If you were one of the Supreme Court Justices...

[tater1977]

Since obamacare is before the Supreme Court this week...

[Ehwmatt]

Unconstitutional.

It's certainly not constitutional under the Tax Clause

It shouldn't be constitutional under the Commerce Clause. But the Commerce Clause is interpreted pretty broadly since 1937, when the Court began upholding New Deal laws after striking them down in the face of FDR's courtpacking attempt. Even so, two of the more notorious broad interpretations of the Commerce Clause, Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich still involved laws that regulated the actual production/activity of making/consuming something (wheat and legalized marijuana under California law, respectively). Here, as we know, the individual mandate is being framed as simple inactivity, which Congress shouldn't be allowed to regulate under the Commerce Clause.

Regulating inactivity (by penalizing those who do not wish to buy coverage) sets a dangerous precedent in my eyes, even though they are justifying it because health insurance is "special" and forcing people to buy it is part of the "broader regulatory scheme" that Congress aims to establish by regulating the national insurance markets. One of the government's chief arguments is that they are regulating commerce by forcing everyone to buy coverage; if people don't buy coverage then the costs go up for everyone. When you cast it that way, ANY government mandate could be upheld. For example, why not force everyone to buy a GM car? After all, if they don't, then the costs of buying cars will go up for everyone. Or for a closer analogy, why not statutorily mandate everyone to buy broccoli at a stated rate every week (an example Judge Vinson, one of the lower federal court judges who struck the mandate down, used)? After all, eating broccoli is good for your overall health and will keep broccoli prices down nationwide.

The Commerce Clause holding (if the Court gets there--they could strike the law down on other grounds and the Court does not address Constitutional issues not necessary to reaching the result) will be fascinating to see. It's a case like no other in an area that has been controversial since the Court began interpreting it broadly in 1937.

Finally, the Necessary and Proper Clause probably shouldn't be used to uphold it either. This Clause, coupled with the Commerce Clause, can be used to uphold laws that substantially affect interstate commerce (thus allowing the argument that forcing people to buy insurance is good because their not buying it will substantially affect insurance rates across states). But this Clause is really in a state of flux right now. The Court's last opinion interpreting it, a case called Comstock v. United States, was very murky. They used a mushy legal test to uphold federal civil commitment laws for certain designated sex offenders whose jail sentences have since expired. The traditional thinking with the Necessary and Proper Clause is that Congress can only use it to enact laws that are rationally aimed (a low standard) at executing one of Congress's other enumerated powers in Article I of the Constitution. But again, I think it boils down to how the justices will view the fact that this law, unlike any other they've confronted before, is aiming at forcing people into an economic transaction. Even the outlier Commerce Clause cases that have provoked libertarian ire have not gone so far.


In the end, it's going to be interesting. One thing to remember is that this all centers around a federal mandate. Nothing would stop the states from enacting such mandates (e.g., Massachusetts). Only Congress's (supposedly) limited power under the Constitution can possibly stop the federal government from enacting such a scheme.

[Michigan Girl]

UN ...I'm not going to go into all that^^^, but it's
a great post, Matty!!


Judging from everything I've seen and read, they're expecting this
thing to be upheld ...

[SF-Dano]

I still can't get passed the whole " you have to pass this bill to see what's in it" thing. I am all for health care reform, but I don't think this "Obamacare" is what anyone was really looking for.

Has anyone's healthcare costs gone down? Honest question. I sure as hell know mine have gone way up.

[conversationpc]

I still can't get passed the whole " you have to pass this bill to see what's in it" thing. I am all for health care reform, but I don't think this "Obamacare" is what anyone was really looking for.

Has anyone's healthcare costs gone down? Honest question. I sure as hell know mine have gone way up.

The two main selling points were that they needed to pass this bill to bring costs down and get more people covered. They sure haven't accomplished the former and I doubt they've done much of the latter, either.

[Lula]

i, as you all probably guessed, am all for it. i would have offered a public option though. i think the fat cats in d.c. need to experience what we all do on a daily basis with everything costing more and our wages not keeping up. nothing gets me going more lately than the ridiculous lives of "public servants." lifetime benefits for serving a few years? our men and women in the armed forces don't have it as good and they have truly earned it. anyway, i must be feeling better if a rant is coming on lol.

obama is a smart man. he did not put a plan out there that will be deemeed unconstitutional. not that our highest court seems to always rule on the side of our constitution.... corporations are people too.... barf.

