part of the constitution that gives the federal government the power to coerce a citizen into buying a product from any person or company. I challenge you to go read the Federalist Papers and any other contemporaneous writings debating the adoption of the constitution and find in them anything that remotely anticipates the Federal government forcing a citizen to buy any particular product or service. To the extent that you find anything, I suspect it will be commentary of the form: "... and with this constitution, you have a guarantee that sort of thing will never happen..."

Re:What other products (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542878)

But nowhere was this law justified under "promote the general welfare". The government claims it has the ability to force an individual to buy health insurance because they have the ability to regulate interstate commerce.

Re:What other products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542554)

Health care is a product that every one will need & use and can unpredictably hit an individual with costs that far exceed their ability to pay. It is quite different than other products. Since we have ethical problems with letting people die in the streets, the cost will be born by someone. Is taxing everyone to pay for the uninsured better than requiring the individual to contribute to their health care costs?

Re:What other products (2, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542588)

The health care law does NOT mandate that we buy. It taxes us if we don't buy insurances. More importantly, the tax it charges is about half the cost to buy insurance. It is not a ridiculously high tax. Just like the IRS taxes more us if we don't buy a home. You know that 50% of americans that don't pay taxes? Almost all of them that make more than 50k a year do it by having a home and taking the tax breaks related to owning a home. The US government charges us for not doing a lot of things. Claiming that it can't do it for health care is an obvious lie. Similarly, the US government charges us not to have children, not to give to charity and a lot of other things.

Re:What other products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542706)

When faced with two untenable alternatives, consider your imperative.

Re:What other products (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542722)

100% of Americans pay taxes. 50% of americans don't pay income tax.

Re:What other products (1)

Bardwick (696376) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542848)

My aunts household (2 adults, 1 child). Welfare, social security and food stamps for over 20 years. How are they paying taxes again?

Re:What other products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542926)

I'm not mandating that you give me your wallet, but I will be smashing your hand with a hammer if you don't.

Looks like a distinction without a difference. And as for the rest of your examples, your argument is essentially that, because the government already does ten idiotic things with the tax code, it's OK to add an eleventh.

Re:What other products (1)

munky99999 (781012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542620)

There are many examples of mandatory 'products' but how about the USA joins the rest of the 1st world countries and not have health care be a for-profit product but rather a non-profit service?

Re:What other products (0)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542846)

Thats not what the Democrats wanted when they forced through (only a single Republican vote in both House and Senate, combined) their reforms. They wanted to make everyone send money towards those blue states in New England that have all those massive insurance companies (Hartford, Connecticut is the insurance capital of the world, and the entire region is top-heavy with insurance companies)

Re:What other products (2, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542724)

Guns, tanks, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers. I don't use any of those, and yet I am required to pay for them.

Re:What other products (1)

Bardwick (696376) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542890)

They are used on your behalf to defend the United States which is required by our constitution. If they are misused, then you would have (and probably do) have a point.

Re:What other products (1)

DJ Jones (997846) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542736)

How is it any different than people who are taxed more for not owning a home, being married, or owning their own business? Same concept, different wording. You are taxed based on your choices already. Get over it.

Re:What other products (1)

spidrw (868429) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542912)

Why does everyone think that getting married also comes with a tax break? Ever look at income limits for various deductions and credits? They are never double for married couples, and certainly not MORE than doubled.

Re:What other products (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542798)

So far, auto insurance and health insurance. I guess the next batch of cronies will make that determination, but I'm hoping the next cronies come from Browning, Bushmaster, Mossberg, Colt, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Taurus, Winchester, U.S. Fire Arms, Armalite or whoever else in that industry. That's the kind of insurance I wouldn't mind being required to buy.

Re:What other products (5, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542820)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Car Insurance (2)

mx+b (2078162) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542862)

I feel as though if I have a savings account for accidents, why should I have to buy car insurance? Usually I'm told something to the effect of "well they have to make it law or there would be too many people driving around causing accidents and not paying for it". OK, so how is that ok but health insurance is off-limits? Seems like people without health insurance going to emergency rooms are also not paying and racking up bills. Nobody has been able to give me a straight answer. I suspect much of it is irrational hatred of Obama. But I would love to hear a rational argument, either for or against, why I need health and/or car insurance. The government has been mandating one for ages and the other more recently, and so I'm trying to reconcile it in my head (though its likely futile I'm sure, society doesn't have to always do things that are rational and consistent).

Applied First Glance (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542460)

At first glance I read "Healthcare Law Applied To Supreme Court". I bet that would get it struck down pretty fast!

Re:Applied First Glance (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542856)

At first glance I read "Healthcare Law Applied To Supreme Court". I bet that would get it struck down pretty fast!

Of course it would. The supremes al reasdy have a great health care package.

So do all those Senators and Congressmen who voted against you getting one.

Nothing good comes of this either way (2)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542470)

Strike down ObamaCare, and you've got years of unraveling to do (especially in IT, which has been starting work in anticipation of several key dates coming up), as well as a apoplectic progressive left. Uphold ObamaCare, and you've got a drum upon which every libertarian and conservative will beat any time there's the slightest increase in health insurance costs, and who knows what kind of crazy social conservative will be the one to carry the mantle of the White House (even though most people just want fiscal conservatives).

The sad part, though, is that none of this fight is about health care - it's about insurance. We could mandate universal auto insurance (even for non drivers, since they are either passengers or pedestrians who interact with cars), or we could mandate universal fire insurance (even for non homeowners, since they might start a fire that spreads, or be affected by smoke inhalation from someone else's house), or we could mandate universal food insurance (since hey, everyone eats food). None of that changes the facts about risk and scarcity in our world.

Re:Nothing good comes of this either way (3, Interesting)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542540)

I heard on NPR today that while 2% of the latest increases in health insurance costs could be attributed to the ACA, the other 98% of the increases were a combination of insurance companies pre-emptively raising rates in case health care costs went up further in the future, and actual increases in current health care costs that had nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act.

Re:Nothing good comes of this either way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542646)

This sounds great, but it is logical to assume that the pre-emptive raising of rates is due to the restrictions in the ACA on their ability to raise rates in the future. When you tell an organization that you are going to limit future increases, they are going to go overboard on their last increase without the limits and probably will take the maximum of your future limits to ensure that one year doesn't come up short.

Re:Nothing good comes of this either way (1)

TemporalBeing (803363) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542934)

I heard on NPR today that while 2% of the latest increases in health insurance costs could be attributed to the ACA, the other 98% of the increases were a combination of insurance companies pre-emptively raising rates in case health care costs went up further in the future, and actual increases in current health care costs that had nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act.

So to break it down:

  • 2% of current increases are directly related to existing requirements that are presently in effect or close to being in effect per ACA
  • The remaining 98% splits into
    • preemptive increases as ACA limits the amount that rates can be raised on an annual basis
    • preemptive increases in anticipation of other requirements in ACA that are still a ways down the road but for which they cannot increase rates sufficiently to cover due to the previous point
    • non-related ACA increases

Too bad we can't get a better breakdown of those preemptive rate changes, because that would certainly point out the different ACA is already costing us. My guess is that the preemptive rate changes per ACA are likely to cover 90% or so of that rate changes.

Re:Nothing good comes of this either way (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542666)

So, given all these issues, perhaps we should just stick to following some written guidelines about the limits of federal power. If only someone had written such a document and if only every single elected official in the federal government had sworn an oath to uphold it, then we would know what to do.

      Brett

Re:Nothing good comes of this either way (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542902)

Comments like this are exactly what is wrong with this country. Let me explain: instead of comparing the ups and downs of the law and then making a judgement as to whether we'd be better off with or without it, you make of comparison of the public opinion tradeoffs for striking it down or not. That is to say: your not actually concerned with the actual programs in question, just the public opinion battle, and the partisan ideology. I'm not blaming you so much as the news organizations. (not some of them, all of them, yes that one too) They do this all the time, talk about the actual program, law, or other particular for 5 seconds then spend 5 minutes on how it hurts reelection chances for so and so. I think oblivious is the word im looking for.