[tater1977]

Justices signal possible trouble for health insurance mandate

By Noam N. Levey, Los Angeles Times

March 27, 2012

Reporting from Washington

The Supreme Court's conservative justices Tuesday laid into the requirement in the Obama administration's healthcare law that Americans have health insurance, as the court began a much-anticipated second day of arguments on the controversial legislation.

Even before the administration's top lawyer could get three minutes into his defense of the mandate, some justices accused the government of pushing for excessive authority to require Americans to buy anything.

"Are there any limits," asked Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of three conservative justices whose votes are seen as crucial to the fate of the unprecedented insurance mandate.


Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that the government might require Americans to buy cellphones to be ready for emergencies. And Justice Antonin Scalia asked if the government might require Americans to buy broccoli or automobiles.

"If the government can do this, what else can it ... do?” Scalia asked.

[Memorex]

i, as you all probably guessed, am all for it. i would have offered a public option though. i think the fat cats in d.c. need to experience what we all do on a daily basis with everything costing more and our wages not keeping up. nothing gets me going more lately than the ridiculous lives of "public servants." lifetime benefits for serving a few years? our men and women in the armed forces don't have it as good and they have truly earned it. anyway, i must be feeling better if a rant is coming on lol.

obama is a smart man. he did not put a plan out there that will be deemeed unconstitutional. not that our highest court seems to always rule on the side of our constitution.... corporations are people too.... barf.

It sounds to me that you, like the administration, is saying hey, we have a major problem in the cost of health care and we need to fix it with big, bold solutions. I can get on board with that, but only under two circumstances - fit it within the confines of the Constitution, or amend the Constitution to allow for the solution you desire.

You say Obama is a smart man. But what I have learned more than ever these past three years is that despite whoever arrives at Pennsylvania Avenue, they quickly become politician before anything else. Just like the Administration has flip-flopped on whether or not the mandate is constitutional, they also sold this thing as not a tax, then a tax, then a tax penalty. The cost has already been estimated at double the original sales pitch. My rates have gone up twice (significantly) since.

As far as creating something constitutional – first, people with different ways of thinking don’t always see the constitution in the same way. Second, many, many presidents and congresses have pushed things forward only to have them accepted or turned away. They do not always act within their powers. For example, I am certain many liberals argued against Bush having the right to wire-tap folks without a warrant, yet Obama continues and has expanded those powers. Or Bush got beat up for holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, but Obama has expanded his powers to include the right to kill Americans, on American soil, without due process.

I’m telling you, once you get there, you never give up any power and you always reach for more. It has always been the case.

[artist4perry]

I am not too into anything that wasn't even read before it was signed. Government screws up most everything they touch. Medicare is a laugh and a half and your going to let them take care of all our medical. Good luck with that folks.

[Ehwmatt]

i, as you all probably guessed, am all for it. i would have offered a public option though. i think the fat cats in d.c. need to experience what we all do on a daily basis with everything costing more and our wages not keeping up. nothing gets me going more lately than the ridiculous lives of "public servants." lifetime benefits for serving a few years? our men and women in the armed forces don't have it as good and they have truly earned it. anyway, i must be feeling better if a rant is coming on lol.

obama is a smart man. he did not put a plan out there that will be deemeed unconstitutional. not that our highest court seems to always rule on the side of our constitution.... corporations are people too.... barf.

Lula, this platitude is unsustainable. This case/law (or at least the mandate aspect of it) is so different and arguably more extreme from even the broadest authorizations of the Commerce Clause power that the Court has upheld in the past (with quite some controversy, e.g., Gonzalez v. Raich, Wickard v. Filburn) that NOONE, not the most brilliant constitutional lawyer, law professor, president, or otherwise could say for certain whether 9 members of the Court would vote yes to expand the Commerce power further than it ever has before.