Ridiculous argument (4, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542474)

It's clearly established that the US government can force you to pay a tax for services you never use. The health care law is less restrictive than that. It still forces you to pay, but you can choose the entity you pay. If the government can force you to buy something from a single source, then it certainly should be able to force you to buy something from one of many sources.

However, I have no reason to believe that the Supreme Court will come to the obvious and logical conclusion here. That's not their job. Their job is to provide legal cover for the corporate agenda.

Re:Ridiculous argument (-1, Flamebait)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542534)

Taxes are theft as well, doesn't mean that's okay.

Libertarian drivel (1, Insightful)

Brannon (221550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542622)

Why don't you move to Somalia? Libertarian paradise.

Re:Libertarian drivel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542674)

He's posting from Somalia... where taxes *actually* take the form of theft. I think that's what he meant.

Re:Libertarian drivel (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542690)

Somalia has a failed government and power players.

You could make the same argument that we should not have any government at all because they always fail and results in situations like Somalia.

Re:Ridiculous argument (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542636)

What's not established is that the government can force you to do business with a private entity.

Because they can't.

And if they do, they're no longer acting within the bounds of the law, and the law itself is therefore legally null and void, and thus disobeying it can never under any circumstances be a crime. Any punishment levied against those who do is also illegal.

On a separate but related note, trying to solve the health care problem by forcing people to buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by forcing people to rent apartments.

Re:Ridiculous argument (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542684)

Sure they can. Every time the government uses your tax dollars to hire a construction agency to build a road or building, they are forcing you to do business with a private entity.

Re:Ridiculous argument (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542780)

In my state, it is illegal to buy alcohol from any distributor but one. Even if you brew your own, you are supposed to sell it to that distributor then buy it back.

Re:Ridiculous argument (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542810)

But they aren't. Effectively they are giving you a tax break for buying something. They do that all the time.

Re:Ridiculous argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542742)

The vast majority of people will use healthcare services, or should use healthcare services.

It isn't the individual mandate that these businesses want to get rid of, it is the Wal-Marts of the US that want to reduce benefits to lower their prices and put their competitors that support their employees out of business. I mean, they could offer 'do not resuscitate' insurance for $0, or have some way for people to self-insure if they have $500,000 and are willing to take the risk they won't get sick.

The big question is what would you replace it with.

And the next question, is why didn't Obama also come out with a "healthy and active plan" to help reduce costs and make people's lives better in the weeks following?

Re:Ridiculous argument (2)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542800)

Can I choose a government run health care plan? Or do I have to choose private insurance? See the difference? It's very slight. If you want to say that the private industry can run it better, that isn't my argument. If the Federal government is going to force me to buy something, and not call it a tax, they had better offer what they are forcing me to buy. If they force me to pay some private corporation for health insurance, that is wrong.

Re:Ridiculous argument (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542844)

By your logic it's illegal for the government to use private contractors. This is no different, except that you get to choose the private contractor.

Re:Ridiculous argument (1)

Solandri (704621) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542816)

I learned long ago that "law" and "logical" don't go together. There's a law that makes it illegal to charge extra if a customer pays with a credit card. But it's legal to offer a discount if the customer pays by any other means.

Subsidizing Healthcare (1)

h4x0t (1245872) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542482)

Just what we need to drive up costs a bit more.
(Current Most Relevant Search Engine) is my Family Physician, Specialist Omnibus, and triples a plumber.
Dental is where things get tricky.

Re:Subsidizing Healthcare (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542512)

You act as if uninsured people cost us nothing. Who do you think pays for their emergency room visits?

Re:Subsidizing Healthcare (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542608)

You act as if insured people cost us nothing. Who do you think pays for jacked-up health care prices?