Mandating that citizens buy a product just by virtue of being a living breathing human being is so far removed from even compelling those that CHOOSE to drive an automobile to buy car insurance (not to mention, state laws, not federal laws, compel that). Nobody could predict how this was going to turn out. And don't believe what you hear about the justices being so assuredly "conservative" or "liberal." To be sure, there are patterns and tendencies for justices to vote certain ways. But particularly when it comes to federal power, you can never guess how the Court will come out.

I listened to the entire argument today. I'd like to read the transcript, too, because I catch things reading that I don't hear. But from what I heard and what I'm now reading in the press, the government had a rough day. The advocates on the plaintiffs' side were far better and more self-assured today. The government needed to come prepared with a principled way to limit the Court's holding if it does uphold the law, and it didn't.

I think the Court would prefer not to strike down such a high profile law, even if it seems to be relatively unpopular among the electorate right now. But given the potentially MASSIVE increase in federal power upholding this type of law could mean, the justices who are undecided yet will only uphold it if they can find some sort of principled way to limit Congress's power to enact mandates. Otherwise, they'll be loathe to sanction Congress's power to pass any mandate it wishes and impose it on the citizens. The government lawyers today did not offer a principled way to limit Congress's use of this power with a refined legal test, standard, or rationale.

It will be really interesting to see how the case ends up.

[Memorex]

The real danger in all of this, to me, is opening Pandora's Box. If this is legal, than what isn't? A flat out majority of the country did not want this, but they did it anyway. What happens when it is the other team in there? When you can't predict future events, it's hard to see how a government might stretch, so it's important to limit the amount they can do against the will of the people.

They have managed to come up with a reason for doing anything. They pick out some small issue and say oh, we need to handle that. And then they apply it very broadly. And we the sheep keep saying baaaaaa, go ahead.

Then again, many in this country feel we should move in that direction and be ruled and controlled by a few. I'm starting to feel like that's our next civil war and that one day this country can end up as two, or even three countries. We are becoming so incredibly divided.

[parfait]

I am not too into anything that wasn't even read before it was signed. Government screws up most everything they touch. Medicare is a laugh and a half and your going to let them take care of all our medical. Good luck with that folks.

I fail to see how something that guarantees health insurance for people >65 and younger people with disability could be characterized as "a laugh". Life expectancy in the US is the 50th in the world, WHO ranked you on 72nd by overall level of health among 194 countries. A 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance. Americans are willing to fight to death for the right for the church not to hand out condoms and contraceptives, but health insurance for disabled and poor people? Fuck no! It's painfully hypocritical and pretty fucking inhumane.

All the 20 top ranking countries on the WHO list of the world's health systems provide some sort of universal health care, provided and subsidized by the government. You people need to get a fucking grip.

[Memorex]

I am not too into anything that wasn't even read before it was signed. Government screws up most everything they touch. Medicare is a laugh and a half and your going to let them take care of all our medical. Good luck with that folks.

I fail to see how something that guarantees health insurance for people >65 and younger people with disability could be characterized as "a laugh". Life expectancy in the US is the 50th in the world, WHO ranked you on 72nd by overall level of health among 194 countries. A 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance. Americans are willing to fight to death for the right for the church not to hand out condoms and contraceptives, but health insurance for disabled and poor people? Fuck no! It's painfully hypocritical and pretty fucking inhumane.

All the 20 top ranking countries on the WHO list of the world's health systems provide some sort of universal health care, provided and subsidized by the government. You people need to get a fucking grip.

Something that is intended to do good can be a laugh and Medicare certainly is. It's a fraud-filled joke. We should have a system like that, but my God man, run it well or don't even try. As far as your stats, is there a stat on the number of people that come to this country to get the best care in the world? Pretty sure there must be. We are unhealthy because we choose to be, not because we don't have access to care. At least the majority of folks.

There is a lot I agree with in Obamacare. Just do it right is all.

[Behshad]

I am not too into anything that wasn't even read before it was signed. Government screws up most everything they touch. Medicare is a laugh and a half and your going to let them take care of all our medical. Good luck with that folks.

I fail to see how something that guarantees health insurance for people >65 and younger people with disability could be characterized as "a laugh". Life expectancy in the US is the 50th in the world, WHO ranked you on 72nd by overall level of health among 194 countries. A 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance. Americans are willing to fight to death for the right for the church not to hand out condoms and contraceptives, but health insurance for disabled and poor people? Fuck no! It's painfully hypocritical and pretty fucking inhumane.

All the 20 top ranking countries on the WHO list of the world's health systems provide some sort of universal health care, provided and subsidized by the government. You people need to get a fucking grip.

[conversationpc]

I am not too into anything that wasn't even read before it was signed. Government screws up most everything they touch. Medicare is a laugh and a half and your going to let them take care of all our medical. Good luck with that folks.

I fail to see how something that guarantees health insurance for people >65 and younger people with disability could be characterized as "a laugh". Life expectancy in the US is the 50th in the world, WHO ranked you on 72nd by overall level of health among 194 countries. A 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance. Americans are willing to fight to death for the right for the church not to hand out condoms and contraceptives, but health insurance for disabled and poor people? Fuck no! It's painfully hypocritical and pretty fucking inhumane.

All the 20 top ranking countries on the WHO list of the world's health systems provide some sort of universal health care, provided and subsidized by the government. You people need to get a fucking grip.

Yeah, blame it on that outdated piece of paper, the Constitution.

The federal government doesn't have the authority, nor should they, to force crappy healthcare on people. On the other hand, state governments do and that's the way it was intended to be. We're a constitutional republic not mob rule (democracy).

[RossValoryRocks]

I am not too into anything that wasn't even read before it was signed. Government screws up most everything they touch. Medicare is a laugh and a half and your going to let them take care of all our medical. Good luck with that folks.

I fail to see how something that guarantees health insurance for people >65 and younger people with disability could be characterized as "a laugh". Life expectancy in the US is the 50th in the world, WHO ranked you on 72nd by overall level of health among 194 countries. A 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance. Americans are willing to fight to death for the right for the church not to hand out condoms and contraceptives, but health insurance for disabled and poor people? Fuck no! It's painfully hypocritical and pretty fucking inhumane.

All the 20 top ranking countries on the WHO list of the world's health systems provide some sort of universal health care, provided and subsidized by the government. You people need to get a fucking grip.

And look at the mess Europe is in with all of the free shit your government give?? We are heading down that path too...more slowly.

I don't know how it is in France but here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL and the rights of that individual come first, before the group or the State. Which is how it should be.

As usual you don't see what issue is, because you just see the stated outcome, without any understanding of our laws, specifically the Constitution and the fact we are supposed the have a VERY limited government.

Getting to a point where the disabled and poor have coverage is a laudable and noble goal, but this bastardized piece of legislation just isn't the way to do it. It will bankrupt this country. (Supposed to cost 1.3 TRILLION, CBO just said it will cost 2.6 TRILLION), and it infringes upon the rights of the individual to make choices for themselves absent compulsion from the government.

[G.I.Jim]

I am not too into anything that wasn't even read before it was signed. Government screws up most everything they touch. Medicare is a laugh and a half and your going to let them take care of all our medical. Good luck with that folks.

I fail to see how something that guarantees health insurance for people >65 and younger people with disability could be characterized as "a laugh". Life expectancy in the US is the 50th in the world, WHO ranked you on 72nd by overall level of health among 194 countries. A 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance. Americans are willing to fight to death for the right for the church not to hand out condoms and contraceptives, but health insurance for disabled and poor people? Fuck no! It's painfully hypocritical and pretty fucking inhumane.

All the 20 top ranking countries on the WHO list of the world's health systems provide some sort of universal health care, provided and subsidized by the government. You people need to get a fucking grip.

And look at the mess Europe is in with all of the free shit your government give?? We are heading down that path too...more slowly.

I don't know how it is in France but here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL and the rights of that individual come first, before the group or the State. Which is how it should be.

As usual you don't see what issue is, because you just see the stated outcome, without any understanding of our laws, specifically the Constitution and the fact we are supposed the have a VERY limited government.

Getting to a point where the disabled and poor have coverage is a laudable and noble goal, but this bastardized piece of legislation just isn't the way to do it. It will bankrupt this country. (Supposed to cost 1.3 TRILLION, CBO just said it will cost 2.6 TRILLION), and it infringes upon the rights of the individual to make choices for themselves absent compulsion from the government.