Re:Subsidizing Healthcare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542906)

Apparently all the sick people which is pretty much everybody if you see obesity as an indicator of disease.

Re:Subsidizing Healthcare (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542630)

In his opinion, they are not entitled to emergency room visits.

News for nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542562)

Just noticed "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." is not in the banner anymore. Don't know how long that's been but at least they're being honest by taking it down.

Re:News for nerds (1)

bwintx (813768) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542726)

Still on the home page in the <title> tag, at least. For how long, "no man can say."

Wait, what? (1)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542566)

opponents say it represents an unconstitutional encroachment of federal power.

Don't you mean encroachment of state's power?

Re:Wait, what? (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542662)

Encroachment OF the fed's power ONTO the states. The state's technically can't encroach on the fed's power, per the Constitution. (All powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states.)

Re:Wait, what? (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542758)

opponents say it represents an unconstitutional encroachment of federal power.

Don't you mean encroachment of state's power?

Don't you mean "encroachment ON state's power"?

encroach (nkrt)

— vb (often foll by on or upon )
1. to intrude gradually, stealthily, or insidiously upon the rights, property, etc, of another
2. to advance beyond the usual or proper limits

It's not the states power that is doing the encroaching. It is the states rights that are being encroached upon.

Single-payer, like Medicare, would have been fine (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542568)

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

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

Re:Single-payer, like Medicare, would have been fi (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542600)

had the argument been framed as "medicare for all" I think it would have gone much better and would have cut back on the people with "keep the government out of my medicare" signs.

Re:Single-payer, like Medicare, would have been fi (2)

Altus (1034) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542858)

Yea, because its not like there was a shit ton of lobbying done by the insurance industry to kill the idea of a single payer system.

Re:Single-payer, like Medicare, would have been fi (2)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542922)

had the argument been framed as "medicare for all" I think it would have gone much better and would have cut back on the people with "keep the government out of my medicare" signs.

Except the Republicans (and blue dog dems) fought to get this option removed.

Re:Single-payer, like Medicare, would have been fi (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542648)

Except single-payer wouldn't have primarily benefited the healthcare industries like the HCR law does.

Re:Single-payer, like Medicare, would have been fi (2)

spidrw (868429) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542776)

Medicare's overhead is 3% because they don't pay anyone (relatively speaking anyway) to investigate and then deny false claims.

Fewer than 5% of Meidcare claims are audited.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061203915.html [washingtonpost.com]

Re:Single-payer, like Medicare, would have been fi (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542868)

Private insurance companies also spend much more than Medicare to investigate and deny legitimate claims.

Tea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542664)

While I am a supporter of the healthcare law, ultimately I can't see how it will pass constitutional muster. Anyone remember the Boston Tea party?

Re:Tea... (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542884)

are you suggesting that the people who are covered by this law don't have the right to vote or do you not remember the rallying cry of the Boston Tea Party. It wasn't "No taxes" it was "No taxation without representation." If you are still allowed to vote then the Tea Party reference isn't very appropriate.

Fuck yeah America! (2)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542702)

Citizens of USA should pay exclusively for the maintenance of the roads they use, the electricity of the lampposts that light their garages' entrances, and the police man-power required to patrol their neighborhoods. Anything else means the communists won.

Disclaimer: perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.

What about the parts BESIDES Romneycare? (1)

Oh Gawwd Peak Oil (1000227) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542790)

Everyone always talks about the part of the healthcare law that mandates insurance--the part that was supported in the past by Romney, Gingrich, and, I think, Nixon.

But what about all the rest of it? There's quite a bit of it besides that, like eliminating pre-existing conditions and many other things. Repealing everything is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Of course, not including a public option made the new law only a pale substitute for what it could have been. But the public option will never happen, because the huge corporations and their paid big-media mouthpieces (and the millions of gullible believers in that big media) will never let it happen.

Heath care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542830)

I bet they wish they had got behind the public option now.
F_cktards.

Should have gone with single payer.... (5, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542864)

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

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...