Amen brother. Couldn't have said it better myself. And Parfait, I think that since America bailed you're country out during the war, YOU guys should help pay for our healthcare. Instead, all we get is a fucking statue that we had to build ourselves!

[steveo777]

The bottom line here is that we will either remain a democratic government or become socialist. Seems we are tipping toward socialism and will sooner, or later, become a nation run by dictators.

[Seven Wishes2]

If this law is upheld, then they can make us eat brocolli, drink water, and ride in a Volt to the next Journey tour stop. Which will be turned down very low so as not to hurt our hearing and save electricty. All on an approved Light Rail Train with TSA Agents watching our every move. After that, if you didn't act accordingly, they will ship you to sensitivity training.

Are their any Queers in the Theatre tonight?
Get him up against the Wall....
That one looks Jewish and that ones a Coon
Who let all of this riff raft into the the room?
There's one smoking a joint, and that one's got spots..
If I had my way....
I'd have all of you shot

I believe broccoli has two c's and one l. Also, electricity has two i's.

Wow. What a miscarriage of everything Waters was trying to say here.

If one of your conservative henchmen was in power now, instead of the big, bad, black man, you'd all be lining up like good little soldiers - or better yet, like a bunch of slathered, lubed, and oiled ass-receptacles in a Limbaugh chain gang - in support of the individual mandate...which, might I remind you, was an idea first proposed by the GOP in the mid-90's as an alternative to the Clinton healthcare initiative...by none other than Newt Gingrich and the Heritage foundation.

The Right has been arguing FOR the individual mandate for close to 20 years now. I, for one, thought it a sham from the outset, as the only viable way to make universal healthcare work is with a single-payer (government) OPTION. Which, of course, Republicans refused to consider once they held the reigns following Ted Kennedy's death and the subsequent unfortunate and misguided election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts (itself part of the so-called "conservative movement" so meticulously pawned by Faux News and the Tea Baggers which is dying as we speak - just look at the poll numbers).

[parfait]

I am not too into anything that wasn't even read before it was signed. Government screws up most everything they touch. Medicare is a laugh and a half and your going to let them take care of all our medical. Good luck with that folks.

I fail to see how something that guarantees health insurance for people >65 and younger people with disability could be characterized as "a laugh". Life expectancy in the US is the 50th in the world, WHO ranked you on 72nd by overall level of health among 194 countries. A 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance. Americans are willing to fight to death for the right for the church not to hand out condoms and contraceptives, but health insurance for disabled and poor people? Fuck no! It's painfully hypocritical and pretty fucking inhumane.

All the 20 top ranking countries on the WHO list of the world's health systems provide some sort of universal health care, provided and subsidized by the government. You people need to get a fucking grip.

And look at the mess Europe is in with all of the free shit your government give?? We are heading down that path too...more slowly.

I don't know how it is in France but here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL and the rights of that individual come first, before the group or the State. Which is how it should be.

As usual you don't see what issue is, because you just see the stated outcome, without any understanding of our laws, specifically the Constitution and the fact we are supposed the have a VERY limited government.

Getting to a point where the disabled and poor have coverage is a laudable and noble goal, but this bastardized piece of legislation just isn't the way to do it. It will bankrupt this country. (Supposed to cost 1.3 TRILLION, CBO just said it will cost 2.6 TRILLION), and it infringes upon the rights of the individual to make choices for themselves absent compulsion from the government.

The reason for the financial crisis in Europe was rising government debt levels around the world, globalization of finance and burst real-estate bubbles. Excess government spending is not the cause at all - fiscal deficits in the euro area were stable or even shrinking since the early 1990s. The individual and his/hers rights also come first back here in Europe, and I agree; that's how it should be.

And all this socialist bullshit has to stop. It's ridiculous and pretty damn ignorant. The term has absolutely no meaning what so ever - nowhere in Europe can you find socialist medicine, as healthcare is both provided by the state and the private sector. Most of Europe is also a type of republic, conversationpc; the difference between a parliamentary and a presidential republic really isn't that big - and they're both a type of democracy.

[slucero]

I am not too into anything that wasn't even read before it was signed. Government screws up most everything they touch. Medicare is a laugh and a half and your going to let them take care of all our medical. Good luck with that folks.

I fail to see how something that guarantees health insurance for people >65 and younger people with disability could be characterized as "a laugh". Life expectancy in the US is the 50th in the world, WHO ranked you on 72nd by overall level of health among 194 countries. A 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance. Americans are willing to fight to death for the right for the church not to hand out condoms and contraceptives, but health insurance for disabled and poor people? Fuck no! It's painfully hypocritical and pretty fucking inhumane.

All the 20 top ranking countries on the WHO list of the world's health systems provide some sort of universal health care, provided and subsidized by the government. You people need to get a fucking grip.

And look at the mess Europe is in with all of the free shit your government give?? We are heading down that path too...more slowly.

I don't know how it is in France but here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL and the rights of that individual come first, before the group or the State. Which is how it should be.

As usual you don't see what issue is, because you just see the stated outcome, without any understanding of our laws, specifically the Constitution and the fact we are supposed the have a VERY limited government.

Getting to a point where the disabled and poor have coverage is a laudable and noble goal, but this bastardized piece of legislation just isn't the way to do it. It will bankrupt this country. (Supposed to cost 1.3 TRILLION, CBO just said it will cost 2.6 TRILLION), and it infringes upon the rights of the individual to make choices for themselves absent compulsion from the government.

The reason for the financial crisis in Europe was rising government debt levels around the world, globalization of finance and burst real-estate bubbles. Excess government spending is not the cause at all - fiscal deficits in the euro area were stable or even shrinking since the early 1990s. The individual and his/hers rights also come first back here in Europe, and I agree; that's how it should be.

And all this socialist bullshit has to stop. It's ridiculous and pretty damn ignorant. The term has absolutely no meaning what so ever - nowhere in Europe can you find socialist medicine, as healthcare is both provided by the state and the private sector. Most of Europe is also a type of republic, conversationpc; the difference between a parliamentary and a presidential republic really isn't that big - and they're both a type of democracy.

Make sure you get your definitions right...

"democracy" as a form of society is much different than "democracy" as a form of government...

Democratic republic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wik ... c_republic

A democratic republic is a country which is both a republic and a democracy. However, in practice countries which describe themselves as democratic republics do not always hold free or fair elections. One example of this was the German Democratic Republic, a communist state commonly known as East Germany.[1] Others are the former Democratic Republic of Vietnam since 1976 renamed the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Democratic Republic of the Congo which in 2011 was rated by Freedom House as a "not free" country having a rating of 6.0 (1.0 being completely free and 7.0 being completely unfree).[2]

[Lula]

not looking too good. is there not a national commerce to consider? thinking that kennedy is the swing vote on this one, he is tough to read. we all pay more because some go without. insurance companies are national, even international, no? should have called the dang thing health insurance reform and put in a public option that all public servants use as well as those not covered privately. i feel for those with pre existing conditions, the crazy donut hole that seniors get caught in, or anyone "maxing out" their benefits if the mandate is what kills this. i just hope we can all come together and find some way to reform the insanity that is health insurance. i pay over 900 a month for just the 2 of us, and an hmo nonetheless!

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

I am not too into anything that wasn't even read before it was signed. Government screws up most everything they touch. Medicare is a laugh and a half and your going to let them take care of all our medical. Good luck with that folks.

I fail to see how something that guarantees health insurance for people >65 and younger people with disability could be characterized as "a laugh". Life expectancy in the US is the 50th in the world, WHO ranked you on 72nd by overall level of health among 194 countries. A 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance. Americans are willing to fight to death for the right for the church not to hand out condoms and contraceptives, but health insurance for disabled and poor people? Fuck no! It's painfully hypocritical and pretty fucking inhumane.

All the 20 top ranking countries on the WHO list of the world's health systems provide some sort of universal health care, provided and subsidized by the government. You people need to get a fucking grip.

And look at the mess Europe is in with all of the free shit your government give?? We are heading down that path too...more slowly.

I don't know how it is in France but here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL and the rights of that individual come first, before the group or the State. Which is how it should be.

As usual you don't see what issue is, because you just see the stated outcome, without any understanding of our laws, specifically the Constitution and the fact we are supposed the have a VERY limited government.

Getting to a point where the disabled and poor have coverage is a laudable and noble goal, but this bastardized piece of legislation just isn't the way to do it. It will bankrupt this country. (Supposed to cost 1.3 TRILLION, CBO just said it will cost 2.6 TRILLION), and it infringes upon the rights of the individual to make choices for themselves absent compulsion from the government.

The reason for the financial crisis in Europe was rising government debt levels around the world, globalization of finance and burst real-estate bubbles. Excess government spending is not the cause at all - fiscal deficits in the euro area were stable or even shrinking since the early 1990s. The individual and his/hers rights also come first back here in Europe, and I agree; that's how it should be.

And all this socialist bullshit has to stop. It's ridiculous and pretty damn ignorant. The term has absolutely no meaning what so ever - nowhere in Europe can you find socialist medicine, as healthcare is both provided by the state and the private sector. Most of Europe is also a type of republic, conversationpc; the difference between a parliamentary and a presidential republic really isn't that big - and they're both a type of democracy.

Working back and forth on both sides of the pond, Im intimately aware of both the US and European system. First of all with regard to health care in Europe , yes there is private involvement in healthcare. However, private coverage in Europe is limitied. In the UK for instance you have to go through the NHS and get a referral to your private provider before your insurance company will be allowed to pay. And the governments regulate costs to the extent that market mechanisms don't work, and as a result those private providers instead of working to the rules of incentive and supply and demand engage in rent seeking, where you get a fee from the health serivice for the service you provide but never supply value. You get all the "goodies" that go along with a misopony (many sellers, one buyer)

The UK system is an absolute mess- Sadly I personally know people in the UK (well I should have said I knew people) who have died early due to lack of resources, where the NHS just decide not to extend treatemens if they don't think its worth it. OAnf there is a body in the UK called NICE which is involved in drug rationioning and disallowing trials of experiemental drug. Its not just the UK - you look at Sweden and the controversy over reforms that have been going back and forth since about 1995, the fact that the already fragile health system in Greec is now really falling apart.


The US system is horribly broken - but its partly broken because the government regulates everything too the hilt, already runs a socilalised medicing system which distorts and destroys market mechanisms Medicaire . (Incidentally the US Govt spends a higher share of GDP on healthcare than any european nation) So going further down that road matching the European systems is NOT the way to go

[slucero]

I remember when doctors used to make house calls... back when the government didn't regulate prices ...

WIth the advent of government price fixing ... doctors went from house calls to "Groups"... where they stayed in one office and the patients came to them.. and were herded through like cattle...

[Memorex]

I think health care suffers from many of the same woes that affect everything else in the US. Number one, the growing gap between the haves and the have nots. But also fraud, regulation, and our penchant for lawsuits.

Also critical is the inefficiencies that exist. It's absolutely insane. There are some very poorly managed insurance companies and healthcare providers.

Must of this can be fixed with the right set of laws and overhauls. As far as the widening gap between the classes - I feel it's just going to get wider. So who knows.

I think to become single-payer or have an insurance requirement can have it's merits, but it must be through an amendment to the Constitution that specifically deals with such issues so that we specifically and intentionally grant that power, and not open it up to whatever unforeseen things future governments want.

I'd like to do away with lifetime caps, add a surcharge to your insurance if you'd like to cover your adult, non-student child or their child, find an economically sound way to help those with pre-existing conditions gain coverage, and find a way for the non-insured to see regular Dr's and not treat the hospital ER's as a place to treat colds.

I am 100% ok with paying higher premiums and taxes knowing that I am probably paying some of that to cover someone who cannot afford it. But as far as the insurance side, I'd certainly love to not participate if I don't feel like it. I do not like paying higher anything due to fraud and waste.

I read somewhere that the average young healthy adult uses $874 in health care benefits per year, but would have to pay about $5,700 in insurance costs if forced. I just don't feel that should be a forced financial decision. It's not a group decision!